Telangana High Court
The United India Insurance Company ... vs Lavuri Bichya Died Pending The O.P. His ... on 20 January, 2025
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
M.A.C.M.A.No.1970 of 2014
JUDGMENT:
Aggrieved by the award passed by the Chairman, Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Nalgonda at Miryalguda in M.V.O.P.No.55
of 2003, dated 19.07.2005, United India Insurance
Company Limited, preferred this appeal.
2. Heard Sri V. Sambasiva Rao, learned counsel for the
appellant-Insurance Company and Sri Venkat Reddy
Kodumury, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 to 5 and
perused the entire material on record.
3. Brief facts of the case:
3.1. On 07.10.2003 at about 4.30pm, respondent No.1 was
waiting for bus at Avanthipuram village bus stop in order to
go to his village on the extreme left side of the road. At that
time, suddenly one Tanker Lorry bearing No.AP-24-T-7400
driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner
proceeding towards Miryalguda side hit respondent No.1.
JSR, J
2 MACMA_1970_2014
Due to the said accident, respondent No.1 sustained
grievous injuries namely 1) Fracture of left clavicle bone, 2)
Dislocation and fracture of right clavicle bone, 3) Fracture
of 4th and 5th right side ribs, 4) Grievous injury on right
occipital area of scalp, 5) Bleeding injury in ears and nose,
6) Injury on right knee and 7) Injury on right foot.
Respondent No.1 filed claim petition vide O.P.No.55 of 2003
claiming an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards injuries
sustained by him on various heads. During the pendency of
the said O.P., respondent No.1 died and respondent Nos.2
to 5 were brought on record as his legal heirs. The Tribunal
has awarded an amount of Rs.48,000/- to respondent
Nos.2 to 5. Aggrieved by the same, Insurance company filed
the present appeal.
4. Submissions of learned counsel for the appellant-
Insurance Company:
4. 1. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company
vehemently contended that the death of the deceased was
not due to accident and he died due to old age. The
JSR, J
3 MACMA_1970_2014
Tribunal without properly considering the contentions
raised by the appellant-Insurance company has passed the
impugned award and the same is liable to be set aside.
5. Submissions of learned counsel for respondent
Nos.3 to 5:
5.1. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent
Nos.3 to 5 submits that the tribunal after considering the
oral and documentary evidence on record has rightly
passed the impugned order against the appellant as well as
respondent No.6, who is owner of the crime vehicle and
there is no illegality in the above order. There are no
grounds to interfere with the said award.
6. Analysis of the case:
6.1. This Court has considered the rival submissions made
by the respective parties and perused the record. It is not in
dispute that respondent No.1 sustained the grievous
injuries due to the rash and negligent driving of crime
vehicle owned by respondent No.6. Also, there is no dispute
JSR, J
4 MACMA_1970_2014
that respondent No.1 died during the pendency of the O.P.
After death of respondent No.1, the respondent Nos.2 to 5
have came on record as legal heirs of deceased respondent
No.1 and they claimed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. To
establish their claim, they have examined PWs.1 to 3 and
marked Exs.A1 to A10. On behalf of appellant-Insurance
Company, no one entered into witness box except filing
Ex.B1. The appellant-Insurance Company simply denied
the claim of the claimants by filing counter that the driver
of the offending vehicle was not having valid driving licence
as on the date of accident. However, the respondent Nos.2
to 5 have produced Ex.A6 driving licence of the driver of the
offending vehicle. However, appellant-Insurance Company
has not taken any further steps to prove and establish that
Ex.A6 is not genuine.
7. In such circumstance, this Court is of the considered
view that the appellant-Insurance Company has not
discharged the burden and simply denied the claim of the
respondents and not produced any contra evidence to
JSR, J
5 MACMA_1970_2014
Ex.A6. Hence, at this stage, the appellant-Insurance
Company is not entitled to raise the said ground. Insofar as
the quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal
after considering the claim of respondents awarded
compensation of an amount of Rs.48,000/- under various
heads.
8. For the foregoing reasons, this Court does not find
any ground to interfere with the impugned Award passed by
the Tribunal.
9. Accordingly, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous
Appeal is dismissed.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand
closed. No order as to costs.
_______________________
J. SREENIVAS RAO, J
Date: 20.01.2025
gvl
JSR, J
6 MACMA_1970_2014
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
Dt.20.01.2025
gvl
