Telangana High Court
National Insurance Company Ltd., vs Magiri Narsamma Narsubai 2 Others on 8 July, 2022
Bench: G.Anupama Chakravarthy
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY
M.A.C.M.A.Nos.1352 and 3187 of 2016
COMMON JUDGMENT :
These two appeals are arising out of the same order dated
30.12.2015, in O.P.No.360 of 2015. MACMA.No.3187 of 2016 is
filed by the Insurance Company, seeking to set aside the orders in
the said O.P., whereas, MACMA.No.1352 of 2016 is filed by the
claimants for enhancement of compensation from Rs.7,05,000/- to
Rs.10,00,000/-.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as
arrayed in the O.P.
3. The O.P. is filed under Section 166(1)(c) of the Motor
Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the
death of one Magiri Balaiah @ Jankampet Balaiah for the accident
occurred on 31.12.2013 at 10.00 p.m. due to the rash and negligent
driving of the rider of the motorcycle bearing No.AP-25-R-0746.
4. Heard both sides and perused the material on record.
2
GAC, J
MACMA.Nos.1352 & 3187 of 2016
5. The learned counsel for the claimants contended that for the
age group of 40 years, multiplier '15' has to be applied, further
40% of future prospects and consortium of Rs.40,000/- per head
has to be granted by the Tribunal. He further contended that 1/3rd
has to be deducted towards personal expenses of deceased, instead
of deducting 50%, which ought not to have been done by the
Tribunal. Accordingly, he prayed for enhancement of
compensation under the said heads.
6. The learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company
contended that the Tribunal ought to have rejected the claim of the
claimants as there is no proof that the 1st respondent-vehicle was
involved in the accident and it is the case of the claimants that an
unknown vehicle has hit and run away (hit and run case) and
though there was no evidence before the Tribunal with regard to
involvement of 1st respondent-vehicle, the Tribunal has granted
Rs.7,05,000/- against the 1st and 2nd respondents jointly and
severally, therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any
amount to the claimants. Accordingly, he prayed to allow
GAC, J
MACMA.Nos.1352 & 3187 of 2016
MACMA.No.3187 of 2016 and dismiss the appeal of the
claimants.
7. On perusal of the entire record i.e. the oral and documentary
evidence, it is evident that an FIR (Ex.A-1) was registered against
an unknown offender vide FIR.No.1 of 2014 of Nizamabad Rural
Police Station and the said accident had occurred on 31.12.2013 at
10.00 p.m. while the deceased was crossing the road at Ashoksagar
garden at Nizamabad. The written statement of the 2nd respondent
clearly disclose that the motorcycle bearing No.AP-25-R-0746
did not met with any accident. It is the contention of Insurance
Company that the case was filed in collusion with the 1st
respondent and the rider of the motorcycle is implicated in this case
by filing a private complaint before the Court of II Additional
JFCM, Nizamabad. Inspite of the specific pleading, issue was not
framed by the Tribunal with regard to that aspect. In order to
prove the same, Ex.B-4/final report is filed before the Court, which
clearly disclose that on 31.12.2013 at 19.00 hours, the deceased
proceeded on his TVS Champ bearing No.AP-25-G-5034 from
Sarangpur to Ashoksagar tank and later, the complainant came to
GAC, J
MACMA.Nos.1352 & 3187 of 2016
know that the driver of an unknown vehicle dashed her husband,
due to which, the deceased sustained bleeding injuries on the left
side of the head and succumbed to the injuries. The final report i.e.
Ex.B-4 further disclose that;
"In this case all possible efforts are made to get the
clues of the unknown crime vehicle, by exchanging the
facts of the case with the Transport authorities,
vehicle drivers, mechanics by visiting mechanic
garages, exchanging intelligence information with the
drivers and other sources, visiting the check-posts,
conducting vehicle checking but all efforts are gone in
vain. Not even a single clue came forth to proceed
further in to this case, and the case is been pending
under UI since long time without any clue, for which,
they obtained permission from the SDPO, Nizamabad,
to refer the case as "UN" vide No.863/CD file/SDPO-
N/2014, dated 30.10.2014" and referred the case as
"UN" accordingly."
8. As per the recitals of Ex.B-4, it can be construed that an
unknown vehicle had dashed against the deceased, causing his
death. There is no reasoning either by the claimants or by the
Tribunal for implicating the 1st respondent-vehicle in this case.
GAC, J
MACMA.Nos.1352 & 3187 of 2016
Therefore, there is no necessity to discuss about the enhancement
of compensation with respect to MACMA.No.1352 of 2016, filed
by the claimants.
9. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the claimants i.e.
MACMA.No.1352 of 2016 is devoid of merits and it is liable to be
dismissed. Further, as no case is established against the 1st
respondent, the compensation granted by the Tribunal is also liable
to be set aside.
10. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the
appellants/claimants urged that till now, the charge sheet is not
filed in the case, and if filed, liberty may be given to file a fresh
claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation by
incorporating the owner and insurer of the vehicle concerned.
Since the Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation, the rights
of the claimants cannot be ousted. Therefore, permission is
granted to the claimants to file appropriate application claiming
compensation once the charge sheet is filed.
GAC, J
MACMA.Nos.1352 & 3187 of 2016
11. Therefore, the appeal of the insurance company i.e.
MACMA.No.3187 of 2016 is hereby allowed, setting aside the
order dated 30.12.2015 in O.P.No.360 of 2015 on the file of the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge at
Nizamabad. The appeal filed by the claimants i.e.
MACMA.No.1352 of 2016 is hereby dismissed.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
closed.
________________________________
G.ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY, J
Date: 08.07.2022
ajr
