Telangana High Court
Iffcotokio Gen. Ins. Com. Ltd., ... vs K Sadhamma, Hyderabad And 4 Others on 15 March, 2024
HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A.No.116 OF 2018
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.1222 of 2013, dated 17.11.2015, the 2nd
respondent in the said M.V.O.P. preferred 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 1 & 2,
being the wives and petitioners 3 & 4, being the sons of the
deceased-K.Chandraiah, 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- K.Chandraiah along with one Sri J.Siddiramulu 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
MGP,J
respectively 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
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 a labourer and
used to earn Rs.7,000/- per month and contribute the same to the
family and as the petitioners, are the legal heirs of the deceased,
they 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:-
MGP,J
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?
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.10,42,600/- 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
MGP,J
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 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
MGP,J
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 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.
MGP,J
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.
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
