Telangana High Court
United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs L. Anjali on 30 August, 2024
Author: P.Sree Sudha
Bench: P.Sree Sudha
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
M.A.C.M.A.No.161 of 2022
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is filed against the Order dated 09.04.2021 in
M.V.O.P.No.2682 of 2014 passed by the learned Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal cum XIV-Additional Chief Judge
(Fast Track Court), City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
2. The petition vide M.V.O.P.No.2682 of 2014 was filed by
one L.Anjali, claiming compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- for the
injuries sustained by her in a road accident occurred on
14.02.2014. She examined herself as P.W.1 and also got
examined P.W.2 and marked Exs.A1 to A8 on her behalf and
Ex.B1 was marked on behalf of the appellant/respondent No.2.
The trial Court after considering the oral and documentary
evidence on record, directed the appellant herein to pay an
amount of Rs.8,70,000/- along with interest @ 7% per annum
from the date of filing the petition till realization, to respondent
No.1/claimant. Aggrieved by the said award, respondent No.2
therein preferred the present appeal, seeking to set aside the
Order of the trial Court.
3. The brief facts of the case are that on 14.02.2014, the
respondent No.1/petitioner, was proceeding on TVS XL Moped
along with his father, as a pillion rider. When they reached near
Katta Maisamma Temple, outskirts of Gundala, Nalgonda
District, the rider of the motor cycle bearing No.AP 24 AN 8129,
drove it with high speed in a rash and negligent manner in
opposite direction and dashed them. As a result, respondent
No.1 and her father fell down and respondent No.1 sustained
fracture of proximal right tibia, injuries to left leg, injuries on
face and other injuries all over the body. Immediately, she was
admitted in M.G.M.Hospital, Warangal. The police, Gundala,
Nalgonda District, registered a case in Cr.No.8 of 2014 under
Section 304(A) and 337 of IPC.
4. The learned Counsel for the appellant/Insurance
Company mainly contended that there was no proof regarding
the income of the respondent No.1, who sustained injuries in
the accident, but the trial Court granted excessive amount of
Rs.5,40,000/- towards future loss of earnings. Though they
stated that driver of the crime vehicle was not having valid
driving license, the tribunal instead of exonerating the liability
of the insurer, fixed the liability on them to pay compensation to
the claimant and directed to recover the same from the owner of
the vehicle. The owner of the vehicle alone was liable to pay
compensation and thus requested the Court to set aside the
Order of the trial Court.
5. Heard arguments of both sides and perused the entire
evidence on record.
6. Perusal of the Order of the trial Court shows that
respondent No.2/owner was set ex-parte. Respondent
No.1/injured was studying M.B.A, 2nd year at ABV Government
College, Jangoan, Warangal District and she was also doing
tailoring work and earning Rs.10,000/- per month. When there
was no evidence to prove her income, the trial Court observed
that in villages apart from studies, women also learn tailoring.
Therefore, considering her educational qualifications and the
nature of work, trial Court has taken her income as Rs.10,000/-
per month, as she was aged about 19 years at the time of
accident . The trial Court itself directed the Insurance Company
to pay and recover the same from the owner of the motor cycle,
but even in the appeal they sought for the same relief on the
ground that there was no valid driving license, as such there are
no merits in the present appeal and is liable to be dismissed.
7. In the result, M.A.C.M.A.No.161 of 2022 is dismissed,
confirming the Order of the trial Court dated 09.04.2021,
passed in M.V.O.P.No.2682 of 2014. There shall be no order as
to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
_________________________
JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
DATE: 30.08.2024
tri
