Shriram General Insurance ... vs Nimmala Krishna Reddy, Hyd 5 Othrs
2023 Latest Caselaw 784 Tel

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 784 Tel
Judgement Date : 14 February, 2023

Telangana High Court

Shriram General Insurance ... vs Nimmala Krishna Reddy, Hyd 5 Othrs on 14 February, 2023

Bench: Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao

                                   1                                  RRN,J
                                                       MACMA No.3563 of 2014


 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

                    M.A.C.M.A.No.3563 OF 2014

JUDGMENT:

This MACMA is filed under Section 173 of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 by the Insurance company aggrieved by the

order and decree dt.25.04.2012 passed in M.V.O.P.No.744 of 2010

by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Special

Sessions Judge for trial of SCs/STs (POA) Cases-cum-Additional

District Judge, Nalgonda (for short "the Tribunal").

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 30-05-2010, after

attending a function, the deceased, who was the husband of

respondent no.3 herein, was returning home on his motor cycle

bearing No.Ap-13-M-5835 and at about 11.45PM, when he was

taking right turn at Rethibowli cross raods, one Winger vehicle

bearing No.AP-28-TB-6495, driven by its driver in a rash and

negligent manner at high speed dashed the motor cycle of the

deceased. As a result, the deceased was succumbed to the injuries.

The respondents Nos.1-5 filed claim petition against the

Appellant/Insurance Company and the owner of the crime vehicle

seeking compensation of Rs.10.02 lakhs.

                                  2                               RRN,J
                                                  MACMA No.3563 of 2014

3. The owner of the vehicle remained ex-parte and the

appellant/Insurance Company filed counter denying the petition

allegations.

4. The respondents Nos.1 to 5 to prove their case, got

examined PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A5. No oral or

documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the

appellant/Insurance Company.

5. On consideration of evidence, the Tribunal allowed the

claim petition in part by awarding compensation of Rs.7,50,000/-

payable by the appellant/Insurance Company only. Challenging

the same, the present appeal is filed by the appellant/Insurance

company.

6. Heard both sides and perused the record.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance

company contended that the Tribunal erred in granting the

compensation and submitted that there was negligence on the part

of the deceased and further contended that income proof of the

deceased was not filed inasmuch as Ex.A5/Hamali license was

expired.

                                    3                                 RRN,J
                                                      MACMA No.3563 of 2014

8. Per contra, the learned Counsel appearing for the

respondent Nos.1 to 5 contended that the Tribunal was justified in

passing the impugned award and prayed to dismiss the appeal.

9. This Court having considered the rival submissions of

both parties is of the considered view that the Tribunal was justified

in passing the impugned order as the appellants failed to adduce

either oral or documentary evidence to disprove the claim of the

respondent Nos.1 to 5 other than making allegations that there was

negligence on part of the deceased and that the Ex.A5 license was

expired. The Tribunal rightly assessed the income of the deceased

and granted just compensation under all applicable heads.

Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned