Bajaj Allianz General Insurance ... vs Poloju Narshimha Chary Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 1296 Tel

                                1
                                                        GSD,J
                                                        MACMA_2370_2011



          THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

                  M.A.C.M.A.No.2370 of 2011

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is preferred by the appellant-Insurance

Company, questioning the order and decree, dated 13.07.2011,

passed in O.P.No.532 of 2007, on the file of the Chairman,

Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- IV Additional District

Judge (II Fast Track Court), Nalgonda (for short, "the Tribunal").

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter be

referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The facts in issue are as under:

The claimant had filed a petition under Sections 166 of

the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rule 455 of Motor Vehicles

Rules, 1989, against the respondents 1 and 2, claiming

compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- along with subsequent interest

and costs for the injuries sustained by him in a road accident

that occurred on 15.06.2006. It is stated that on the said date,

when the claimant was returning to Gorenkalapally village after

attending a marriage function at Thungathurthy village on an

LML Scooter with other persons on the left side of the road, at

about 6.45 PM, when he reached near Court building at

Nakrekal on National Highway No.9 , the driver of the Mahindra

Bolloro Van bearing No.AP-16-AD-566 came in a rash and

GSD,J MACMA_2370_2011

negligent manner with high speed from opposite direction and

dashed the LML scooter. As a result, the claimant had sustained

three injuries which are as follows:-

i. Grievous injury on right leg,

ii. Grievous injury on face and forehead,

iii. Grievous injury on Nasal bone (both Nostrils) and other simple injuries.

4. Immediately after the accident, the claimant was shifted

to Community Health Centre, Nakrekal and thereafter, shifted

to KIMS Hospital, Hyderabad and also took treatment at

different private hospitals. Thus, the claimant filed claim-

petition against the respondents 1 and 2 claiming compensation

for the disability sustained by him.

5. Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent remained ex parte

and the 2nd respondent filed counter denying the averments

made in the claim-petition. It is also stated that the 1st

respondent, who is the owner of the vehicle, had not informed to

the 2nd respondent- company about the alleged accident and

had also not cooperated with the respondent company in

contesting the case. As such, the 2nd respondent- company

cannot be held responsible for payment of compensation as

there was no valid subsisting certificate of registration and

permit to the said vehicle on the date of accident. It is further

GSD,J MACMA_2370_2011

stated in the FIR that at the time of accident, three persons were

going on the LML scooter and therefore, it is triple driving and

they have violated the MV Act and as such, the 2nd respondent

company has no liability to pay the compensation. It is also

stated that since the petitioner had not impleaded the owner

and insurer of the LML scooter, as such his claim petition is not

maintainable for non-joinder of necessary parties and hence

prays to dismiss the petition.

6. The 2nd respondent- company filed additional counter

stating that at the time of accident, the driver of the Bolloro Van

was not holding valid licence and the 1st respondent, who is the

owner of the vehicle, had willfully handed over the vehicle to the

said driver. It is further stated that when a letter was addressed

to the 1st respondent to furnish the driving licence, the 1st

respondent gave a reply that the vehicle was sold away. Since

the owner of the vehicle had not furnished the particulars of the

insurance policy, the 2nd respondent- company is not liable to

pay compensation to the claimant and hence prayed to dismiss

the petition.

7. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were

framed before the Tribunal:-

GSD,J MACMA_2370_2011

1) Whether the injuries sustained by petitioner, is due to rash and negligent driving of Mahindra Bolloro Van bearing No.AP-16-AD-0566?

2) Whether the Claimant is entitled for any compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?

3) To what relief?

8. During trial, on behalf of the claimant, PWs 1 to 3 were

examined and Exs.A1 to A12 were marked. On behalf of the

respondents, RW1 was examined and Exs.B1 to B4 were

marked.

9. 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 the driver of

the Mahindra Bolloro Van bearing No.AP-16-AD-0566 and

awarded total compensation of Rs.1,18,000/- together with

interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date

of realization against respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally.

Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant-Insurance Company

filed the present appeal.

10. Heard and perused the record.

11. A perusal of the order reveals that the Tribunal passed a

well considered order by taking into consideration all the

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

the injuries sustained by the petitioner, were due to rash and

GSD,J MACMA_2370_2011

negligent driving of the driver of the Mahindra Bolloro Van

bearing No.AP-16-AD-0566, to which the Tribunal has

categorically observed that the accident had occurred due to the

rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Mahindra Bolloro

Van and had answered in favour of the petitioner and against

the respondents.

12. With regard to quantum of compensation, after

considering the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner

and the evidence given by the Medical Officers (PWs2 & 3), the

Tribunal has awarded Rs.15,000/- towards grievous injury

sustained by him, Rs.2,000/- each for two simple injuries

sustained by him totaling to Rs.4000/-, Rs.2,000/- towards

transportation charges, Rs.10,000/- towards pains and

sufferings, Rs.78,000 towards treatment, medical expenses,

extra nourishment and transport charges incurred by him and

Rs.9,000/- towards loss of earnings for three months. Thus, in

all, a sum of Rs.1,18,000/- was awarded to the petitioner

towards compensation under all counts. Therefore, I see no

reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal and the appeal

is liable to be dismissed.

13. 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.

GSD,J MACMA_2370_2011

14. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall stand

closed.

______________________ JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

Date:21.03.2022

ysk/trr/pgp

GSD,J MACMA_2370_2011

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

M.A.C.M.A.No.2370 of 2011

Date:21.03.2022

GSD,J MACMA_2370_2011

ysk/trr/psp