Telangana High Court
M/S. United India Insurance Company ... vs Ameena Begum on 22 January, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A.No.3320 of 2018
JUDGMENT:
1. The present Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is
directed against judgment and decree dated 13.07.2018 in
M.V.O.P.No.2490 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal-cum-II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court,
Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'). The said
M.V.O.P. filed by the petitioners therein seeking compensation for
death of one Syed Wajeed Siddiq (hereinafter referred to as
'deceased') in an accident that occurred on 24.05.2016 was partly
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 mother
and petitioner No.2 is brother of the deceased. The petitioners
filed the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-
under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, on account of
death of the deceased. According to the petitioners, on
MGP,J
MACMA_3320_2018
24.05.2016 at about 03:00 PM, the deceased was proceeding in an
auto bearing No.AP 28 V 8369 from Nizamabad to Hyderabad,
when he reached opposite to Hamari Mitti Vidyalaya on National
Highway No.44, near Kupriya Stage, Sadashiv Nagar, a TATA Ace
auto bearing No.AP 25 W 6547 (hereinafter referred to as 'crime
vehicle') being driven by its driver in high speed in rash and
negligent manner in wrong route, dashed the auto, in which the
deceased was travelling. As a result, the deceased sustained
multiple injuries and he succumbed to the said injuries, on the
way, while he was being shifted to Government Hospital,
Kamareddy. In this regard, a case was registered in Crime No.71
of 2016 under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
4. It is further case of the petitioners that the deceased was
aged about 26 years and hale and healthy as on the date of the
accident. He was expert in pan making and working as salesman
at Panshop at Bavarchi Restaurant, Erragadda, Hyderabad, and
was drawing salary of Rs.15,000/- per month. The deceased used
to maintain his family consisting of the petitioners and due to
sudden death of the deceased, the petitioners being dependants
on the deceased suffered loss of love and
MGP,J
MACMA_3320_2018
affection, loss of dependency etc,. Therefore, the petitioners filed
the present claim petition seeking compensation from respondent
Nos.1 and 2, who are owner and insurer of the crime vehicle.
5. Respondent No.1 remained ex parte. Respondent No.2 filed
its counter denying the averments of the claim petition such as
age, occupation, wages, and manner of the accident and also
negligence of the driver of the crime vehicle. It is also contended
that the claim of the petitioners is excess and exorbitant. Hence,
prayed to dismiss the claim petition.
6. In support of their case, the petitioners got examined P.Ws.1
to 3 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-6. On behalf of respondent
No.2, no witnesses were examined, but Ex.B-1 was got marked.
7. After considering the pleadings and evidence on record, the
Tribunal held that the petitioners have successfully established
their case. Hence, the claim petition was partly allowed holding
that both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay
compensation of Rs.7,86,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, the
present appeal is filed at the instance of respondent No.2 i.e.,
insurance company.
MGP,J
MACMA_3320_2018
8. Heard, both sides.
9. The main contention of the learned counsel for the
appellant/respondent No.2 is that the Tribunal has not considered
the contributory negligence by both vehicles involved in the
accident. Further, without there being proper evidence the
Tribunal has awarded huge amount towards compensation to the
petitioners. Hence, prayed to allow the appeal and set aside the
impugned order passed by the Tribunal.
10. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and
2/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.
11. Now point for determination is as follows:
"Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation as
granted by the Tribunal?"
Point:-
12. This Court has perused the entire evidence and documents
placed on record by both the parties. Petitioner No.1 got
MGP,J
MACMA_3320_2018
examined herself as P.W.1, reiterated the contents of the claim
petition got marked Exs.A-1 to A-6. 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 the date of the accident, he was standing in
front of a puncture shop at a distance of 15 feet from the place of
the accident and he witnessed the accident. He deposed that the
accident was only due to the negligence of the driver of the crime
vehicle. The driver of the crime vehicle came in wrong direction
and caused the accident. In cross-examination, P.W.2 denied the
suggestions put to him. The petitioners also got examined P.W.3,
who is owner of the pan shop in which the deceased was working
as salesman.
