Telangana High Court
Iffcotokio Gen. Ins. Com. Ltd., ... vs K Sadhamma, Hyderabad And 4 Others on 15 March, 2024
HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A.No.116 OF 2018
JUDGMENT:
1. Aggrieved by the Award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in M.V.O.P.1222 of 2013, dated 17.11.2015, the 2nd respondent in the said M.V.O.P. preferred the present Appeal seeking to set-aside the same.
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 1 & 2, being the wives and petitioners 3 & 4, being the sons of the deceased-K.Chandraiah, filed a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- on account of death of the deceased in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 13.04.2011. As per the petitioners, on 13.04.2011 at about 6.45PM, when the deceased- K.Chandraiah along with one Sri J.Siddiramulu were proceeding towards extreme left side of the road on TVS XL Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.AP-23N-5693 from Ramayampet registration office towards Lingusanpet and when they reached the village limits of Akkannapet, the crime tractor with trailer bearing Registration Nos.AP-23TK-T/R-7090 and AP-25TN-T/R-3268 2 MGP,J MACMA.No.116 of 2018 respectively driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed, came from opposite direction on wrong side and dashed the motorcycle of the deceased. Thereby, the deceased fell down and died on the spot. Police registered a case against the driver of crime vehicle and took up investigation. It is further contended by the petitioners that the deceased was a labourer and used to earn Rs.7,000/- per month and contribute the same to the family and as the petitioners, are the legal heirs of the deceased, they are entitled for compensation. As the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor-trailer bearing Registration Nos.AP-23TK-T/R-7090 and AP-25TN-T/R- 3268, Respondent No.1, being the owner and Respondent No.2, being the insurer of the crime tractor are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.
4. Respondent No.1, inspite of making his appearance, did not file any counter and remained exparte. Respondent No.2 filed counter and denied the averments of the claim petition including, age, wages, relationship of the petitioners with the deceased, loss of dependency and fixing liability upon the Insurance company.
5. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court had framed the following issues:-
3
MGP,J MACMA.No.116 of 2018
1. Whether the deceased died in the road accident that occurred on 13.04.2011 due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of Tractor bearing No.AP-23TK-T/R-7090 and Trailer bearing No.AP- 25TN-T/R-3268?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
3. To what relief?
6. Before the Tribunal, PWs 1 & 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked.
7. On behalf of the respondents, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced.
8. After considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the learned Tribunal had awarded an amount of Rs.10,42,600/- as compensation along with interest @ 7.5% per annum. Aggrieved by the same, the present Appeal by the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company.
9. Heard Sri T.Mahender Rao, learned Standing Counsel for Appellant/Insurance Company and Sri Nageswara Rao Repakula, learned counsel for respondents.
10. The main contention of the learned Standing Counsel for Appellant/Insurance company is that the driver of the Tractor 4 MGP,J MACMA.No.116 of 2018 bearing No.AP-23TK-T/R-7090 and Trailer bearing No.AP-25TN- T/R-3268 was not having driving license at the time of accident, as such, charge sheet was filed against the driver of the said Tractor - Trailer under Section 181 of M.V.Act and further, the claim of compensation is excess and exorbitant and without proper evidence, the learned Tribunal had awarded huge amount towards compensation and hence, prayed to allow the appeal by setting aside the order of the learned Tribunal.
11. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents argued that the learned Tribunal, after considering all the aspects, had awarded just and reasonable compensation for which interference of this Court is unwarranted.
12. Now, the point that emerges for consideration is, Whether the order of the learned Tribunal suffers from any irregularity?
POINT:-
13. This Court has perused the evidence and documents available on record. The 1st petitioner, who is the wife of the deceased, was examined as PW1. She reiterated the contents of the claim petition and deposed about the manner of accident. As she is not an eye witness to the incident, she got examined PW2, who is an eye witness to the incident. PW2 in his evidence deposed 5 MGP,J MACMA.No.116 of 2018 that the deceased persons viz., J.Siddiramulu and K.Chandraiah while moving on motor cycle at village limits of Akkannapet, the offending tractor driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against them in opposite direction, whereby both the deceased fell down and received fatal injuries and died on the spot. There was no negligence on part of the rider of the motor cycle and that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the driver of the Tractor and Trailer and he was also examined by the Police. Though PWs 1 & 2 are cross-examined at length, but nothing worthy was elicited to disbelieve their evidence. Apart from oral evidence, the petitioners have also relied upon the documents marked under Exs.A1 to A5. Ex.A1-FIR shows that based on a complaint, the Police registered a case against the driver of the said Tractor-Trailer, took up investigation and laid charge sheet under Ex.A2 against the driver of the Tractor-Trailer. Ex.A3- Inquest report discloses that the deceased is an agriculturist. Ex.A4- Post Mortem Examination report shows that the deceased died in a road traffic accident. Ex.A5 is the MVI report which discloses that the accident had not occurred due to any mechanical defect.
14. On behalf of the respondents, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced.
6
MGP,J MACMA.No.116 of 2018
15. It is pertinent to state that there is no dispute regarding the accident and death of the deceased. The respondent/Insurance company, except taking a plea that the driver is not having valid driving license at the time of accident, has not taken any steps to summon the RTO authorities nor examined them. In the absence of the rebuttal evidence, the contention of the learned Standing Counsel for Appellant/Insurance Company that the driver of the Tractor-Trailer is not possessing driving license, is unsustainable.
16. Now, coming to the compensation awarded, the learned Tribunal, after considering the age, occupation and all other aspects, had awarded reasonable compensation for which interference of this Court is not necessary. Therefore, viewed from any angle, this Court do not find any reason to interfere with the finding arrived at by the learned Tribunal. Hence, the Appeal is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. In the result, the Appeal is dismissed without costs.
17. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
______________________________ JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI Dt.15.03.2024 ysk