United India Ins. Co. Ltd., ... vs Smt N Begum, Nizamabad Dist 5 ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 1510 Tel

                          1                                RRN,J
                                              MACMA No.266 of 2016



 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

                 M.A.C.M.A.No.266 of 2016

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the appellant/Insurance

Company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act,

aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 13.11.2015

passed in M.V.O.P. No.813 of 2010 by the Chairman, Motor

Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge,

Nizamabad (for short "the Tribunal").

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

hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed before the

Tribunal.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners filed a

claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,

1988, claiming compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- on the death

of Gulam Kamaluddin (hereinafter referred to as the

deceased), who is the husband of the 1st petitioner and father

of the 2nd petitioner. It is stated that on 19.05.2008, the

deceased boarded the Auto bearing No.AP25-V-1731 at 2 RRN,J M.A.C.M.A.No.266 of 2016

Khudvanpur to go to Nandipet and at about 9.30 a.m. when

the Auto reached near Yellammagudi road at Khudvanpur

Shivar, the driver of the Auto drove it in a rash and negligent

manner and at the same time, respondent No.2 rider of the

Yamaha Motor Cycle No.AP25-J-4408 also drove the

motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner in a high speed

and both vehicles dashed each other, due to which, the

deceased suffered grievous injuries to his stomach.

Immediately, he was shifted to Government Hospital,

Nizamabad and later shifted to Amrutha Laxmi Hospital,

Nizamabad, for better treatment, but he succumbed to

injuries on 21.05.2008. Hence, the claim petition.

4. Respondent Nos.1, 4 and 5 filed their respective

counters denying the allegations made in the petition.

5. To prove their case, the petitioners examined PWs.1

and 2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A7. On behalf of the

respondents, RWs.1 and 2 were examined and got marked

Exs.B1 and B2.

3 RRN,J M.A.C.M.A.No.266 of 2016

6. On appreciation of the evidence on record, the

Tribunal allowed the O.P. in part by awarding compensation

of Rs.5,63,000/- to the petitioners. Challenging the same,

the present appeal is filed by the 5th respondent/Insurance

Company.

7. Heard both sides and perused the record.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the

appellant/Insurance Company inter alia contended that the

Tribunal erred in giving a finding that the accident occurred

due to rash and negligent driving of Auto bearing No.AP25-V-

1731 and ought to have considered contributory negligence

on the part of both vehicles. The Tribunal further erred in

fixing the age of the deceased and also in not considering the

evidences of RWs.1 and 2 and Exs.B1 and B2. Accordingly,

prayed to allow the appeal.

9. Learned Counsel appearing for the

respondents/petitioners contended that the Tribunal was

justified in passing the impugned order, which calls for no 4 RRN,J M.A.C.M.A.No.266 of 2016

interference by this Court. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the

appeal.

10. This Court having considered the submissions of both

parties is of the considered view that the Tribunal was

justified in passing the impugned order as the evidence

adduced by respondent No.5 by examining RWs 1 and 2, is of

no avail as they are not eyewitnesses to the accident, as such,

there is no reason to disbelieve the version of the police vide

Ex.A3/charge-sheet, which shows that both i.e. driver of the

Auto and rider of the motorcycle were negligent in causing

the accident, and leading to the death of the deceased. The

Tribunal cautiously weighed the evidence on both sides and

awarded compensation to the petitioners/claimants under

various heads, to the tune of Rs.5,63,000/- which is

reasonable. In these circumstances, this Court is not inclined

to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal and the

appeal is liable to be dismissed.

11. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed by

confirming the decree and judgment dated 13.11.2015, 5 RRN,J M.A.C.M.A.No.266 of 2016

passed in M.V. O.P. No.813 of 2010 by the Tribunal. There

shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand

closed.

_____________________________________ NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J

3rd day of April, 2023 PNS/BDR