United Inida Ins Comp. Ltd., ... vs G Sayavva, Nizamabad Dist 3 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 6428 Tel

       HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

                 M.A.C.M.A. No.1400 of 2016

JUDGMENT :

This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company aggrieved

of the order and decree dated 01.10.2015 in M.V.O.P.No.54 of

2011 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Nizamabad.

2. According to the petitioners, on 08-10-2010 the

deceased being the pillion rider along with one G.Rama

Krishna were going on scooter bearing No. AP.25.F.1787 and

at about 12.30 p.m. when they reached the limits of

Nasrullabad, one lorry bearing No. PB 05 G 4901 being

driven by its driver came in a rash and negligent manner with

high speed on the wrong side of the road and dashed their

scooter, due to which both of them fell down from the scooter

and the lorry ran over them, due to which the deceased and

the pillion rider both sustained multiple and grievous injuries.

Immediately the deceased was shifted to Government Area

Hospital, Banswada in 108 Ambulance and thereafter to

Government Headquarters Hospital, Nizamabad, where the

deceased was declared dead. According to the petitioners, the

MGP, J MACMA.No.1400 of 2016

deceased was doing agriculture, vegetable and milk business

and earning more than Rs.15,000/- per month. Thus, the

petitioners are claiming compensation of Rs.5,10,000/- under

various heads.

3. Respondent No.1 remained ex parte; Respondent No.2

filed counter disputing the manner of accident, age, avocation

and income of the deceased. It is further contended that the

compensation claimed by the petitioners is highly excessive.

4. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the

following issues:

1. Whether the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of lorry bearing No. PB 05 G 4901 by its driver?

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

3. To what relief?

5. In order to prove their case, PWs.1 and 2 were examined

and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. On behalf of the respondent

No.2, no witnesses were examined and no document was

marked.

MGP, J MACMA.No.1400 of 2016

6. The Tribunal on considering the oral and documentary

evidence available on record, partly allowed the O.P.,

awarding a total compensation of Rs.6,57,000/- along with

costs and interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition

till the date of realization against the respondent Nos.1 and 2

jointly and severally.

7. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-

Insurance Company and the learned counsel for the

petitioners-respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein. Perused the

material available on record.

8. The learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-

Insurance Company submitted that the Tribunal erred in

holding that the accident occurred due to the rash and

negligent driving of the rider of the scooter and that the

Tribunal grossly erred in believing the charge sheet. It is

further contended that the compensation granted by the trial

court is excessive. Accordingly, prayed to set aside the

impugned order in the O.P.

9. The learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to

3/claimants argued that after appreciating the entire evidence

MGP, J MACMA.No.1400 of 2016

available on record, the learned Tribunal has granted

reasonable compensation and the same needs no interference

by this Court.

10. With regard to the manner of accident, except stating

that the rider of the scooter drove the vehicle in rash and

negligent manner and caused the accident, there is no

rebuttal evidence produced by the respondent No.2-Insurance

Company in support of their contention. Further the police

after thorough investigation filed charge sheet against the

driver of the lorry. However, considering the evidence of

PWs.1 and 2 coupled with documentary evidence available on

record, the Tribunal rightly held that the accident occurred

due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry.

11. Coming to the quantum of compensation, according to

the petitioners, the deceased was doing agriculture, vegetable

and milk business and earning more than Rs.15,000/- per

month. As there is no income proof filed by the petitioners,

the Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at

Rs.4,500/- per month, deducted 1/3rd of it towards personal

expenses of the deceased and as the deceased was aged 29

MGP, J MACMA.No.1400 of 2016

years, by applying multiplier '17', granted an amount of

Rs.6,12,000/- towards loss of earning capacity. Further an

amount of Rs.25,000/- towards loss of consortium,

Rs.10,000/- towards transportation charges and Rs.10,000/-

towards funeral expenses. Thus, in all the petitioners are

awarded an amount of Rs.6,57,000/- under all counts, which

is just and reasonable in my considered view. Thus, there are

no valid grounds to interfere with the findings of the Tribunal

on this aspect.

12. With regard to the liability, petitioners filed copy of cover

note which was marked Ex.A5 to prove that the lorry was

insured with the respondent No.2 and there is no rebuttal

evidence produced by the respondent No.2-Insurance

Company. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly held that the

respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay

compensation to the petitioners. Therefore, in view of the

above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that there are

no valid grounds to interfere with the cogent findings given by

the Tribunal and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

MGP, J MACMA.No.1400 of 2016

13. The appeal is devoid of merit and it is accordingly

dismissed.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

closed.

_______________________________ JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

05.12.2022

pgp