Telangana High Court
Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance ... vs Uppari Sunitha , R.R.Dist And 3 Others on 5 February, 2024
HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A.No.509 OF 2017
JUDGMENT:
1. The present Appeal is filed by the Insurance
Company/Respondent No.2 in M.V.O.P. aggrieved by the order
dated 24.10.2016 in M.V.O.P.No.577 of 2012, on the file of the
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum - Special Sessions Judge
for trial of cases under SCs & STs (POA) Act -cum- VII Additional
District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar (for
short, the Tribunal) and seeking to set-aside the same by allowing
the Appeal.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter be
referred as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioners, who are
wife and children of the deceased-U.Shekar had filed claim petition
under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming
compensation of Rs.7,50,000/- on account of the death of the
deceased-U.Shekar, who died in a motor vehicle accident that
occurred on 08.06.2012. It is stated by the petitioners that on
08.06.2012, when the deceased was going to attend a function at
Khajipally at 12.00 noon and when he reached cross roads on his
friend's Hero Honda Splendor Motorcycle bearing No.AP 28 AH
0355 to meet a friend near Dhundigal Thanda, the driver of one
MGP,J
Alto Car bearing No.AP 28 DG 5433 drove the said car in a rash
and negligent manner and dashed him from back side. As a result,
the deceased sustained head injury and died on the spot. Based
on a complaint, police registered a case in Crime No.310 of 2012
under Section 304-A IPC. The applicants further stated that the
deceased was aged 28 years and was hale and healthy before the
accident and used to work as Hamali and used to earn
Rs.10,000/- per month and used to contribute the same to the
family. Due to the said accident, the petitioners lost their bread
winner and finding it very difficult to eke out their livelihood and
hence filed the claim petition seeking compensation of
Rs.7,50,000/- towards the death of the deceased.
4. Respondent No.1 filed her counter stating that the Alto car in
question is not responsible for the accident and it is the lorry near
Dundigal outer ring road which caused the accident and resulted
in the death of the deceased and hence, in the absence of the
involvement of their vehicle, the claim made against them is not
maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.
5. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company filed its counter
denying the averments made in the claim petition. It also denied
the occurrence and manner of accident, involvement of the vehicle
in question, age, wages of the deceased, denied that the driver of
MGP,J
Alto Car bearing No.AP 28 DG 5433 has valid license and
subsisting insurance policy as on the date of accident and that the
deceased had valid driving license to drive the Hero Honda
Motorcycle No.AP 28 AH 0355 as on the date of accident and that
the compensation claimed is highly excess and exorbitant and
hence, prayed to dismiss the claim against them.
6. Based on the pleadings made by both the parties, the
learned Tribunal had framed the following issues:-
1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and
negligent driving of driver of Car bearing No.AP 28DG
5433?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation?
If so, from whom and to what amount?
3. To what relief?
7. In order to prove the above issues, on behalf of the
petitioners, PWs.1 to 4 were examined and Exs. A1 to A9 were got
marked on their behalf . On behalf of the respondents, RWs 1 to 3
were examined and Exs.B1 to B6 were marked in support of them.
8. The learned Tribunal, after considering the entire evidence
adduced on both sides and perusing the documents available on
record, allowed the claim petition filed by the petitioners by
awarding compensation of Rs.7,50,000/- with costs and interest @
6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit by
MGP,J
Respondent Nos.1 & 2 jointly and severally. The Respondents are
directed to deposit the said compensation within two months from
the date of order.
9. Aggrieved by the same, Respondent No.2/Insurance
Company filed the present Appeal.
10. Heard the submission of the learned Standing counsel for
Insurance Company and learned counsel for respondents. Perused
the record.
11. The contention of the learned counsel for Appellant-
Insurance Company is that the Tribunal erred in fastening the
liability on the Respondents and also contended that the Tribunal
failed to consider the fact that the Insurance company has proved
the case beyond all reasonable doubt and erroneously fastened the
liability on them.
12. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents
contended that the learned Tribunal, after considering the entire
evidence and documents available on record, awarded reasonable
compensation for which interference of this Court is unwarranted.
13. Now the points that arise for determination are,
1. Whether the order of the learned Tribunal suffers from
any irregularity?
MGP,J
2. Whether the claimants are entitled for the
compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal?
POINTS:-
14. This Court has perused the entire record and also the
evidence adduced on behalf of the petitioners. Petitioner No.1, who
is the wife of the deceased, examined as PW1. She reiterated the
contents made in the claim petition. In support of her contention,
she also got marked Ex.A1- Copy of FIR with complaint, Ex.A2-
Copy of Inquest report, Ex.A3- Copy of surrender petition of
accused in Cr.No.310/2012, Ex.A4- Copy of Post Mortem
Examination Report, Ex.A5- Copy of MVI report, Ex.A6- Certified
Copy of charge sheet, Ex.A7- Certified Copy of MVI report and
Ex.A8- Certified Copy of Post Mortem Examination Report and
Ex.A9- Copy of High Court order.
15. PW2, who is an eye witness to the accident, stated in his
evidence that on 08.06.2012 at about 12.00 noon, when he was
standing in front of Dundigan Thanda, one Alto car bearing No.AP
28DG 5433 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the
back portion of Hero Honda Splendor Motor cycle bearing No.AP 28
AH 0355. Due to that, the deceased fell down on the road and died
on the spot and the said motor cycle was completely damaged.
MGP,J
16. PW4, who is Sub-Inspector of Police, Dundigal, deposed in
his evidence that he took custody of both vehicles i.e., Alto car
bearing No.AP 28DG 5433 and Hero Honda Splendor Motor cycle
bearing No.AP 28 AH 0355 and got inspected the said Alto car and
obtained Ex.A7-Certified copy of MVI report.
17. RW2, who is the driver of the Alto car and son of Respondent
No.1, created a concocted story with regard to the alleged accident
and contended that he never dashed anyone and his car never
involved in any accident. But, in support of his contention, he had
not adduced any evidence nor filed any documents.
18. Therefore, from the evidence of PW2, who is an eye witness
to the accident, coupled with ExA6-Charge sheet and Ex.A8-Post
mortem examination report, it is made clear that the accident
occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the
Alto Car bearing No.AP 28 DG 5433 which resulted in the death of
the deceased.
19. Hence, the learned Tribunal after taking into consideration
all other aspects, has rightly reasonable compensation which
needs no interference by this Court. Hence, the Appeal is devoid of
merits and is liable to be dismissed.
MGP,J
20. In the result, the Appeal is dismissed without costs.
21. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
______________________________
JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
Dt.05.02.2024
ysk
MGP,J
HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A.No.509 OF 2017
Dt.05.02.2024
ysk
