Telangana High Court
Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd., vs J. Kotavva on 15 March, 2024
HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A.No.3259 OF 2017
JUDGMENT:
1. Aggrieved by the Award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal-cum-III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad,
in M.V.O.P.1221 of 2013, dated 17.11.2015, the 2nd respondent
therein filed the present Appeal seeking to set-aside the same.
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
the wife, children and mother of the deceased-J.Siddiramulu, filed a
claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- on account of
death of the deceased in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on
13.04.2011. As per the petitioners, on 13.04.2011 at about 6.45PM,
when the deceased-Sri J.Siddiramulu along with one K.Chandraiah
were proceeding towards extreme left side of the road on TVS XL
Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.AP-23N-5693 from Ramayampet
registration office towards Lingusanpet and when they reached the
village limits of Akkannapet, the crime Tractor with Trailer bearing
Registration Nos.AP-23TK-T/R-7090 and AP-25TN-T/R-3268
respectively which were driven by its driver in a rash and negligent
manner at a high speed, came from opposite direction on wrong side
and dashed the motorcycle of the deceased. Thereby, the deceased fell
MGP,J
down and died on the spot. Police registered a case against the driver
of crime vehicle and took up investigation. It is further contended by
the petitioners that the deceased was an agriculturist and used to
earn Rs.7,000/- per month and had contributed the same to his
family and the 1st petitioner, being the wife, petitioners 2 to 4, being
the son, daughter and son and petitioner No.5, being the mother of
the deceased, are the legal heirs of the deceased and are entitled for
compensation. As the accident occurred due to rash and negligent
driving of the driver of the tractor-trailer bearing Registration Nos.AP-
23TK-T/R-7090 and AP-25TN-T/R-3268, Respondent No.1, being the
owner and Respondent No.2, being the insurer of the crime tractor are
jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.
4. Respondent No.1 inspite of making his appearance, did not file
any counter and remained exparte. Respondent No.2 filed counter
and denied the averments of the claim petition including, age, wages,
relationship of the petitioners with the deceased, loss of dependency
and fixing liability upon the Insurance company.
5. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court had framed the
following issues:-
1. Whether the deceased died in the road accident that
occurred on 13.04.2011 due to the rash and
negligent driving of the driver of Tractor bearing
No.AP-23TK-T/R-7090 and Trailer bearing No.AP-
25TN-T/R-3268?
MGP,J
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for
compensation? If so, to what amount and from
whom?
3. To what relief?
6. Before the Tribunal, PWs 1 & 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to
A5 were marked.
7. On behalf of the respondents, no oral or documentary evidence
was adduced.
8. After considering the oral and documentary evidence available
on record, the learned Tribunal had awarded an amount of
Rs.11,87,800/- as compensation along with interest @ 7.5% per
annum. Aggrieved by the same, the present Appeal by the 2nd
respondent-Insurance Company.
9. Heard Sri T.Mahender Rao, learned Standing Counsel for
Appellant/Insurance Company and Sri Nageswara Rao Repakula,
learned counsel for respondents.
10. The main contention of the learned Standing Counsel for
Appellant/Insurance company is that the driver of the Tractor bearing
No.AP-23TK-T/R-7090 and Trailer bearing No.AP-25TN-T/R-3268 was
not having driving license at the time of accident, as such, charge
sheet was filed against the driver of the said Tractor -Trailer under
Section 181 of M.V.Act and further, the claim of compensation is
excess and exorbitant and without proper evidence, the learned
MGP,J
Tribunal had awarded huge amount towards compensation and
hence, prayed to allow the appeal by setting aside the order of the
learned Tribunal.
11. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents argued that the
learned Tribunal, after considering all the aspects, had awarded just
and reasonable compensation for which interference of this Court is
unwarranted.
12. Now, the point that emerges for consideration is,
Whether the order of the learned Tribunal suffers from any
irregularity?
POINT:-
13. This Court has perused the evidence and documents available
on record. The 1st petitioner, who is the wife of the deceased, was
examined as PW1. She reiterated the contents of the claim petition
and deposed about the manner of accident. As she is not an eye
witness to the incident, she got examined PW2, who is an eye witness
to the incident. PW2 in his evidence deposed that the deceased
persons viz., J.Siddiramulu and K.Chandraiah while moving on motor
cycle at village limits of Akkannapet, the offending tractor driven by
its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against them in
opposite direction, whereby both the deceased fell down and received
fatal injuries and died on the spot. There was no negligence on part of
the rider of the motor cycle and that the accident occurred due to the
MGP,J
negligent driving of the driver of the Tractor and Trailer and he was
also examined by the Police. Though PWs 1 & 2 are cross-examined at
length, but nothing worthy was elicited to disbelieve their evidence.
Apart from oral evidence, the petitioners have also relied upon the
documents marked under Exs.A1 to A5. Ex.A1-FIR shows that based
on a complaint, the Police registered a case against the driver of the
said Tractor-Trailer, took up investigation and laid charge sheet under
Ex.A2 against the driver of the Tractor-Trailer. Ex.A3- Inquest report
discloses that the deceased is an agriculturist.
Ex.A4- Post Mortem Examination report shows that the deceased died
in a road traffic accident. Ex.A5 is the MVI report which discloses
that the accident had not occurred due to any mechanical defect.
14. On behalf of the respondents, no oral or documentary evidence
was adduced.
15. It is pertinent to state that there is no dispute regarding the
accident and death of the deceased. The respondent/Insurance
company, except taking a plea that the driver is not having valid
driving license at the time of accident, has not taken any steps to
summon the RTO authorities nor examined them. In the absence of
the rebuttal evidence, the contention of the learned Standing Counsel
for Appellant/Insurance company that the driver of the Tractor-Trailer
is not possessing driving license, is unsustainable.
MGP,J
16. Now, coming to the compensation awarded, the learned
Tribunal, after considering the age, occupation and all other aspects,
had awarded reasonable compensation for which interference of this
Court is not necessary. Therefore, viewed from any angle, this Court
do not find any reason to interfere with the finding arrived at by the
learned Tribunal. Hence, the Appeal is devoid of merits and is liable
to be dismissed. In the result, the Appeal is dismissed without costs.
17. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
______________________________
JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
Dt.15.03.2024
ysk
