Telangana High Court
Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance ... vs Uppari Sunitha , R.R.Dist And 3 Others on 5 February, 2024
HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A.No.509 OF 2017
JUDGMENT:
1. The present Appeal is filed by the Insurance Company/Respondent No.2 in M.V.O.P. aggrieved by the order dated 24.10.2016 in M.V.O.P.No.577 of 2012, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum - Special Sessions Judge for trial of cases under SCs & STs (POA) Act -cum- VII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar (for short, the Tribunal) and seeking to set-aside the same by allowing the Appeal.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter be referred as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioners, who are wife and children of the deceased-U.Shekar had filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.7,50,000/- on account of the death of the deceased-U.Shekar, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 08.06.2012. It is stated by the petitioners that on 08.06.2012, when the deceased was going to attend a function at Khajipally at 12.00 noon and when he reached cross roads on his friend's Hero Honda Splendor Motorcycle bearing No.AP 28 AH 0355 to meet a friend near Dhundigal Thanda, the driver of one 2 MGP,J MACMA.No.509 of 2017 Alto Car bearing No.AP 28 DG 5433 drove the said car in a rash and negligent manner and dashed him from back side. As a result, the deceased sustained head injury and died on the spot. Based on a complaint, police registered a case in Crime No.310 of 2012 under Section 304-A IPC. The applicants further stated that the deceased was aged 28 years and was hale and healthy before the accident and used to work as Hamali and used to earn Rs.10,000/- per month and used to contribute the same to the family. Due to the said accident, the petitioners lost their bread winner and finding it very difficult to eke out their livelihood and hence filed the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.7,50,000/- towards the death of the deceased.
4. Respondent No.1 filed her counter stating that the Alto car in question is not responsible for the accident and it is the lorry near Dundigal outer ring road which caused the accident and resulted in the death of the deceased and hence, in the absence of the involvement of their vehicle, the claim made against them is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.
5. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company filed its counter denying the averments made in the claim petition. It also denied the occurrence and manner of accident, involvement of the vehicle in question, age, wages of the deceased, denied that the driver of 3 MGP,J MACMA.No.509 of 2017 Alto Car bearing No.AP 28 DG 5433 has valid license and subsisting insurance policy as on the date of accident and that the deceased had valid driving license to drive the Hero Honda Motorcycle No.AP 28 AH 0355 as on the date of accident and that the compensation claimed is highly excess and exorbitant and hence, prayed to dismiss the claim against them.
6. Based on the pleadings made by both the parties, the learned Tribunal had framed the following issues:-
1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of Car bearing No.AP 28DG 5433?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation?
If so, from whom and to what amount?
3. To what relief?
7. In order to prove the above issues, on behalf of the petitioners, PWs.1 to 4 were examined and Exs. A1 to A9 were got marked on their behalf . On behalf of the respondents, RWs 1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B1 to B6 were marked in support of them.
8. The learned Tribunal, after considering the entire evidence adduced on both sides and perusing the documents available on record, allowed the claim petition filed by the petitioners by awarding compensation of Rs.7,50,000/- with costs and interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit by 4 MGP,J MACMA.No.509 of 2017 Respondent Nos.1 & 2 jointly and severally. The Respondents are directed to deposit the said compensation within two months from the date of order.
9. Aggrieved by the same, Respondent No.2/Insurance Company filed the present Appeal.
10. Heard the submission of the learned Standing counsel for Insurance Company and learned counsel for respondents. Perused the record.
11. The contention of the learned counsel for Appellant- Insurance Company is that the Tribunal erred in fastening the liability on the Respondents and also contended that the Tribunal failed to consider the fact that the Insurance company has proved the case beyond all reasonable doubt and erroneously fastened the liability on them.
12. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the learned Tribunal, after considering the entire evidence and documents available on record, awarded reasonable compensation for which interference of this Court is unwarranted.
13. Now the points that arise for determination are,
1. Whether the order of the learned Tribunal suffers from any irregularity?
5
MGP,J MACMA.No.509 of 2017
2. Whether the claimants are entitled for the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal? POINTS:-
14. This Court has perused the entire record and also the evidence adduced on behalf of the petitioners. Petitioner No.1, who is the wife of the deceased, examined as PW1. She reiterated the contents made in the claim petition. In support of her contention, she also got marked Ex.A1- Copy of FIR with complaint, Ex.A2-
Copy of Inquest report, Ex.A3- Copy of surrender petition of accused in Cr.No.310/2012, Ex.A4- Copy of Post Mortem Examination Report, Ex.A5- Copy of MVI report, Ex.A6- Certified Copy of charge sheet, Ex.A7- Certified Copy of MVI report and Ex.A8- Certified Copy of Post Mortem Examination Report and Ex.A9- Copy of High Court order.
15. PW2, who is an eye witness to the accident, stated in his evidence that on 08.06.2012 at about 12.00 noon, when he was standing in front of Dundigan Thanda, one Alto car bearing No.AP 28DG 5433 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the back portion of Hero Honda Splendor Motor cycle bearing No.AP 28 AH 0355. Due to that, the deceased fell down on the road and died on the spot and the said motor cycle was completely damaged. 6
MGP,J MACMA.No.509 of 2017
16. PW4, who is Sub-Inspector of Police, Dundigal, deposed in his evidence that he took custody of both vehicles i.e., Alto car bearing No.AP 28DG 5433 and Hero Honda Splendor Motor cycle bearing No.AP 28 AH 0355 and got inspected the said Alto car and obtained Ex.A7-Certified copy of MVI report.
17. RW2, who is the driver of the Alto car and son of Respondent No.1, created a concocted story with regard to the alleged accident and contended that he never dashed anyone and his car never involved in any accident. But, in support of his contention, he had not adduced any evidence nor filed any documents.
18. Therefore, from the evidence of PW2, who is an eye witness to the accident, coupled with ExA6-Charge sheet and Ex.A8-Post mortem examination report, it is made clear that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Alto Car bearing No.AP 28 DG 5433 which resulted in the death of the deceased.
19. Hence, the learned Tribunal after taking into consideration all other aspects, has rightly reasonable compensation which needs no interference by this Court. Hence, the Appeal is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.
7
MGP,J MACMA.No.509 of 2017
20. In the result, the Appeal is dismissed without costs.
21. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
______________________________ JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI Dt.05.02.2024 ysk 8 MGP,J MACMA.No.509 of 2017 HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI M.A.C.M.A.No.509 OF 2017 Dt.05.02.2024 ysk