National Insurance Co Ltd Anr vs Guguloth Amedica Ambika 5 Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 299 Tel

                THE HON'BLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

                   M.A.C.M.A. No.1710 of 2007

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is preferred by the National Insurance Company,

questioning the order and decree, dated 06.09.2006 passed in

M.V.O.P.No.308 of 2005 on the file of the Principal Motor Accidents

Claims Tribunal (Principal District Court), Warangal (for short, the

Tribunal).

For the sake of convenience, the parties have been referred

to as arrayed before the Tribunal.

The claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor

Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- for the death

of the deceased Guguloth Somla, who died in a motor vehicle

accident. It is stated that on 21.11.2004 while the deceased was

returning to his village from Mahabubabad by boarding an auto

bearing No.AP 36 W 2352 and when the said auto reached near

Ayyagaripalli Village, the driver of the auto drove it in a rash and

negligent manner with high speed and lost control over the

steering, as a result of which, the auto was turned turtle and the

deceased, who was traveling in the auto, sustained internal and

external grievous injuries including damage to liver and died on the

spot. The claimants filed aforesaid O.P. against respondent Nos.1

to 3, being owner and insurers of the aforesaid Auto, respectively,

claiming compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- for the death of the

deceased.

GSD, J Macma_1710_2007

Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent though appeared

through his Counsel, he did not choose to file a counter and

contest the matter.

The 3rd respondent filed counter denying the averments of

the claim petition and contended that the amount claimed is

excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are

framed before the Tribunal:-

1) Whether the accident is due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Auto bearing No.AP 36 W 2352?

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

3) To what relief?

During trial, on behalf of the claimants, P.Ws.1 and 2 were

examined and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. On behalf of the

respondents, no oral evidence was adduced but Ex.B1-copy of

policy was marked.

After considering the oral and documentary evidence on

record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident

occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of driver of the Auto

and awarded total compensation of Rs.6,40,000/- with interest @

7.5% per annum. Aggrieved by the said order, the Insurance

Company filed the present appeal.

Heard both sides.

GSD, J Macma_1710_2007

A perusal of the order reveals that the Tribunal passed a well

considered order by taking into consideration all the aspects, the

Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.6,40,000/- with interest @ 7.5%

per annum. The Tribunal has framed the Issue No.1 as to whether

the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the

driver of the Auto bearing No.AP 36 W 2352, to which the Tribunal

has categorically observed that the accident has occurred due to

the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Auto and has

answered in favour of the claimants and against the respondents.

With regard to Issue No.2 as to whether the claimants are entitled

for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom, in the

light of the decided case laws of the Apex Court, under the heads

of conventional charges and future prospects, the claimants are

entitled for more compensation. Further, since the claimants are

five in number, the Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/4th of the

income of the deceased towards his personal expenses, but the

Tribunal had deducted 1/3rd amount and if 1/4th is deducted

towards personal expenses, the claimants are getting more

compensation. Since this is an appeal filed by the Insurance

Company and in the absence of no cross appeal or cross-objections

filed by the claimants, this Court is not inclined to go into the

other issues and this Court finds that the compensation awarded by

the Tribunal is just and reasonable. Therefore, I see no reason to

interfere with the order of the Tribunal and the appeal is liable to

be dismissed.

GSD, J Macma_1710_2007

Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed confirming the

order and decree passed by the Tribunal. There shall be no order

as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

__________________ JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI 28.01.2022 gkv