1 RRN,J
MACMA No.3563 of 2014
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
M.A.C.M.A.No.3563 OF 2014
JUDGMENT:
This MACMA is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the Insurance company aggrieved by the order and decree dt.25.04.2012 passed in M.V.O.P.No.744 of 2010 by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Special Sessions Judge for trial of SCs/STs (POA) Cases-cum-Additional District Judge, Nalgonda (for short "the Tribunal").
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 30-05-2010, after attending a function, the deceased, who was the husband of respondent no.3 herein, was returning home on his motor cycle bearing No.Ap-13-M-5835 and at about 11.45PM, when he was taking right turn at Rethibowli cross raods, one Winger vehicle bearing No.AP-28-TB-6495, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed dashed the motor cycle of the deceased. As a result, the deceased was succumbed to the injuries. The respondents Nos.1-5 filed claim petition against the Appellant/Insurance Company and the owner of the crime vehicle seeking compensation of Rs.10.02 lakhs.
2 RRN,J
MACMA No.3563 of 2014
3. The owner of the vehicle remained ex-parte and the appellant/Insurance Company filed counter denying the petition allegations.
4. The respondents Nos.1 to 5 to prove their case, got examined PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A5. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the appellant/Insurance Company.
5. On consideration of evidence, the Tribunal allowed the claim petition in part by awarding compensation of Rs.7,50,000/- payable by the appellant/Insurance Company only. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed by the appellant/Insurance company.
6. Heard both sides and perused the record.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance company contended that the Tribunal erred in granting the compensation and submitted that there was negligence on the part of the deceased and further contended that income proof of the deceased was not filed inasmuch as Ex.A5/Hamali license was expired.
3 RRN,J
MACMA No.3563 of 2014
8. Per contra, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 5 contended that the Tribunal was justified in passing the impugned award and prayed to dismiss the appeal.
9. This Court having considered the rival submissions of both parties is of the considered view that the Tribunal was justified in passing the impugned order as the appellants failed to adduce either oral or documentary evidence to disprove the claim of the respondent Nos.1 to 5 other than making allegations that there was negligence on part of the deceased and that the Ex.A5 license was expired. The Tribunal rightly assessed the income of the deceased and granted just compensation under all applicable heads. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.
10. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed by confirming the order and decree dt.25.04.2012 passed in M.V.O.P.No.744 of 2010 by the Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
_____________________________________ NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J 14th day of February, 2023 BDR