National Insurance Company Limited, vs Kummari Lalitha And 6 Others
2024 Latest Caselaw 936 Tel

Telangana High Court

National Insurance Company Limited, vs Kummari Lalitha And 6 Others on 5 March, 2024

            THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

                    M.A.C.M.A.No.3147 of 2009


JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company being aggrieved

by the award dated 20.6.2005 passed in O.P.No.1727 of 2003 on the

file of the IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad-

cum-XVIII Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad, granting

compensation in favour of respondents-claimants.

2. According to the case of claimants, the deceased along with

another were going to Roofkhan pet on their bicycles and when they

reached near culvert at Sultanpur gate, the offending DCM vehicle

driven by its driver came in opposite direction at high speed in a rash

and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased and another,

resulting in the death of the deceased. P.W.2 stated that the vehicle

was driven in a rash and negligent manner, causing the accident.

However, the Court below disbelieved the evidence of P.W.2 that he

was not an eyewitness to the accident. The learned counsel

submitted that when there is no proof of rash and negligent driving

by the driver of the DCM vehicle, compensation ought not to have

granted by the Court below.

3. The Court below has placed reliance on the F.I.R. and charge

sheet and even in the absence of eyewitness, the Court below came

to a conclusion regarding rash and negligent act on the part of the

driver of the vehicle only on the basis of charge sheet and

investigation done. The argument of the learned counsel that rash

and negligent driving has to be proved by the claimants, cannot be

accepted. At the time of accident, the deceased and driver of the

vehicle were present. Even assuming that there is no eyewitness, it

is for the driver to prove his case that there was no rash and

negligent on his part. In the absence of evidence being adduced by

the Insurance Company to prove that the driver of the vehicle was

not negligent, compensation granted cannot be interfered.

4. There are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order

passed by the Court below. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the

Insurance Company is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any

pending in this criminal petition, shall stand closed.

_________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 5.3.2024 DA