Reliance General Insurance ... vs Gaddam Narsi Reddy Anr
2023 Latest Caselaw 1208 Tel

           HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

                     M.A.C.M.A. No.3045 of 2016

JUDGMENT:

Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by

the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Special Sessions Judge for

trail of SCs/STs (POA) Cases-cum-Additional District Judge, Nalgonda

in O.P. No. 830 of 2009 dated 25.08.2015, the present appeal is filed by

the Appellant/2nd Respondent-Reliance General Insurance Company

Limited.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties have been referred to as

arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. According to the petitioner, he is an agriculturist and is a resident

of Kothagudem Village of Tipparthy mandal, Nalgonda District. On

11.05.2009 at about 08:00 A.M. the petitioner was proceeding on a motor

cycle bearing No. AP 24 S 1833 from his house to Mosambi garden

situated at Kothagudem village outskirts and when he reached near

poultry farm at Kothagudem village outskirts, driver of the Maruthi Alto

car bearing No. AP 09 AU 3022 came in rash and negligent manner with

high speed from the back side and dashed against his motor cycle, as a

result, he sustained injuries on his head, right frontal bone fracture,

comminuted depressed fracture with pneumocephalus, fracture of maxilla

left and other simple injuries. According to the petitioner, he is an

agriculturist and used to earn Rs.2,00,000/- per annum. Due to the

accident, he became permanently disabled. Thus the petitioner claimed

compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- against the respondent Nos.1 and 2 who

are owner and insurer of the offending vehicle jointly and severally.

4. Respondent No.1 filed counter disputing the manner in which the

accident occurred, nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner and the

treatment taken by him.

5. Respondent No.2 filed counter disputing the manner in which the

accident occurred, age, avocation and income of the petitioner and the

injuries sustained by him. It is further contended that the compensation

amount granted is highly excessive and therefore, prays to dismiss the

petition.

6. In order to prove their case, on behalf of the petitioner, PWs.1 and

2 were examined and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-7. On behalf of

respondent No.2, RW.1 and R.W.2 were examined and Ex.B1 to B3 were

marked.

7. On considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the

Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.2,94,440/- towards compensation

to the claimant along with proportionate costs and interest @ 8% per

annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit against the

respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally.

8. A perusal of the impugned judgment discloses that the tribunal

having framed issue No.1 as, "Whether the petitioner sustained injuries

due to rash and negligent driving of the Maruthi Alto bearing No.AP 9

AU 3022", duly considering the evidence of PW-1 who is the injured

coupled with the documentary evidence under Ex.A1 First Information

Report, Ex.A2 charge sheet, Ex.A3 scene of offence panchanama along

with rough sketch, has categorically held that the accident occurred due to

the rash and negligent driving of the driver of Maruti Alto bearing No.AP

9 AU 3022. Therefore, I see no reasons to interfere with the finding of

the tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent

driving of the driver of the offending vehicle.

9. The main contention of the learned Standing Counsel of the

appellant-Insurance Company is that the appellant-Insurance Company

has not issued policy to the crime vehicle and the policy cover note

No.109000212527 which is valid from 25.8.2008 to 24.8.2009 was issued

to one Bajaj Auto three wheeler pickup van and the tribunal ought to have

seen that the policy has been fabricated by the respondent No.1/owner of

the vehicle by using the said cover note. Therefore, prays to allow the

appeal by setting aside the order of the tribunal.

10. Per contra, the learned counsel for the claimant submitted that the

tribunal after considering all the aspects has awarded just and reasonable

compensation. Hence, interference of this Court is not necessary.

11. This Court has perused the evidence of RWs.1 and 2. RW-1

evidence shows that he has insured the crime vehicle with the respondent

No.2 vide Ex.B2 cover note bears the policy number as '109000212527'.

According to the learned Standing Counsel for Insurance Company,

Ex.B2 was never issued by their Company. Further Ex.A5 Form No.54

which was filed by the claimant shows that the policy number as

'109000212527' and it is also the evidence of RW-1 insured is that after

the accident he has handed over all the documents including the cover

note to Thipparthy Police. The evidence of RW-2 who is the Assistant

Manager of respondent No.2 - Insurance Company discloses that they

have never issued policy for the crime vehicle and it belongs to one Bajaj

Auto Limited three wheeler pick up van bearing No. AP 31 U 8587 valid

from 17.5.2009 to 16.5.2010. However, except stating that the policy

under Ex.B2 was issued only to one Bajaj auto limited three wheeler

pickup van but he has not taken any steps to give complaint to the police

nor issued notice to the respondent No.1 or publish in the news item.

12. Therefore, considering the evidence and the documents filed by the

respondent No.2, the trial Court has rightly came to the conclusion that

the insurer can prove its plea regarding fake policy or fraud in a

proceeding under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act and held that the

Insurance Company held liable to pay the compensation. Therefore,

contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-Insurance

Company is unsustainable. In view of the foregoing discussion, the

Insurance Company cannot evade the liability of paying compensation to

the petitioner, as they have to indemnify the first respondent/owner of the

offending vehicle as the policy was in force as on the date of accident.

13. Coming to the quantum of compensation, the claimant has

sustained three grievous injuries in the said accident. Immediately after

the accident, he was shifted to Government Hospital, Nalgonda and after

first aid, he was shifted to Yashoda Hospital and then he took treatment in

different private hospitals. Further PW-2 the doctor who treated PW-1 at

Yashoda Hospital, deposed that on 11.5.2009 PW-1 was admitted in their

hospital and he was discharged on 27.5.2009. He sustained three

grievous injuries. He also stated that Ex.A7 bills were issued by their

hospital. Therefore, considering the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 coupled

with the documentary evidence available on record, the tribunal rightly

awarded an amount of Rs.2,29,440/- towards medical expenses,

Rs.45,000/- for three grievous injuries @ Rs.15,000/- for each grievous

injury, Rs.10,000/- towards pain and sufferance and Rs.10,000/- towards

extra nourishment. Thus in all, the tribunal awarded an amount of

Rs.2,94,440/- under various heads. Further the petitioner has not filed

any appeal or cross objections and not disputed the amount awarded by

the tribunal. Hence, this Court is of the considered opinion that the

tribunal has rightly awarded the reasonable compensation with well

reasoned calculation and interference of this Court is unwarranted.

14. In view of the foregoing discussion regarding the contentions of the

learned counsel for the appellant, this Court is of the considered view that

the appeal is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

____________________________ JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

14.03.2023.

pgp