Reliance General Insurance Co Ltd vs Bal Lingu Ramesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 300 Tel

                THE HON'BLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

                   M.A.C.M.A. No.1528 of 2012

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is preferred by the appellant-Insurance

Company, questioning the order and decree, dated 06.02.2012

passed in O.P.No.159 of 2010 on the file of the Chairman, Motor

Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge (FTC),

Siddipet (for short, the Tribunal).

For the sake of convenience, the parties have been referred

to as arrayed before the Tribunal.

The claimant, who is the son of Bal Lingu Pochavva

(hereinafter referred to as "the deceased"), filed a petition under

Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of

Rs.3,50,000/- for the death of the deceased, who died in a motor

vehicle accident. It is stated that on 16.10.2010 the deceased and

others were proceeding to Karimnagar town from their village

Chinnakodur in an auto bearing No.AP 23 X 0633 for selling custard

apples, when the auto reached in between Thotapally Village and

Gagillapur Village on Rajiv Rahadari, one Tavera vehicle bearing

No.AP 36 AA 4545 came in opposite direction, driven by its driver

in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed the

auto, due to which, the inmates of the auto sustained grievous

injuries and the deceased died on the spot. On a complaint, the

Police, Bejjanki, registered a case in Crime No.153 of 2010 against

the driver of the Tavera Vehicle. The claimant is the son of the

GSD, J Macma_1528_2012

deceased and the deceased was earning Rs.5,000/- per month and

used to contribute the same to her family and due to untimely

death of the deceased, the claimant, who is son of the deceased,

suffered mental agony and he lost love and affection of his mother.

Hence, the claimant filed aforesaid O.P. against respondent Nos.1

and 2, being owner and insurer of the aforesaid Tavera Vehicle,

respectively, claiming compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- for the death

of the deceased.

Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent remained ex parte

and the 2nd respondent filed counter denying the averments of

the claim petition, manner in which the accident took place, age,

avocation and income of the deceased. It is further contended

that the claimant is not the dependant of the deceased as the

claimant has got his own income. It is also stated that there was a

contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the auto in

which the deceased was traveling and 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 had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of Tavera bearing No.AP 36 AA 4545?

2) Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of proper and necessary parties?

3) Whether the claimant is entitled for the compensation, if so, what extent and from whom?

GSD, J Macma_1528_2012

4) To what relief?

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

examined and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. On behalf of the

respondents, neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced.

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

Tavera and awarded total compensation of Rs.2,08,000/- with

interest @ 8% per annum. Aggrieved by the said order, the

appellant-Insurance Company filed the present appeal.

Heard both sides.

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.2,08,000/- with interest @ 8%

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 Tavera bearing No.AP 36 AA 4545, to which the

Tribunal has categorically observed that the accident has occurred

due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tavera

Vehicle and has answered in favour of the claimant and against the

respondents. With regard to Issue No.3 as to whether the claimant

is 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 loss of estate, loss of love and affection and

GSD, J Macma_1528_2012

future prospects etc., the claimant is entitled for more

compensation. Since this is an appeal filed by the Insurance

Companies and in the absence of no cross appeal or cross-

objections filed by the claimant, 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.

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