13. Admittedly, Ex.A-1 copy of the First Information Report
shows that based on complaint a case was registered in Crime
No.71 of 2016 under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 and after thorough investigation charge sheet under Ex.A-2
was laid against the driver of the crime vehicle by the police.
Ex.A-3 is inquest report and the same discloses that the deceased
was working in a pan shop. Ex.A-4 postmortem examination
report discloses that the deceased died in a road traffic accident.
MGP,J
MACMA_3320_2018
Ex.A-5 is copy of motor vehicle inspector report, which shows that
the accident has not occurred due to any mechanical default in
the crime vehicle. Therefore, it is clear that on 24.05.2016 an
accident occurred, deceased died in the said accident.
14. Learned counsel for the appellant/respondent No.2 mainly
contended that the Tribunal failed to take into consideration the
contributory negligence by both vehicles involved in the accident.
It is pertinent to state that a perusal of Ex.A-2 certified copy of
charge sheet clearly shows that after thorough investigation the
Investigating Officer opined that the accident occurred only due to
the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle.
Hence, charge sheet was filed only against him. In the said
circumstances, the Tribunal has rightly arrived at the conclusion
that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the auto,
in which the deceased was travelling at the time of the accident.
Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the
appellant/respondent No.2 that the Tribunal failed to take into
consideration the contributory negligence of the driver of auto in
which the deceased was travelling is unsustainable.
MGP,J
MACMA_3320_2018
15. Coming to the aspects of age and salary of the deceased, the
petitioners contended that the deceased was aged about 26 years
as on the date of the accident and he was earning an amount of
Rs.15,000/- per month by working as sales man in pan shop. In
this regard, the petitioners relied upon the salary certificate of the
deceased under Ex.A-6 to prove his monthly income.
16. Learned counsel for the appellant/respondent No.2 i.e., the
insurance company contended that the petitioners have not filed
any age proof to show that the deceased was 26 years as on the
date of the accident. It is pertinent to state that the petitioners
have not filed any age proof to show the age of the deceased. In
the said circumstances, the Tribunal relied upon the postmortem
examination report under Ex.A-4 to come to the conclusion that
the deceased was 26 years as on the date of the accident.
Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that said aspect has rightly
been considered by the Tribunal and interference of this Court is
not necessary.
17. Coming to the income of the deceased, the petitioner relied
upon the evidence of P.W.3, who is employer of the deceased and
also Ex.A-6 original salary certificate of the deceased, which shows
MGP,J
MACMA_3320_2018
that the deceased was earning an amount of Rs.15,000/- per
month towards salary. However, the Tribunal has not taken into
consideration the evidence of P.W.3 and Ex.A-6 i.e., salary
certificate, as P.W.3 has not brought any record pertaining to the
payment of salary to the deceased, who was working as sales man
in pan shop. In the cross-examination, P.W.3 admitted that he is
not maintaining any record to show the payment of salary to the
deceased. Hence, the Tribunal held that except oral evidence and
self serving salary certificate issued by P.W.3 under Ex.A-6, there
is no concrete evidence placed on record by the petitioners to
show that the deceased was working as salesman under P.W.3
and he was being paid an amount of Rs.15,000/- per month
towards salary. Therefore, the Tribunal has considered the salary
of the deceased as Rs.5,000/- per month, which is just and
reasonable and interference of this Court into the said aspect is
unwarranted.
18. In the said circumstances, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the Tribunal after considering all the aspects has
awarded just and reasonable compensation to the petitioners, as
such interference of this Court is unwarranted. Hence, the
MGP,J
MACMA_3320_2018
contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/respondent
No.2 that without there being proper evidence the Tribunal has
awarded huge amount towards compensation to the petitioners, is
unsustainable.
19. In the result, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal
is dismissed confirming the judgment and decree dated
13.07.2018 in M.V.O.P.No.2490 of 2016 on the file of the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional Chief Judge, City
Civil Court, Hyderabad. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.
______________________________
JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
Date: 22.01.2024
GVR
