M/S. National Insurance Company ... vs S. Laxma Reddy And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 970 Tel

                 THE HON'BLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

                   M.A.C.M.A. No.1515 of 2008

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is preferred by the appellant-Insurance

Company, questioning the award and decree, dated 31.12.2007

passed in O.P.No.310 of 2004 on the file of the Special Judge for

the trial of Offences under SCs and STs (POA) Act-cum-VI Additional

Metropolitan Sessions Judge-Addl. Chairman, Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal-cum-XX Additional Chief Judge, Secunderabad (for short,

the Tribunal).

For the sake of convenience, the parties have been referred

to as arrayed before the Tribunal.

The claimant filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor

Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the

injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident. It is stated

that on 15.07.2004 while the claimant, along with other labourers,

were proceeding in a Lorry bearing No.AP 28 T 7140 for loading and

unloading of sand and when the said lorry reached the outskirts of

Bupatipur, the driver of the Lorry drove the same in a rash and

negligent manner at high speed, as a result of which, the claimant

sustained grievous injuries all over the body. Immediately, the

GSD, J Macma_1515_2008

claimant was shifted to Government Hospital and from there he

was shifted to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad for better treatment

and he spent Rs.20,000/- towards medical expenses. The claimant

filed the aforesaid O.P. against respondent Nos.1 and 2, being

owner and insurer of the aforesaid Lorry, respectively, claiming

compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him.

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

The 2nd respondent filed counter denying the manner in

which the accident occurred and also denied the injuries sustained

by the claimant and the treatment taken by him. It is further

stated 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 occurred owing to rash and negligent driving of the Lorry bearing No. AP 28 T 7140?

2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation and if so, to what amount and against whom?

3) To what relief?

GSD, J Macma_1515_2008

During trial, on behalf of the claimant, P.W.1 was examined

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

R.W.1 was examined and 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

Lorry and awarded total compensation of Rs.30,500/- with interest

@ 6% per annum. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant-

Insurance Company filed the present appeal.

Heard both sides and perused the record.

The main contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the

appellant is that at the time of accident, the claimant was

traveling as un-authorised passenger in the Lorry and as such the

Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation.

A perusal of the impugned order reveals that insofar as the

manner in which the accident took place, the Tribunal has framed

the Issue No.1 as to whether the accident had occurred due to rash

GSD, J Macma_1515_2008

and negligent driving of the driver of the Lorry, to which the

Tribunal has categorically observed that the accident has occurred

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

has answered in favour of the claimant and against the

respondents. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is

concerned, the Tribunal passed a well considered order by taking

into consideration all the aspects i.e., the nature of injuries

sustained by the claimant, nature of treatment undergone by him,

medical expenses, extra diet and pain and suffering, the Tribunal

awarded an amount of Rs.30,500/- with interest @ 6% per annum.

Insofar as the liability is concerned, R.W.1 in his evidence

categorically admitted that the crime vehicle was a goods carrying

vehicle and the Investigation done by their Investigator reveals that

the claimant was traveling in the crime vehicle as Labourer for

loading and unloading the sand. He also admitted that as per the

records, on the date of accident, the crime vehicle was

transporting the sand and the policy was in force. Therefore, I see

no reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal and the

appeal is liable to be dismissed.

GSD, J Macma_1515_2008

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 03.03.2022 gkv