Telangana High Court
M/S.Oriental Insurance Company ... vs Basakonda Manisa , Manasa And 5 Ors on 14 February, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A.No.1574 of 2017
JUDGMENT:
1. The present Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is
directed against judgment and decree dated 27.02.2017 in
M.V.O.P.No.784 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal (Principal District Judge) at Nizamabad (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Tribunal'). The said M.V.O.P. filed by the
petitioners therein seeking compensation for death of one
Basakonda Sanjeev (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased') in an
accident that occurred on 23.02.2012 was allowed. Aggrieved by
the same, the present appeal is filed at the instance of respondent
No.2 before the Tribunal i.e., the insurance company.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter
referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. It is the case of the petitioners that petitioner No.1 is wife,
petitioner No.2 is son, petitioner Nos.3 and 4 are parents and
petitioner No.5 is daughter of the deceased. The petitioners have
filed the present case seeking compensation of Rs.12,00,000/- for
death of the deceased, who died in a road traffic accident that
occurred on 23.02.2012. According to the petitioners, on
MGP,J
MACMA_1574_2017
23.02.2012 at about 06:30 PM, the deceased was riding his motor
cycle along with pillion rider Koudalingam, near Lalithamba
Ashramam on National Highway No.63 road, Kammarpally shivar,
one tipper lorry bearing No.AP 25 V 8866 (hereinafter referred to
as 'crime vehicle') came from opposite direction being driven by its
driver in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motor
cycle of the deceased. Due to which the accident occurred and the
deceased died. With regard to the accident, a case was registered
in Crime No.16 of 2012 on the file of the Kammarapally Police
Station under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. It is
further case of the petitioners that the deceased was aged about
22 years as on the date of the accident. He was being paid an
amount of Rs.25,000/- per month. Therefore, the petitioners filed
the present petition seeking compensation for death of the
deceased.
4. Respondent No.1 remained ex parte. Respondent No.2 filed
its counter denying the averments of the claim petition such as
age, wages and manner of the accident and also negligence of the
driver of the crime vehicle. It is contended that the driver of the
crime vehicle was not having valid and effective driving license as
MGP,J
MACMA_1574_2017
on the date of the accident. It is also contended that the accident
occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the deceased.
Further, as the claim of the petitioners is excess and exorbitant,
prayed to dismiss the claim petition.
5. In support of their case, the petitioners got examined
petitioner No.1 as P.W.1 and also examined P.W.2 and got marked
Exs.A-1 to A-5. On behalf of respondent No.2, no witnesses were
examined, but Ex.B-1 was got marked.
6. After considering the pleadings and evidence on record, the
Tribunal held that the petitioners have successfully established
their case. Hence, the claim petition was allowed holding that
both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay
compensation of Rs.12,00,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, the
present appeal is filed at the instance of respondent No.2 i.e.,
insurance company.
7. Heard, both sides.
8. The main contention of the learned counsel for the
appellant/respondent No.2 is that the driver of the crime vehicle
was not holding valid driving license as on the date of the accident
MGP,J
MACMA_1574_2017
and without considering the same, the Tribunal has awarded
compensation. Hence, prayed to set aside impugned order by
allowing the present appeal.
9. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to
5/petitioners contended that the Tribunal after considering all the
aspects has granted just and reasonable compensation and
interference of this Court is unwarranted. Hence, prayed to
dismiss the appeal.
10. Now point for determination is as follows:
"Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation as
granted by the Tribunal?"
Point:-
11. This Court has perused the entire evidence and documents
placed on record by both the parties. Petitioner No.1 got
examined herself as P.W.1 and reiterated the contents of the claim
petition, got marked Exs.A-1 to A-5. As P.W.1 is not eyewitness to
the accident, she got examined P.W.2, who witnessed the accident.
P.W.2 deposed that on 23.02.2012 while the deceased was going
to Kammarpally on his bike, the crime vehicle coming in high
speed in rash and negligent manner dashed the motorcycle of the
MGP,J
MACMA_1574_2017
deceased, due to which the accident occurred and he died on the
spot. He also deposed that the accident occurred due to rash and
negligent driving of the driver of crime vehicle. In the cross-
examination, he admitted that he did not give complaint to police
with regard to the accident and stated that the deceased belong to
his village. He denied that there was no rash and negligent
driving on the part of driver of the crime vehicle. In the said
circumstances, considering all the said aspects the Tribunal
rightly arrived at the conclusion that the accident occurred due to
the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle
alone and accordingly, awarded compensation to the petitioners.
12. Now, coming to the aspect of driving license, the learned
counsel for the appellant/respondent No.2 contended that the
driver of the crime vehicle was not having valid driving license as
on the date of the accident. It is pertinent to state that
admittedly, respondent No.2/insurance company has not adduced
any evidence or did not seek to summon and examine the Road
Transport Authority officials to prove that the driver of the crime
vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving license as on the
date of the accident. Furthermore, a perusal of certified copy of
MGP,J
MACMA_1574_2017
First Information Report under Ex.A-1 and copy of charge sheet
under Ex.A-2 disclose that on complaint Kammarpally police
registered case in Crime No.16 of 2012 under Section 304-A of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 and after thorough investigation charge
sheet was laid against the driver of the crime vehicle. This shows
that no case was registered by the police under the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988, for non-production of driving license and also to show
that there was negligence on the part of the deceased. Under
these circumstances, the contention of the learned counsel for the
appellant/respondent No.2 that the driver of the crime vehicle was
not having valid and effective driving license as on the date of
accident is unsustainable.
13. Coming to the compensation, the Tribunal after considering
all the aspects such as age, wages and occupation of the deceased
has granted just and reasonable compensation of Rs.12,00,000/-,
for which interference of this Court is unwarranted. Hence, the
appeal is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.
14. In the result, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal
is dismissed confirming the judgment and decree dated
27.02.2017 in M.V.O.P.No.784 of 2012 on the file of the Motor
MGP,J
MACMA_1574_2017
Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge) at
Nizamabad. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous
applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.
______________________________
JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
Date: 14.02.2024
GVR
