Tata Aig General Insurance Co. ... vs Smt Kalamma
2021 Latest Caselaw 1244 Tel

          THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.AMARNATH GOUD

                    MACMA No.103 OF 2019

JUDGMENT:

1 This appeal is preferred by the appellant/Insurance

Company questioning the Order of the Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal-cum-XXVI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court,

Hyderabad (for short, the Tribunal) in M.V.O.P.No.2715 of

2016, dated 09.11.2018.

2 The brief facts of the case are that on 26.06.2016, one

Krishnaiah (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') was

travelling in a DCM bearing No.AP 10W 2056, which belongs

to the 5th respondent herein and insured with the appellant

herein, from Kandukur, and when the van reached

Thummalur gate on highway he was loading vegetable bags

into his DCM, at that time, another DCM bearing No.AP 03 V

4419 driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed into the

DCM van of the deceased. Due to the sudden impact, the

deceased received multiple injuries and died on the spot. In

connection with the said accident, a case in Cr.No.167 of

2016 was registered. The claimants who are wife, sons and

mother of the deceased filed the MVOP 2715 of 2016 against

owner of the DCM (respondent No.5 herein) and insurer

(appellant herein), claiming compensation of Rs.12,00,000/-

contending that the deceased was aged 36 years and was

earning Rs.15,000/- per month.

3 Before the Tribunal, owner of the DCM van, remained ex

parte. The appellant-Insurance Company filed its counter

denying the allegations and contended that the amount

claimed by the claimant is highly excessive and that it is not

liable to pay any compensation and prayed to dismiss the

claim petition.

4 After considering the oral and documentary evidence on

record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident

occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of

the DCM and awarded total compensation of Rs.12.00 lakhs

under various heads, with interest at the rate of 7.5% per

annum. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant/Insurance

Company filed the present appeal.

5        Heard.


6        A perusal of the order reveals that the Tribunal has

passed the order by taking into consideration the income of

the deceased as well as his age by the time of death and also

the loss sustained by the claimants. Therefore, there are no

grounds to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal.

However, in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Swaran Singh1, the

appellant-insurance company shall pay the compensation to

the claimant at the first instance and recover the same from

the owner of the vehicle thereafter.

(2004) 3 SCC 297 7 Accordingly, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous

Appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated above.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand

dismissed. No order as to costs.

__________________________ T. AMARNATH GOUD, J.

Date: 19.04.2021 Kvsn