THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. SAM KOSHY
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI
M.A.C.M.A.No.1126 of 2023
JUDGMENT:(per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.SAM KOSHY)
Heard Sri A. Rama Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the
appellant - Insurance Company and Sri K.V.Janardhan Rao,
learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the entire record.
2. The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant - Insurance Company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') assailing the Award dated 10.07.2015 passed in M.V.O.P.No.886 of 2012 on the file of the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum
- Principal District Judge, Karimnagar (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal').
3. The claim petition was filed by the claimants under Section 166(1) (c) of the Act seeking compensation of an amount of Rs.30,00,000/- for the death of person by name Madugula Mallaiah, in a road accident. Vide impugned order dated 10.07.2015, the Tribunal has awarded compensation of an amount of Rs.30,00,000/- to the claimants with an interest @ 2 PSK,J & NTR,J MACMA.No.1126 of 2023 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of actual deposit.
4. The primary challenge to the Award passed by the Tribunal is on the ground that the offending vehicle which is insured by the appellant - Insurance Company in the instant appeal was not infact involved in the accident at all and that the entire claim of the claimants is based upon incorrect facts and false allegations.
5. To substantiate his contention, the learned counsel for the appellant - Insurance Company submits that it is a case where the accident occurred on 31.10.2010 and the initial F.I.R. was lodged against unknown vehicle. That it is only after four months of time that the alleged eye witness had entered the scene and given the number of the Tractor bearing registration No.AP-15-TA-7127/7128 which stands insured with the appellant - Insurance Company. Therefore, the learned counsel for the appellant - Insurance Company contends that the entire claim filed by the claimants on the aforesaid factual backdrop seems to be highly improbable and the Award of the Tribunal to that extent needs to be interfered with or atleast the matter should be remanded back for fresh adjudication. In addition, he 3 PSK,J & NTR,J MACMA.No.1126 of 2023 further contends that there was an application moved by the appellant herein before the Tribunal to call the Investigation Officer as a witness so that he can be suitably cross examined on this aspect which too was rejected by the Tribunal. Therefore, the appellant - Insurance Company has not been in a position to effectively substantiate their contention before the Tribunal.
6. However, perusal of the record would show that based upon the F.I.R. which was lodged against unknown person, the police authorities did conduct an investigation and thereafter, the final report was prepared and charge sheet was also filed. Respondent No.7 in the instant appeal-the owner-cum-driver of the Tractor was subjected to prosecution and he has also undergone the whole trial for the offence under Section 304-A in Cr.No.169 of 2010 registered at Dharmapuri Police Station.
7. In the teeth of the said charge sheet and the prosecution of respondent No.7 and there being no other cogent evidence led by the Insurance Company before the Tribunal to disbelieve the aforesaid contention and the version of the eye witness, we do not find any strong case made out by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company in assailing the impugned Award 4 PSK,J & NTR,J MACMA.No.1126 of 2023 10.07.2015 so far as liability part is concerned. Therefore, we do not find any merits in the appeal.
8. The Appeal thus fails and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
___________________ P. SAM KOSHY, J ___________________ N.TUKARAMJI, J Date: 16.11.2023 Lpd/Pvt