THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A. No. 745 of 2019
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is preferred by the appellant-Insurance Company, questioning the award and decree, dated 20.11.2018 made in O.P.No.923 of 2013 on the file of 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. For the sake of convenience, the parties have been referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. The claimant filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 26.02.2004. According to the claimant, on 26.02.2004 at about 9:00 p.m., while the claimant was proceeding as a pillion rider on the Scooter and when he reached Khammam Cross Road, Kodad, one Auto bearing No.AP 24 V 1438, owned by respondent No.1 2 MGP, J Macma_745_2019 and insured with respondent No.2, being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, dashed the scooter, as a result of which, the claimant sustained grievous injuries. Immediately after the accident, the claimant was shifted to St. Moher Theresa Hospital and from there he was shifted to Government Hospital, Kodad and private hospital. Therefore, the claimant laid the claim seeking compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-.
4. After considering the claim-petition, counter filed by respondent No.2, appellant herein, oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of driver of the Auto and awarded total compensation of Rs.50,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum payable by respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant- Insurance Company filed the present appeal. 3
MGP, J Macma_745_2019
5. Heard both sides and perused the material on available on record.
6. The contention of the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant, insurance company, is that the Tribunal erred in fastening the liability on the insurance company though the crime vehicle was not insured with the appellant. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the judgments of the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh High Court in United India Insurance Company Limited v. Purrai Kishore1 and Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited v. Bhumi Reddy Venkata Satya Rama Rao2.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the claimant has submitted that considering the nature of the injury caused to the spinal cord and the amount spent by the claimant during the course of treatment, the Tribunal has awarded just compensation, which needs no interference. Insofar as the liability is concerned, it is contended that the crime 1 2004 (4) ALD 238 2 2009 (5) ALD 202 4 MGP, J Macma_745_2019 vehicle was insured with the appellant vide policy No.352336 valid from 22.10.2003 to 21.10.2004, and therefore, the Tribunal has rightly fastened the liability on the appellant. Hence, the learned counsel prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
8. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that insofar as the manner in which the accident took place, the Tribunal has framed the Issue No.1 as to whether the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Auto, to which the Tribunal has categorically observed that the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Auto by its driver and has answered the issue in favour of the claimant and against the respondents.
9. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal passed a well reasoned order by taking into consideration all the aspects i.e., the disability sustained by the claimant, nature of treatment undergone by him, medical expenses, extra diet and pain and 5 MGP, J Macma_745_2019 suffering, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.50,000/- with interest. Therefore, I see no reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
10. As regards the liability of the appellant to pay the compensation, in the cause title of the claim-petition as well as the award itself shows that the crime vehicle was insured with the appellant vide Policy No.352336 which was valid from 22.10.2003 to 21.10.2004. Though the cause title of the claim-petition itself discloses the policy number and its validity, the appellant did not produce any evidence to show that the said policy was not issued to the crime vehicle. Therefore, the Tribunal was right in fastening the liability on the appellant. The judgments relied upon by the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant are not at all applicable to the present case as the facts in those judgments and the present case are different. Hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the 6 MGP, J Macma_745_2019 findings arrived at by the Tribunal and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
11. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed confirming the order and decree passed by the Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
_________________________ JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI 06.01.2023 Tsr 7 MGP, J Macma_745_2019 THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI M.A.C.M.A. No. 745 of 2019 DATE: 06-01-2023