Relance General Insurance ... vs B Kumar
2023 Latest Caselaw 1274 Tel

         HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

                     M.A.C.M.A. No.566 of 2018

JUDGMENT:

Questioning the order and decree dated 29.11.2017 in

M.V.O.P.No.2195 of 2011 on the file of the Chairman, Motor

Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XIV Additional Chief Judge, City

Civil Courts, Hyderabad.

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

arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The brief facts of the case are that, on 26.06.2011 at about 6-30

p.m., when the petitioner traveling with his friend Ch.Kumar on

motorcycle bearing No. AP 28 DE 4750 from Pedda Thupra village to

Thimmapur road and when they reached Thimmapur station road on

National Highway No.7, suddenly a mini bus bearing No. AP 28 DE

9758 came from Hyderabad side with high speed in a rash and

negligent manner and dashed the said motorcycle. Due to which, the

petitioner sustained grievous injuries i.e., rush injury on left foot and

other multiple injuries. Immediately he was shifted to Trident

Hospital, Shamshabad for treatment. It is further contended that the

petitioner was aged 19 years, student and earning Rs.4,500/- per month

by taking tuitions but due to the accident, he was bed ridden for a long

period and could not attend his duties and has become disabled and not

able to attend his regular duties. Hence he filed the claim petition for

Rs.2,50,000/- against the respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally.

4. Respondent No.1 remained exparte. Respondent No.2 filed

counter disputing the manner in which the accident occurred, age,

avocation, income, health condition of the petitioner/claimant and the

nature of injuries sustained by him. It is further contended that the

driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective

driving license and therefore, prays to dismiss the petition.

5. In order to prove the issues, on behalf of the petitioners, PWs.1

to 3 was 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 Exs.B1 to B4

were marked.

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

Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.1,70,202/- towards

compensation to the claimant along with proportionate costs and

interest @ 7% per annum from the date of petition till the date of

realization against the respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally.

7. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-respondent

No.2 Insurance Company and the learned Counsel for the claimant.

Perused the material available on record.

8. The main contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the

appellant-Insurance Company is that the driver of the mini bus bearing

No.AP 28 DE 9758 is not having valid and effective driving license as

on the date of accident but the tribunal without considering the same,

has fixed the liability against the respondent No.2. Hence prays to

allow the appeal.

9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent

No.1/claimant submitted that the tribunal after considering all the

aspects has partly allowed the petition and awarded compensation by

fixing the liability against the respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and

severally.

10. Perused the record. Coming to the manner of accident, the

tribunal has framed issue No.1 as to "Whether the accident took place

due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing No. AP 24 T

9758 causing injuries to the petitioner', answered the issue considering

Ex.A1 First Information Report, Ex.A2 charge sheet coupled with the

evidence of PW-1 and answered the issue in favour of the petitioner

and against the respondents. Therefore, interference of this Court is not

necessary as the tribunal after considering all the aspects and the

evidence on record came to a right conclusion that the accident

occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the mini

bus.

11. Coming to the quantum of compensation, Dr.V.S.R.Naik,

Consultant Orthopedic Surgeon, who treated the petitioner at Trident

Hospital, Shamshabad deposed that the petitioner has sustained i)

avulsion injury of left sole with complete avulsion over the left

calcaneum and ii) loss of skin over the medical aspect of left foot with

dislocation of the ankle joint, which are grievous in nature and he was

discharged from the hospital on 6.7.2011 after recovery. Billing in-

charge of Trident Hospital by name Mahaboob Pasha was examined as

PW-3, deposed that the petitioner has paid Rs.1,12,202/- towards

hospital and medical bills. Ex.A5 and Ex.A6 bunch of medical bills.

Therefore, considering the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 coupled with the

documentary evidence available on record, the tribunal awarded an

amount of Rs.1,12,202/- towards treatment and medical expenses,

Rs.3,000/- towards transportation charges, Rs.5,000/- towards extra

nourishment to the petitioner for the injuries sustained by him and the

treatment taken by him. Further the tribunal also awarded an amount

of Rs.50,000/- towards pain and sufferance. Thus in all, the petitioner

is awarded an amount of Rs.1,70,202/-, which is just and reasonable.

Therefore, interference of this Court is not necessary in this aspect.

12. Coming to the liability, the learned Standing Counsel for the

Insurance Company contended that the driver of the offending vehicle

was not having valid and effective driving license at the time of

accident and as such, they are not liable to pay compensation to the

petitioner. However, Ex.A2 charge sheet shows that the police after

thorough investigation filed charge sheet against the driver of the

offending vehicle for the offences punishable under Sections 337 and

338 IPC and they have not filed charge sheet for the offence punishable

under Section 181 of Motor Vehicles Act. Furthermore except taking

the plea that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid

driving license at the time of accident, respondents have not adduced

any evidence to show that the driver of the offending vehicle is not

having valid driving license at the time of accident. Furthermore, they

did not examine the Regional Transport Authority officials to prove the

same. Under these circumstances, mere taking plea and putting

suggestions without any cogent evidence is of no consequences and

therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is

unsustainable. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the

considered opinion that interference of this Court is unwarranted as the

tribunal considered all the aspects.

13. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as

to costs.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

____________________________ JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI 16.03.2023 pgp