Telangana High Court
M/S.Oriental Insurance Company ... vs Basakonda Manisa , Manasa And 5 Ors on 14 February, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A.No.1574 of 2017
JUDGMENT:
1. The present Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against judgment and decree dated 27.02.2017 in M.V.O.P.No.784 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge) at Nizamabad (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'). The said M.V.O.P. filed by the petitioners therein seeking compensation for death of one Basakonda Sanjeev (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased') in an accident that occurred on 23.02.2012 was allowed. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed at the instance of respondent No.2 before the Tribunal i.e., the insurance company.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. It is the case of the petitioners that petitioner No.1 is wife, petitioner No.2 is son, petitioner Nos.3 and 4 are parents and petitioner No.5 is daughter of the deceased. The petitioners have filed the present case seeking compensation of Rs.12,00,000/- for death of the deceased, who died in a road traffic accident that occurred on 23.02.2012. According to the petitioners, on 2 MGP,J MACMA_1574_2017 23.02.2012 at about 06:30 PM, the deceased was riding his motor cycle along with pillion rider Koudalingam, near Lalithamba Ashramam on National Highway No.63 road, Kammarpally shivar, one tipper lorry bearing No.AP 25 V 8866 (hereinafter referred to as 'crime vehicle') came from opposite direction being driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle of the deceased. Due to which the accident occurred and the deceased died. With regard to the accident, a case was registered in Crime No.16 of 2012 on the file of the Kammarapally Police Station under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. It is further case of the petitioners that the deceased was aged about 22 years as on the date of the accident. He was being paid an amount of Rs.25,000/- per month. Therefore, the petitioners filed the present petition seeking compensation for death of the deceased.
4. Respondent No.1 remained ex parte. Respondent No.2 filed its counter denying the averments of the claim petition such as age, wages and manner of the accident and also negligence of the driver of the crime vehicle. It is contended that the driver of the crime vehicle was not having valid and effective driving license as 3 MGP,J MACMA_1574_2017 on the date of the accident. It is also contended that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the deceased. Further, as the claim of the petitioners is excess and exorbitant, prayed to dismiss the claim petition.
5. In support of their case, the petitioners got examined petitioner No.1 as P.W.1 and also examined P.W.2 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-5. On behalf of respondent No.2, no witnesses were examined, but Ex.B-1 was got marked.
6. After considering the pleadings and evidence on record, the Tribunal held that the petitioners have successfully established their case. Hence, the claim petition was allowed holding that both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.12,00,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed at the instance of respondent No.2 i.e., insurance company.
7. Heard, both sides.
8. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/respondent No.2 is that the driver of the crime vehicle was not holding valid driving license as on the date of the accident 4 MGP,J MACMA_1574_2017 and without considering the same, the Tribunal has awarded compensation. Hence, prayed to set aside impugned order by allowing the present appeal.
9. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 5/petitioners contended that the Tribunal after considering all the aspects has granted just and reasonable compensation and interference of this Court is unwarranted. Hence, prayed to dismiss the appeal.
10. Now point for determination is as follows:
"Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation as granted by the Tribunal?"
Point:-
11. This Court has perused the entire evidence and documents placed on record by both the parties. Petitioner No.1 got examined herself as P.W.1 and reiterated the contents of the claim petition, got marked Exs.A-1 to A-5. As P.W.1 is not eyewitness to the accident, she got examined P.W.2, who witnessed the accident. P.W.2 deposed that on 23.02.2012 while the deceased was going to Kammarpally on his bike, the crime vehicle coming in high speed in rash and negligent manner dashed the motorcycle of the 5 MGP,J MACMA_1574_2017 deceased, due to which the accident occurred and he died on the spot. He also deposed that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of crime vehicle. In the cross- examination, he admitted that he did not give complaint to police with regard to the accident and stated that the deceased belong to his village. He denied that there was no rash and negligent driving on the part of driver of the crime vehicle. In the said circumstances, considering all the said aspects the Tribunal rightly arrived at the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle alone and accordingly, awarded compensation to the petitioners.
12. Now, coming to the aspect of driving license, the learned counsel for the appellant/respondent No.2 contended that the driver of the crime vehicle was not having valid driving license as on the date of the accident. It is pertinent to state that admittedly, respondent No.2/insurance company has not adduced any evidence or did not seek to summon and examine the Road Transport Authority officials to prove that the driver of the crime vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving license as on the date of the accident. Furthermore, a perusal of certified copy of 6 MGP,J MACMA_1574_2017 First Information Report under Ex.A-1 and copy of charge sheet under Ex.A-2 disclose that on complaint Kammarpally police registered case in Crime No.16 of 2012 under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and after thorough investigation charge sheet was laid against the driver of the crime vehicle. This shows that no case was registered by the police under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for non-production of driving license and also to show that there was negligence on the part of the deceased. Under these circumstances, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/respondent No.2 that the driver of the crime vehicle was not having valid and effective driving license as on the date of accident is unsustainable.
13. Coming to the compensation, the Tribunal after considering all the aspects such as age, wages and occupation of the deceased has granted just and reasonable compensation of Rs.12,00,000/-, for which interference of this Court is unwarranted. Hence, the appeal is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.
14. In the result, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment and decree dated 27.02.2017 in M.V.O.P.No.784 of 2012 on the file of the Motor 7 MGP,J MACMA_1574_2017 Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge) at Nizamabad. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.
______________________________ JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI Date: 14.02.2024 GVR