Telangana High Court
National Insurance Company Limited, vs Kummari Lalitha And 6 Others on 5 March, 2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
M.A.C.M.A.No.3147 of 2009
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company being aggrieved by the award dated 20.6.2005 passed in O.P.No.1727 of 2003 on the file of the IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad- cum-XVIII Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad, granting compensation in favour of respondents-claimants.
2. According to the case of claimants, the deceased along with another were going to Roofkhan pet on their bicycles and when they reached near culvert at Sultanpur gate, the offending DCM vehicle driven by its driver came in opposite direction at high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased and another, resulting in the death of the deceased. P.W.2 stated that the vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner, causing the accident. However, the Court below disbelieved the evidence of P.W.2 that he was not an eyewitness to the accident. The learned counsel submitted that when there is no proof of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the DCM vehicle, compensation ought not to have granted by the Court below.
3. The Court below has placed reliance on the F.I.R. and charge sheet and even in the absence of eyewitness, the Court below came to a conclusion regarding rash and negligent act on the part of the driver of the vehicle only on the basis of charge sheet and investigation done. The argument of the learned counsel that rash and negligent driving has to be proved by the claimants, cannot be accepted. At the time of accident, the deceased and driver of the vehicle were present. Even assuming that there is no eyewitness, it is for the driver to prove his case that there was no rash and negligent on his part. In the absence of evidence being adduced by the Insurance Company to prove that the driver of the vehicle was not negligent, compensation granted cannot be interfered.
4. There are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Court below. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending in this criminal petition, shall stand closed.
_________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 5.3.2024 DA