The National Insurance Company ... vs G.Kalamma And 6 Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 4379 Tel

          THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

                   M.A.C.M.A. No.1100 of 2007

JUDGMENT :

This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company aggrieved of the

order and decree dated 06.10.2005 in O.P.No.586 of 2001 on the file

of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge,

Ranga Reddy District.

2. On 01.11.2000, due to the rash and negligent driving of Lorry

bearing No.ABT-8917 by its driver, the rice bran bags loaded in the

said lorry by hamalis including the deceased-Mallaiah, fell on them,

due to which, the deceased-Mallaiah sustained severe injuries and

died on 04.11.2000 while undergoing treatment.

3. The Tribunal, on examining the oral and documentary evidence

adduced before it, allowed the O.P., awarding a total compensation of

Rs.2,13,000/- along with costs and interest @ 9% per annum from the

date of petition till the date of realization. Aggrieved thereby, the

appellant-Insurance Company has filed this appeal.

4. Heard both sides and perused the record.

5. The learned Standing Counsel for the appellant contended that

the decree of the Tribunal is contrary to law, weight of evidence and

probabilities of the case; that the Tribunal has erred in fastening the

liability on the appellant-Insurance Company, as no premium was

GSD, J MACMA.No.1100 of 2007

paid for labourers working on the lorry; that the amount awarded is

exorbitant. Accordingly, prayed for setting aside the impugned order.

6. On a perusal of the order and decree of the Tribunal, it is

evident that while answering issue No.2, the learned Tribunal has

categorically held that the deceased died not while doing hamali work,

but when the vehicle was negligently moved, the rice bran bags

slipped and fell on the back of the deceased injuring him and causing

his death four days later. Thus, the contention of the learned Standing

Counsel for the Insurance Company that as the accident took place

when the vehicle was stationed it cannot be treated as a motor vehicle

accident, is untenable. Therefore, I am of the considered view that

there are no valid grounds to interfere with the findings of the

Tribunal. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned

order and decree, warranting interference by this Court.

7. The appeal is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

____________________ JUSTICE G.SRI DEVI Date: 16.12.2021

ajr