United India Insurance Company ... vs G.Rama Krishna Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 6432 Tel

       HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

                 M.A.C.M.A. No.1401 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.55 of

2011 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Nizamabad.

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

petitioner was riding the scooter bearing No. AP.25.F.1787 in

a slow and cautious manner and one Gaini Gangaram was

traveling on the said scooter as pillion rider from Varni to

Maddelacheruvu 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

both sustained multiple and grievous injuries. Immediately

the petitioner was shifted to Government Area Hospital,

Banswada in 108 Ambulance and thereafter to a private

hospital at Nizamabad. He underwent surgery and steel rod

MGP, J MACMA.No.1401 of 2016

was implanted and he spent Rs.1,00,000/- towards medical

expenses and treatment. Due to the injuries, he became

permanently disabled and unable to attend his regular duties.

Thus, the petitioner has claimed compensation of

Rs.1,50,000/- under various heads.

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

filed counter disputing the manner of accident and the nature

of injuries sustained by the petitioner. 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 petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and against whom?

3. To what relief?

5. In order to prove their case, PW.1 was examined and

Exs.A1 to A4 were marked. On behalf of the respondent No.2,

no witnesses were examined and no document was marked.

MGP, J MACMA.No.1401 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.65,000/- 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 contended that the Tribunal erred in

holding that the accident occurred due to the rash and

negligent driving of the driver of the lorry 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.

MGP, J MACMA.No.1401 of 2016

9. The learned counsel for the respondent No.1/claimant

contended that after appreciating the entire evidence 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 PW.1

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 petitioner, PW-1 filed certified copy of injury certificate

which shows that he sustained one grievous injury and two

simple injuries. Therefore, considering the evidence of PW-1

coupled with the documentary evidence available on record,

MGP, J MACMA.No.1401 of 2016

the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.25,000/- for one

grievous injury, Rs.15,000/- for simple injuries, Rs.10,000/-

towards pain and suffering, Rs.10,000/- towards extra

nourishment and Rs.5,000/- towards transportation charges.

Thus in all the petitioner is awarded an amount of

Rs.65,000/- 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

insurance policy which was marked as Ex.A4 to prove that

the lorry was insured with the respondent No.2 and the policy

was in force as on the date of accident. Further as there is no

rebuttal evidence produced by the respondent No.2-Insurance

Company, the Tribunal rightly held that the respondent Nos.1

and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to

the petitioner. 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.1401 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