Bajaj Allianz General Insurance ... vs Rampalli Omkaram Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 1297 Tel

          THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

                  M.A.C.M.A.No.2401 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.531 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.1,20,000/- 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

GSD, J MACMA_2401_2011

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

negligent manner with high speed from opposite direction and

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

seven injuries which are as follows:-

i. Fracture of right foot lateral side,

ii. Injury on the right leg anterior part,

iii. Injury on right leg below the knee,

iv. Injury on right arm,

v. Injury on left middle ring finger,

vi. Injury on left arm posterior part above elbow joint,

vii. Injury on right parietal region of head.

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 had not informed to the 2nd respondent- company

about the alleged accident and had also not cooperated with the

GSD, J MACMA_2401_2011

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 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. 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 having 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

GSD, J MACMA_2401_2011

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:-

1) Whether the injuries sustained by petitioner 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 & 2 were

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

respondents, RW1 was examined and Exs.B1 to B8 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.53,593/- 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.

GSD, J MACMA_2401_2011

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 petitioner were due to rash and

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 has 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 Officer, the Tribunal has

awarded Rs.15,000/- towards grievous injury sustained by him,

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

Rs.3,593/- towards medical bills of the petitioner, Rs.2,000/-

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

sufferings and Rs.9,000/- towards loss of income for three

months which was totaling to Rs.53,593/-. Therefore, I see no

GSD, J MACMA_2401_2011

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.

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

closed.

______________________ JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

Date:21.03.2022

ysk/trr/psp

GSD, J MACMA_2401_2011

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

M.A.C.M.A.No.2401 of 2011

Date:21.03.2022

ysk/trr/psp

GSD, J MACMA_2401_2011