M/S United Indian Insurance ... vs Smt. Jagadamba
2022 Latest Caselaw 5222 Tel

      THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

                   M.A.C.M.A. No. 67 of 2019

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is preferred by the United India Insurance

Company Limited, questioning the award and decree, dated

29.11.2016 passed in M.V.O.P.No.86 of 2014 on the file of the

Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XII Additional

District Judge, Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District (for short, the

Tribunal).

For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties are

referred to as per their array before the tribunal.

The claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of the

Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- for

the death of the deceased, E. Pandari, who died in a motor

vehicle accident that occurred on 18.03.2014. According to the

claimants, on the fateful day, while the deceased was returning

in an auto to his village after completing his work, when the

auto reached near Sadashivuni Tank on Sadasivapet, the

offending vehicle i.e., Lorry bearing No. AP 01Y 6969, owned by

respondent No. 1 and insured with respondent No. 2, being

driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner, dashed the

MGP, J Macma_67_2019

auto in opposite direction, as a result of which, the deceased

received grievous injuries and succumbed to injuries while

undergoing treatment at Government Hospital, Sadashivapet.

According to the claimants, the deceased was 52 years, working

as Supervisor in Usha Conductors (P) Limited, Kukatpally and

drawing salary of Rs.9,750/- per month. Therefore, they laid a

claim against the respondents for Rs.15.00 lakhs towards

compensation under various heads.

Before the Tribunal, while the respondent No. 1, owner of

the lorry, stood ex parte, the respondent No. 2 contested the

claim denying the averments of the claim petition, including the

age, avocation and income of the deceased and contended that

the amount claimed is excessive and prayed to dismiss the

claim petition.

After considering the claim, counter and the evidence,

both oral and documentary brought on record, the tribunal has

allowed the O.P. in part awarding a sum of Rs.12,03,800/-

towards compensation with interest at 7.5% thereon to be paid

by the respondents jointly and severally. Hence, the insurnace

MGP, J Macma_67_2019

company filed the present appeal challenging the quantum of

compensation.

Heard both sides and perused the record.

The only contention of the learned Standing Counsel for

the appellant, insurance company, is that although the

claimants have filed Ex.A.7, salary certificate, to prove that the

deceased was working as Supervisor in Usha Conductors pvt.

Limited company, the said document does not contain the

stamp/seal of the said company which has also been admitted

by P.W.3, the alleged accountant of the company, in his cross-

examination. In such circumstances, the tribunal ought not to

have taken into consideration Ex.A.7, instead, ought to have

fixed the income of the deceased based on prevailing minimum

wages.

On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on

behalf of respondents, claimants, has contended that merely

because Ex.A.7 does not contain the seal/stamp, it should not

be brushed aside for the reason that EX. A.7 was sufficiently

proved by the evidence of P.W.3, the Accountant of the

MGP, J Macma_67_2019

Company. Therefore, the learned counsel prayed for dismissal

of the appeal.

The finding of the Tribunal with regard to the manner in

which the accident took place has become final as the same is

not challenged either by the owner or insurer of the vehicle.

As regards the quantum of compensation, considering

Ex.A.7, salary certificate, the evidence of P.W.3, the Junior

Accountant of the employer of deceased, age of the deceased as

52 years, the tribunal has granted the total compensation of Rs.

12,03,800/-, including the conventional heads, as against the

claim for Rs.15,0,000/-. Now, the learned Standing Counsel for

the insurance company vehemently argues that Ex.A.7 ought

not to have been taken into consideration by the tribunal as it

does not bear the seal/signature of the employer. But, the fact

remains that apart from Ex.A.7, the claimants got examined the

Accountant of the employer as P.W.3, who specifically deposed

that the deceased was working as Supervisor in Usha

Conductors Private Limited, Kukatpally and was drawing

monthly salary of Rs.9,750/-. Nothing contra, in this regard, is

elicited in his cross-examination. Even the insurance company

MGP, J Macma_67_2019

has not let in any contra evidence to disprove the avocation or

Ex.A.7, salary certificate. In such circumstances, the tribunal

has rightly taken into consideration Ex.A.7, salary certificate,

for fixing the compensation. Since no other ground is raised by

the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant, 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

award and decree passed by the Tribunal. There shall be no

order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand

closed.

_________________________ JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI 20.10.2022 Tsr/mnv