United India Insurance Company ... vs Chitla Jyothi And 5 Ors
2024 Latest Caselaw 603 Tel

Telangana High Court

United India Insurance Company ... vs Chitla Jyothi And 5 Ors on 13 February, 2024

      THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

                   MACMA.No.705 OF 2013

JUDGMENT:

1. This appeal is preferred by the United India Insurance

Company Limited, questioning the grant of compensation of

Rs.04,01,500/- awarded in O.P.No.417 of 1998 by the Motor

Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge), Nizamabad.

2. The respondents 1 to 5 are the wife, parents and children

of the deceased.

3. The case of the claimants was that on 20.03.1998, while

the deceased was proceedings towards Mamidipalli from Old

Bus Stand, Armoor, on a scooter bearing no.AP 25/E 488,

when he reached in front of JFCM Court, Armoor, one jeep

bearing No.AP 25/E 90 driven by its driver in rash and

negligent manner at high speed and dashed the scooter of the

deceased from behind, due to which the scooter fell down and

front wheel of the jeep ran over the deceased, resulting in

multiple crush injuries and fractures and the deceased died on

the same day in Government Hospital.

4. The Tribunal examined witnesses PWs.1 to 4 and marked

Exs.A1 to A6 on behalf of the claimants and also examined

RW1 and marked Exs.B1 and B2 on behalf of the insurance

company.

5. The Tribunal found that though the claim was made that

the deceased was earning Rs.12,000/- per month, it has

considered Rs.6,000/- per month, since no proof was filed and

accordingly granted compensation.

6. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance

Company would submit that the scooter on which the deceased

was travelling did not have any number and did not have any

licence. In the Inquest Report, it was mentioned that the

deceased fell down from his scooter, sustained injuries and

later died. Even in Final report-Ex.B1, the Investigating Officer

did not implicate the driver of the offending jeep and dropped

action against the driver.

7. The Tribunal found that in Ex.A1-FIR the number of the

vehicle involved was clearly mentioned by the complainant.

During the course of examination, PW2 stated that the driver of

the jeep did not stop the jeep after hitting the scooter. The

complaint was given in the early morning on the next day.

8. The accident happened on 20.03.1998 around 10.00 p.m.

and the deceased was immediately taken to the hospital. The

complaint was lodged early in the morning at 6.00 a.m. within

eight hours of the said accident. In the said circumstances, it

cannot be said that the jeep number was either falsely stated or

that the jeep driver was not responsible for causing accident. In

the FIR itself it was clearly mentioned that the jeep had hit the

scooter which was driven by the deceased and went away

without stopping. The final report filed by the Investigating

Officer dropping action against the driver of the jeep, cannot be

made basis to refuse the relief of compensation granted to the

claimants who are the respondents 1 to 5 herein. There are no

grounds to interfere with the well reasoned order of the

Tribunal.

9. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is

dismissed.

10. This Court by order dated 04.02.2008 granted interim

stay of execution of the award on the condition of appellant

depositing entire amount of the award, including interest and

costs. In view of the dismissal of the appeal filed by the

Insurance Company, the claimants are permitted to withdraw

their respective shares without furnishing any security.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in

this appeal shall stand closed.

___________________ K.SURENDER, J Date:13.02.2024 tk