Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The New India Assurance Company ... vs L. Vidyulatha Another on 28 March, 2023
Bench: Venuthurumalli Gopala Rao
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO
M.A.C.M.A.No.2011 of 2012
JUDGMENT:
The appellant is 2nd respondent/Insurance Company
in M.V.O.P.No.242 of 2009, on the file of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge,
Kurnool. The respondents herein are the claim petitioner
and 1st respondent in the said case.
2. Both the parties in the appeal will be referred to as
they are arrayed in claim application.
3. The aforesaid M.V.O.P.No.242 of 2009 was filed by
the claimant, under Section 166 (1) (a) of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming a compensation of
Rs.4,50,000/- with subsequent interest and costs
against 1st and 2nd respondents on account of the injuries
sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident occurred on
31.12.2008.
4. The case of the claimant is that on 31.12.2008, while
the petitioner was returning to his house on Dhone main
road, Bethamcherla Town and reached near Taj Granite
Factory, one mini lorry bearing registration No.AP21Y-5995
belonging to the 1st respondent, which was insured with
the 2nd respondent, came from behind at a high speed and
in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the petitioner,
as result of which, he sustained severe injuries.
5. The 1st respondent was set ex parte before learned
Tribunal, 2nd respondent/Insurance Company pleaded in
the counter that the claimant is not entitled to any
compensation from the Insurance Company. The 2nd
respondent - Insurance Company further pleaded that due
to the negligence of the claimant only, he received injuries.
6. Basing on the above pleadings of both the parties, the
learned Tribunal framed the following issues:
1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and
negligent driving of the driver of mini lorry
bearing registration No.AP21Y-5995, which
resulted in injuries to the petitioner?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim
compensation, if so, for what amount and from
which of the respondent?
3. To what relief?
7. During the course of enquiry, on behalf of the
claimant, P.W.1 was examined and got marked Exs.A-1 to
Ex.A-7. On behalf of the Insurance Company, no oral
evidence was adduced, but Ex.B1 - copy of the insurance
policy was marked.
8. Basing on the material on record, the learned
Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.2,62,400/- from
both the respondents with interest at the rate of 8% per
annum. Aggrieved thereby, the 2nd respondent/Insurance
Company has filed the present appeal.
9. Now, the point for consideration is:
Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any
interference in the appeal?
P O I N T:
10. Claimant is examined as P.W.1 before the Tribunal in
order to prove the rash and negligent driving of the driver
of the mini lorry, crime vehicle. The petitioner relied on
Ex.A-1, certified copy of First Information Report in Cr.No.2
of 2009 of Bethamcherla Police Station and Ex.A-2,
certified copy of Charge Sheet. The evidence of P.W.1
coupled with Ex.A-1 and Ex.A-2 clearly proves about the
rash and negligent driving of the driver of mini lorry. The
learned Tribunal also came to the conclusion that the
accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent
driving of the driver of mini lorry bearing registration
No.AP21Y-5995. Therefore, there is no need to interfere
with the finding given by the Tribunal.
11. In order to prove the claim of the claimant, he relied
on Ex.A-3 wound certificate, Ex.A-4 Discharge card of the
claimant issued by the R.R. Hospital, Kurnool, and Ex.A-5
Discharge Summary of the claimant issued by the Yashoda
Hospital, Hyderabad The evidence of P.W.1 supported by
Ex.A-3 to Ex.A-5 goes to show that the petitioner sustained
five grievous injuries and two simple injuries, and he
incurred medical expenses of Rs.1,96,822/-. On
considering Ex.A-3 wound certificate and the evidence of
P.W.1, the learned Tribunal granted an amount of
Rs.50,000/- for five grievous injuries at the rate of
Rs.10,000/- for each grievous injury and also granted
Rs.6,000/- for two simple injuries at the rate of Rs.3,000/-
for each simple injury. Learned Tribunal also granted an
amount of Rs.2,000/- towards transportation charges, an
amount of Rs.5,000/- is awarded towards pain and
suffering and an amount of Rs.2,500/- is awarded towards
extra nourishment. On considering Ex.A-6 Prescription of
Yashoda Hospital, Hyderabad and Ex.A-7 bunch of medical
bills, 57 in number, worth Rs.1,96,822/-, learned Tribunal
granted Rs.1,96,822/- towards medical expenses.
12. Basing on the entire material on record and
considering the oral and documentary evidence available
on record, learned Tribunal granted an amount of
Rs.2,62,400/- to the claimant towards total compensation.
Ex.B-1 Insurance policy clearly goes to show that the
offending vehicle mini lorry is insured with 2nd
respondent/Insurance Company and the Ex.B-1 policy is
in force. It is not the case of the 2nd respondent/Insurance
Company that the claimant violated the terms and
conditions of the policy. The learned Tribunal rightly came
to the conclusion that the entire compensation has to be
paid by both the respondents and considering the material
on record, the learned Tribunal rightly granted an amount
of Rs.2,62,400/- towards total compensation.
13. Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the said
finding given by the learned Tribunal in its order dated
10.08.2011 in M.V.O.P.No.242 of 2009.
14. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be
no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending,
shall stand closed.
____________________________________
JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO
28.03.2023
ANI
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO
M.A.C.M.A.No.2011 of 2012
Dt.28.03.2023
ANI
