Telangana High Court
Shriram General Insurance ... vs Varsa Rudramma 4 Others on 20 January, 2022
Bench: G Sri Devi
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI
M.A.C.M.A. No.2381 of 2014
JUDGMENT :
This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company aggrieved of the
order and decree dated 15.02.2013 in M.A.T.O.P.No.576 of 2011 on
the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional
District Judge (FTC), Khammam at Kothagudem.
2. On 20.03.0211 at about 10.00 a.m., due to the rash and
negligent driving of Tata Ace Magic bearing No.AP-20 TV 0495 by
its driver, the deceased V.Bojaiah, who is standing under a tree by the
side of road, sustained injuries and died on the way while shifting him
to hospital.
3. The Tribunal, on examining the oral and documentary evidence
on record, partly allowed the O.P., awarding a total compensation of
Rs.3,22,000/- along with costs and interest @ 7.5% 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 only point raised by the learned counsel for the appellant-
Insurance Company is that the Tribunal failed to consider the fact that
the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid driving
licence at the time of accident. However, ignoring this fact, the
Tribunal has wrongly fastened the liability on the Tribunal.
GSD, J
M.A.C.M.A.No.2381 of 2014
6. In this regard, at para 18 of the judgment, the Tribunal has
categorically dealt about this in order to fasten the liability upon the
Tribunal for payment of compensation, which is extracted here under:
"The 2nd respondent contended the driver of the
crime vehicle was not holding valid driving licence as on
the date of accident. Therefore it is violation of the terms
and conditions of the policy. The fact that the crime
vehicle was under the cover of insurance as RW.1 deposed
the above facts. The true extract of the insurance policy
pertaining to the crime vehicle marked as Ex.B.1. In
cross-examination it is suggested to RW.1 that the driver of
the crime vehicle was holding valid driving licence at the
time of the accident. RW.1 denied it. To prove that the
driver of the crime vehicle was not holding valid driving
licence, the Addl. Licencing authority is competent person
to testify, but the 2nd respondent failed to examine the Addl.
Licencing authority to substantiate the version as to the
licence of the driver of the crime vehicle. Therefore the 2nd
respondent failed to discharge the burden rests on it to
prove that the driver of the crime vehicle was not holding
valid driving licence at the time of the accident".
7. In view of the afore-stated categorical finding of the Tribunal
with regard to the driving licence of the driver of the offending
vehicle and as no other ground has been raised by the appellant-
Insurance Company, I do not find any force in the sole contention
raised by the counsel for the appellant.
8. The appeal is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
GSD, J
M.A.C.M.A.No.2381 of 2014
9. However, learned counsel for the respondents/claim petitioners
inter alia submits that during pendency of the appeal, since
respondent No.1 died, leaving behind respondent Nos.2 to 4 as legal
heirs, the share of respondent No.1 may be equally apportioned to
respondent Nos.2 to 4.
10. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the
respondents, the share of respondent No.1 be equally apportioned to
respondent Nos.2 to 4.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________
JUSTICE G.SRI DEVI
Date: 20.01.2022
mar
