Telangana High Court

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Raini Arun Kumar And 2 Others on 27 October, 2022

Bench: M.G.Priyadarsini

       HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI


                 M.A.C.M.A. No.95 of 2020

JUDGMENT :

This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company aggrieved

of the order and decree dated 04.07.2018 in M.V.O.P.No.180

of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-

cum-Judge, Family Court-cum-VII Additional District and

Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties have been

referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. According to the petitioner, on 27-09-2014 the claimant

and others boarded one auto bearing No. AP.23.TV.1073 at

Sangareddy to go to Sulthanpur village of Pulkal Mandal and

the auto was going slowly and when the auto reached

Sulthanpur village limits, one lorry came from Jogipet to

Sangareddy being driven by its driver in rash and negligent at

high speed and hit the auto, due to which, the claimant

received fracture injuries. Immediately he was shifted to

Government Hospital, Sangareddy and from there to higher

MGP, J MACMA.No.95 of 2020

center for better treatment and he underwent surgery. Thus,

he is claimed compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- under various

heads.

4. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained ex parte;

Respondent No.3-Insurance Company filed counter disputing

the manner of accident, nature of injuries sustained by the

petitioner. It is further contended that the compensation

claimed by the petitioner is highly excessive.

5. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the

following issues:

1. Whether the claimant sustained injuries in an accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of lorry bearing No. CG.04.E.6175?

2. Whether the claimant is entitled to compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom?

3. To what relief?

6. In order to prove the issues, PW.1 was examined and

Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. On behalf of the respondent No.3,

RW-1 was examined and Ex.B1 was marked.

MGP, J MACMA.No.95 of 2020

7. The Tribunal on considering the oral and documentary

evidence available on record, partly allowed the O.P.,

awarding a total compensation of Rs.70,000/- along with

proportionate costs and interest @ 7.5% per annum from the

date of petition till the date of realization. Aggrieved thereby,

the appellant-Insurance Company has filed this appeal.

8. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-

Insurance Company and the learned counsel for the claimant-

respondent No.1 herein. Perused the material available on

record.

9. The learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-

Insurance Company contended that the decree of the Tribunal

is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the

case and the tribunal erred in fixing the liability against the

appellant-Insurance Company, since the number of the

offending vehicle was mentioned in F.I.R. and charge sheet

are quite different. Accordingly, prayed to set aside the

impugned order in the O.P.

10. The learned counsel for the respondent No.1/claimant

contended that after evaluation of the oral and documentary

MGP, J MACMA.No.95 of 2020

evidence on record, the learned Tribunal has awarded

reasonable compensation against the respondent Nos.1 to 3

jointly and severally and the same needs no interference by

this Court.

11. With regard to the manner of accident, the evidence of

PW-1 clearly shows that the accident occurred due to the rash

and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No. CG-

04-E-6175. Even as per Exs.A1, A2 and A4, the police after

thorough investigation filed charge sheet against the driver of

the lorry for the offence punishable under Sections 337 and

338 IPC. Hence, considering the evidence of PW-1 coupled

with the documentary evidence available on record, the

tribunal rightly held that the accident occurred due to the

rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime lorry and

the petitioner sustained injuries in the said accident.

12. Coming to the quantum of compensation, through the

evidence of PW-1/petitioner coupled with documentary

evidence on record, it is clearly established that the petitioner

sustained two grievous injuries and as such, considering the

nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner, the tribunal

MGP, J MACMA.No.95 of 2020

awarded Rs.30,000/- for two grievous injuries, Rs.30,000/-

towards pain and suffering, Rs.5,000/- towards nutrition and

extra nourishment and Rs.5,000/- towards transportation.

Thus in all the tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.70,000/-

which is just and reasonable. Hence, no need to interfere

with the compensation granted by the tribunal.

13. Coming to the liability of compensation, the learned

counsel for the respondent No.3 contended that the number

of the offending vehicle was mentioned in the F.I.R. and the

charge sheet are quite different and as such, they are not

liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. While answering

the issue No.2, the Tribunal has assessed the evidence in the

following manner:

" On behalf of the respondents RW.1, who is the Administrative Officer of the branch of New India Assurance Company filed his chief affidavit and marked Ex.B.1 while contending that as per the cover note in respect of the policy, the name of the owner of the vehicle is mentioned as Puram Singh Sohan Singh and the vehicle number is mentioned as CG-04-JA-6375 which is insured with their company, whereas in the F.I.R. the crime vehicle number is mentioned as CG-04-E-

6175 so also in the charge sheet the vehicle number mentioned is different, therefore, the respondent company has not issued any policy to cover the risk of the crime vehicle CG-04-E-6175

MGP, J MACMA.No.95 of 2020

and the respondent company is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner as they did not issue the policy.

As seen from Ex.B.1 copy of policy, the name of the owner of the crime vehicle is mentioned as Puransingh Sohansingh whereas the address of the owner of the lorry is mentioned as Dashmesh Nagar Nanded and the driver of the vehicle is mentioned as Karampal Singh Puran Singh Sandhu S/o Puran Singh, which clearly indicates that the driver of the crime vehicle is none other than the son of the owner of the vehicle i.e., the respondent No.2 and he is also the owner of the said vehicle being his son. Though it is contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that the number of the crime vehicle does not tally with the policy issued by the respondent company, as seen from Ex.B.1 cover note, there is no doubt that the owner of the vehicle who insured the said vehicle is none other than the respondent No.2 herein and the name and other details of the respondent No.1 and address are tallying with the owner of the vehicle insured with the respondent No.3 and the said vehicle is a lorry. Since this is an accident case, there might have been some mistake occurred in noting the number of the crime vehicle and mentioning the same even in F.I.R. There is no evidence to rebut that the vehicle insured with the respondent No.3 is not the vehicle involved in the accident and no counter is filed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 on service of summons and they remained exparte in which case an adverse inference can be drawn that the crime vehicle and the vehicle insured with the respondent No.3 are one and the same and the number might have been noted mistakenly by the injured at the time of accident due to shock caused due to the sudden incident. Therefore, in the absence of any rebuttal evidence that the respondent No.2 is not the owner of the vehicle which is insured with the respondent No.3, there

MGP, J MACMA.No.95 of 2020

is no other option except to draw an inference that the crime vehicle is the same vehicle which is insured with the respondent No.3 for which the respondent No.2 is the owner. Therefore, the respondent Nos.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation that is to be awarded to the claimant."

The aforesaid observation of the Tribunal categorically

reflects that the respondent No.2 is the owner of the crime

vehicle which is insured with the respondent No.3, which

caused the accident. I do not find any manifest error in the

said finding arrived at by the Tribunal. Thus, I am of the

considered view that there are no valid grounds to interfere

with the cogent findings of the Tribunal. I do not find any

illegality or infirmity in the impugned order and decree,

warranting interference by this Court.

14. The appeal is devoid of merit and it is accordingly

dismissed.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand