M/S.United India Insurance ... vs Smt.Bee Pasha Bee And 4 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 6971 Tel

     THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

                 M.A.C.M.A.No.1650 of 2019

JUDGMENT:

Assailing the order and decree, dated 09.02.2016

made in M.V.O.P.No.236 of 2006 on the file of the Accident

Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Medak at

Sangareddy (for short "the Tribunal"), the United India

Insurance Company Limited, preferred this appeal.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be

hereinafter referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the claimants filed a

petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the death of

one Mohd. Sardar (hereinafter referred to as "the

deceased") who died in a motor vehicle accident that took

place on 18.12.2005. According to the claimants, on

18.12.2005 at about 10:30 a.m., while the deceased was

proceeding as pillion rider on a motorcycle and when he

reached the limits of Kamkole Village, one Tata Sumo

bearing No.AP 15 H 3638, owned by respondent Nos.1 and

MGP, J Macma_1650_2019

2 and insured with respondent No.3, being driven by its

driver, in a rash and negligent manner at high speed,

dashed the motorcycle in opposite direction, as a result of

which, the deceased fell down, sustained injuries and died

on the spot. It is further stated that prior to the accident,

the deceased was hale and healthy and aged about 45

years, earning Rs.8,000/- per month as a tailor. Therefore,

the claimants filed the aforesaid O.P. against the

respondents.

4. After considering the claim and the counter filed by

the appellant, respondent No.3, and on evaluation of the

evidence, both oral and documentary, the learned Tribunal

has partly allowed the O.P. and awarded compensation of

Rs.3,36,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum.

Challenging the same, the present appeal has been filed by

the appellant, insurance company.

5. Heard both sides and perused the record.

6. The only contention of the learned counsel appearing

for the appellant is that the Tribunal failed to comply with

the condition of the remand order in M.A.C.M.A.Nos.2431

MGP, J Macma_1650_2019

and 2432 of 2008. It is further contended that the

Tribunal ought to have dismissed the claim-petition as

there was discrepancy in the identity of the vehicle.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the claimants has

submitted that on remand of the matter by this Court, the

tribunal has reappraised the matter by examining the

informant/complainant as C.W.1 and duly considering the

said evidence passed the orders afresh. Therefore, prayed

to dismiss the appeal.

8. As seen from the material on record, it is admitted

that vide judgment, dated 06.11.2014 in

M.A.C.M.A.No.2431 of 2008, this Court remanded the

matter to the Tribunal for disposal afresh. The record

reveals that in order to comply with the conditions made by

this Court, the Tribunal has summoned one Mohd. Sabar,

on whose complaint the first information report, Ex.A1 was

registered and examined him as C.W.1. Considering the

evidence of C.W.1 and R.Ws.1 and 3, who are the owner

and driver of the offending vehicle, coupled with Exs.A1

and A2, the Tribunal has categorically observed that the

MGP, J Macma_1650_2019

accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent

driving of the driver of the Tata Sumo and not any mud

colour lorry type vehicle. Therefore, I see no reason to

interfere with the finding of the Tribunal that the accident

occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver

of Tata Sumo bearing No.AP 15 H 3638. Taking into

consideration all the aspects the Tribunal passed a well

reasoned order and as against the claim of Rs.4,00,000/-,

the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.3,36,000/- with

interest @ 7.5% per annum and directed the respondent

Nos.1 to 3 to deposit the said amount. Hence, there are no

grounds to interfere with the findings arrived at by the

Tribunal and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

9. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed. There

shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand

closed.

_______________________ SMT. M.G.PRIYADARSINI, J 26.12.2022 tsr

MGP, J Macma_1650_2019

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

M.A.C.M.A.No.1650 of 2019

DATE: 26-12-2022

TSR