The United India Insurance Co Ltd, ... vs Nakka Naga Raju, Nalgonda Dist ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 582 Tel

        HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

                 M.A.C.M.A. No.468 of 2017

JUDGMENT :

This appeal is filed by the United India Insurance

Company Limited aggrieved of the order and decree dated

15.11.2016 in O.P.No.982 of 2011 on the file of the

Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional

District Judge (I Fast Track Court), Nalgonda.

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

referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. According to the petitioner, on 28-07-2010 the

petitioner along with his brother and sister viz., Shivaraju and

Susheela started from Nalgonda and were proceeding towards

Hyderabad in an Indica Car bearing No. AP 24 L 5556 and the

driver of the car driving the same in a moderate speed and at

about 00-30 when they reached the outskirts of

Peddakaparthy village, at that time one DCM van bearing No.

AP 10 T 5910 came from the opposite direction in a rash and

negligent manner at high speed and dashed their car. Due to

which the inmates of the car sustained grievous injuries.

MGP, J MACMA_468_2017

According to the petitioner, he was aged 28 years, working as

driver and earning Rs.8,000/- per month. Due to the said

accident he became permanently disabled. Thus the

petitioners claimed compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- under

various heads against the respondent Nos.1 and 2, who are

the owner and insurer of the DCM van jointly and severally.

4. Respondent No.1 remained ex parte; Respondent No.2

filed counter disputing the manner of accident, age, income,

avocation and health condition of the petitioner, nature of

injuries sustained by the petitioner and treatment taken by

him.

5. In order to prove his case, petitioner was examined

himself as PW-1 and Exs.A1 to A3 were marked. On behalf of

the respondent No.2, RW-1 was examined and Ex.B1 was

marked.

6. The Tribunal on considering the oral and documentary

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

awarding a total compensation of Rs.56,000/- along with

proportionate costs and interest @ 7.5% per annum from the

date of petition till the date of realization against the

MGP, J MACMA_468_2017

respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally. Aggrieved

thereby, the appellant-Insurance Company has filed this

appeal.

7. 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.

8. The learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-

Insurance Company contended that the accident occurred

due to the negligence on the part of the driver of Indica car in

which the injured was travelling and there is no negligence on

the part of the DCM van driver. Further it is contended that

the driver of the DCM van was not having valid driving license

at the time of accident and as such, he was charge sheeted for

the under Section 181 of Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore,

prayed to set aside the impugned order in the O.P.

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

contended that though he established his claim by examining

himself as PW-1 and also got filed Exs.A1 to A3, the tribunal

MGP, J MACMA_468_2017

awarded meager amount and therefore, seeking enhancement

of compensation.

10. With regard to the manner of accident, except stating

that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent

driving of the driver of the DCM van, there is no rebuttal

evidence produced by the respondent No.2-Insurance

Company in support of their contention. However, after

evaluating the evidence of PW-1 coupled with documentary

evidence available on record, the Tribunal rightly held that

the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the

driver of the offending vehicle.

11. Coming to the quantum of compensation, according to

the petitioner, he sustained i) grievous injury on right eye lid,

ii) grievous injury on inner side of upper lip, iii) laceration

below lower lip, i8v) grievous injury on chin, v) abrasion on

chin, vi) laceration on caramella of the nose, vii) abrasion on

left cheek and other injuries all over the body. Ex.A2 certified

copy of Medical Certificate issued by Kamineni Institute of

Medical Sciences, Narketpally shows that he sustained two

grievous sinjuries and five simple injuries. Therefore,

MGP, J MACMA_468_2017

considering the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner

and the treatment taken by him, the tribunal awarded

Rs.30,000/- for two grievous injuries @ Rs.15,000/- for each

grievous injury, Rs.10,000/- for five simple injuries @

Rs.2,000/- for each simple injury, Rs.8,000/- towards

medicines and investigation charges, Rs.1,000/- towards

transport charges, Rs.2,000/- towards food and extra

nourishment charges and Rs.5,000/- towards loss of

earnings. Thus in all the petitioner awarded Rs.56,000/-,

which is just and reasonable. Therefore, there is no reason to

interfere with the findings of the tribunal in this aspect.

12. With regard to the liability, it is contended by the

appellant-Insurance Company that the driver of the offending

vehicle was not having valid driving license and the police also

filed charge sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle

for the offence under Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

However, except examining the Administrative Officer of their

Company, they have not adduced any evidence or examined

the concerned Regional Transport Authority officials to show

that the driver of the DCM van was not holding valid and

effective driving license. It is also pertinent to state that

MGP, J MACMA_468_2017

neither the petitioner nor the respondents did not file the

charge sheet to show that the driver of the offending vehicle

was prosecuted for the offence under Section 181 of Motor

Vehicles Act. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that the

charge sheet has been filed against the driver of DCM van.

Under these circumstances, the contention of the learned

counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company cannot be

sustained and it is hereby rejected. Therefore, in view of the

above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that there are

no valid grounds to interfere with the cogent findings given by

the Tribunal and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

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

dismissed.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

closed.

_______________________________ JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

06.02.2023

pgp