Bajaj Allianz General Insurance ... vs Meerja Mahaboob Baig 4 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 4953 AP

 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

                 M.A.C.M.A.No.1124 of 2012

JUDGMENT:

Aggrieved by the impugned award and order passed

in M.V.O.P.No.104 of 2010, on the file of the Motor Vehicle

Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District

Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal whereby the Tribunal awarded

an amount of Rs.4,64,000/- with interest at the rate of 6%

per annum towards total compensation to the claimants

against both the respondents, this instant appeal is

preferred by 2nd respondent/Bajaj Allianz General

Insurance Company Limited questioning the legal validity

of the award passed by the Tribunal.

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.104 of 2010 was filed by

the claimants, under Section 166 (c) of Motor Vehicles Act,

1988 claiming an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- towards

compensation for the death of Smt.Meerja Nasimun in a 2 VGKR,J M.A.C.M.A.No.1124 of 2012

motor vehicle accident that occurred on 12.12.2009. 1st

claimant is the husband, 2nd to 4th claimants are the minor

children of the deceased.

4. The brief averments of the claim petition are as

follows:

On 12.12.2009 at about 9:30 p.m., while the

deceased and the petitioners were proceeding to Panyam

village from B.C.Colony after attending a Betrothal function

and when they reached near the Tower situated at

Cheruvu, the driver of the school bus bearing

No.AP 21W 1713 drove the said bus in a rash and

negligent manner and at high speed without blowing horn

and dashed against the deceased due to which the

deceased fell down on the road and sustained multiple

injuries and immediately the injured was taken to the

Government Hospital, Kurnool for treatment and died in

the hospital while undergoing treatment. A case in Crime

No.176 of 2009 was registered against the driver of the

offending vehicle school bus and after completion of

investigation, charge sheet was laid by the Police. 1st 3 VGKR,J M.A.C.M.A.No.1124 of 2012

respondent is the owner, 2nd respondent is the insurer of

the offending vehicle school bus.

5. 1st respondent/owner of the school bus remained

ex-parte.

6. 2nd respondent/Insurance Company filed a counter

by denying the claim of the claimants.

7. Based on the above pleadings of both the parties, the

Tribunal framed the following issues:

1. Whether the deceased Meerja Nasimun @ Nasimunni died in a road accident which took place on 12.12.2009 at about 9:30 p.m., due to the rash and negligent driving of the school bus bearing No.AP 21W 1713 by its driver?

2. Whether the driver of the bus bearing No.AP 21W 1713 is having valid and effective driving license at the time of the accident?

3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so to what amount and against whom?

4. To what relief the petitioners are entitled?

4 VGKR,J M.A.C.M.A.No.1124 of 2012

8. During the course of enquiry, on behalf of the

claimant, P.W.1 was examined and got marked Exs.A1 to

A7. On behalf of 2nd respondent/Insurance Company,

R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and marked Ex.B1 to B4 and

Ex.X1.

9. At the culmination of the enquiry, on appreciation of

the entire evidence on record, the Tribunal awarded an

amount of Rs.4,64,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per

annum towards compensation to the petitioners against

both the respondents. Aggrieved thereby, 2nd respondent/

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited filed this

instant appeal questioning the legal validity of the award

passed by the Tribunal.

10. Heard Sri P.B.Narasimha Murthy, learned counsel for

the appellant/Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company

Limited, Sri B.S.Reddy, learned counsel for 1st to 4th

respondents.

11. Now, the point for consideration is:

5 VGKR,J M.A.C.M.A.No.1124 of 2012

i) Whether the order of the Tribunal needs

any interference in the appeal? If so, to what extent?

POINT:

12. The case of the claimants is that on 12.12.2009, the

deceased who is the wife of 1st petitioner and mother of 2nd

to 4th petitioners was proceeding with the petitioners on the

road, the driver of the offending vehicle school bus drove it

in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the

deceased due to which the deceased fell down and

sustained fatal injuries. In order to prove the rash and

negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle

school bus, the petitioners relied on the evidence of P.W.1.

The evidence of P.W.1 is coupled with Ex.A1-Certified Copy

of the First Information Report, Ex.A2-Certified Copy of the

Inquest Report, Ex.A3-Certified Copy of the Post Mortem

Report and Ex.A4-Certified Copy of the Charge Sheet

clearly proves that the accident in question occurred due to

rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending

vehicle school bus, in which the deceased sustained severe

injuries. The Tribunal also came to the same conclusion. I 6 VGKR,J M.A.C.M.A.No.1124 of 2012

do not find any illegality in the said finding given by the

Tribunal. Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the

above finding given by the Tribunal.

13. Coming to the compensation, in order to prove the

income of the deceased, no evidence is adduced by the

petitioners. Since the accident occurred in the year 2009,

the Tribunal arrived the monthly income of the deceased as

Rs.3,000/- per month. Since the dependents on the

deceased are four in number, 1/4th income was deducted

towards personal expenses of the deceased. On

considering the age of the deceased, since she was aged

about 29 years, the relevant multiplier applicable to the

age group of the deceased is '17'. Therefore, the Tribunal

awarded an amount of Rs.4,59,000/- towards loss of

dependency to the claimants. The Tribunal also awarded

an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses of the

deceased. In total, an amount of Rs.4,64,000/- was

awarded by the Tribunal towards total compensation.

14. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that

the driver of the offending vehicle school bus is not having 7 VGKR,J M.A.C.M.A.No.1124 of 2012

any driving license. In fact, the said plea was taken by the

Insurance Company before the Tribunal, the Tribunal

rightly came to conclusion that no evidence was adduced

on behalf of 2nd respondent to prove that the driver of the

offending vehicle school bus is not having valid and

effective driving license at the time of accident. In fact,

employee in R.T.A Office is examined as R.W.2, nothing

was elicited from R.W.2 by learned counsel for the

appellant/Insurance Company that the driver of the

offending vehicle school bus is not having any kind of

driving license at the time of accident. Charge Sheet was

filed against the driver of the offending vehicle, the driver

was not charged for an offence under Section 181 of Motor

Vehicle Act. As seen from Ex.A6-Certified Copy of M.V.I.

Report, the driving license particulars of the driver of the

offending vehicle school bus was clearly mentioned in

Column No.17 of the M.V.I.Report. Therefore, the material

on record reveals that the driver of the offending vehicle

school bus has valid driving license at the time of accident.

Therefore, there is no force in the contention taken by

learned counsel for the appellant that the driver of the 8 VGKR,J M.A.C.M.A.No.1124 of 2012

offending vehicle bus is not having any kind of driving

license at the time of accident. I do not find any illegality in

the said finding given by the Tribunal and the award

passed by the Tribunal is perfectly sustainable under law

and it warrants no interference.

15. 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 Dt.13.10.2023 ANI 9 VGKR,J M.A.C.M.A.No.1124 of 2012

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

M.A.C.M.A.No.1124 of 2012

Dt.13.10.2023

ANI