Telangana High Court
The United India Insurance ... vs Kantam Sai Kumar And Another on 2 February, 2022
Bench: G Sri Devi
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI
M.A.C.M.A. No.2267 OF 2008
JUDGMENT :
This appeal is filed by the insurance company aggrieved by
the judgment dated 04.04.2007 in O.P.No.475 of 2003, on the file of
the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV-Additional
District Judge (FTC), Nizamabad (for short 'the Tribunal'), wherein
the claim of respondent No.1 herein/claimant was allowed-in-part,
awarding compensation of Rs.50,000/- with proportionate costs and
interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company
and the learned counsel for respondent No.1/claimant. Perused the
record.
3. Respondent No.1 herein filed the claim petition seeking
compensation of Rs.2 lakhs on account of the injuries sustained by
him in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 17.12.2002 at about
01:45 pm. On the fateful day, the claimant along with others was
travelling in an auto bearing No.AP 25U 2123 from Armoor to
Nizamabad and all of a sudden the said auto driven by its driver in
a rash and negligent manner, at high speed, dashed the jeep bearing
No.AP 9P 923 which was coming in the opposite direction. Owing to
the said accident, the claimant sustained fracture of nose, fracture
of ribs of right side of the chest, head injuries, besides other multiple
and grievous injuries. Immediately, the claimant was shifted to
Government Hospital, Nizamabad. He spent Rs.50,000/- towards
medical expenses. A case in Cr.No.265 of 2002 was registered by
Nizamabad Rural Police Station under Section 337 IPC against the
driver of the auto.
4. The owner of the offending vehicle and insurance company
filed counters opposing the claim and denying their liability to pay the
compensation.
5. The Tribunal, on appreciation of the oral and documentary
evidence on record, allowed the O.P., in part awarding a total
compensation of Rs.50,000/- along with proportionate costs and
interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition. Aggrieved
thereby, the appellant-insurance company has filed this appeal.
6. The learned standing counsel for the appellant-insurance
company contended that the judgment and 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; that the amount awarded is exorbitant.
The learned standing counsel further contended that the capacity of
the auto is 3+1, but on the fateful day, the auto was overloaded with
9 passengers. Accordingly, he prayed for setting aside the impugned
judgment.
7. On a perusal of the judgment of the Tribunal, I am of the
considered view that there are no valid grounds to interfere with the
findings of the Tribunal. The Tribunal has rightly taken all the aspects
into consideration and passed a reasoned order. The amount of
Rs.50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards compensation cannot,
by any means, be considered to be excessive or unreasonable.
The finding of the Tribunal that the insurance company has to deposit
the compensation at the first and later recover from the owner of the
offending vehicle warrants no interference. The impugned award
passed by the Tribunal does not, therefore, call for any interference by
this Court.
8. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.
9. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________
JUSTICE G.SRI DEVI
Date: 02.02.2022
Lrkm
