The National Insurance Co Ltd v. Dattatreya Rajaiah Sidral

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER MACMA No.1609 of 2006 JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the insurance company against the award, dated 17.04.2006, passed by the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Warangal, (for short 'the Tribunal') in M.V.O.P.No.887 of 2005 filed by the claimant under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act').

Appellant herein is the insurance company, while respondent No.1 is the petitioner/claimant and respondent No.2 is the driver-cum-owner of the offending vehicle, in M.V.O.P.No.887 of 2005.

For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal in O.P.No.887 of 2005.

The facts of the case, in brief, are as under: On 24.10.2003, the petitioner was going along with one B.Krishna Murthy, on his Scooter towards Palakurthy from G. Thamadapally and at 12.00 noon, when they stopped the Scooter, an auto-rickshaw bearing No.AP36 V 7624 driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner with high speed, dashed the Scooter resulting in injuries to the petitioner's legs and

immediately, he was shifted to hospital and treated as in-patient. Due to the accident, his left leg was seriously affected, as such, he was unable to attend to his tailoring work. Hence, he sought compensation of Rs.2,50,000/-.

Respondent No.1 remained ex parte.

Respondent No.2 filed counter denying the occurrence of accident and alleged injuries sustained by the petitioner. It was further stated therein that it was not informed of the occurrence of accident within 30 days thereafter in terms of Section 158(6) of the Act.

Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed three issues. To substantiate the claim, on behalf of the petitioner, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to Ex.A.27 were marked and on behalf of respondent No.2, R.W.1 was examined and Exs.B.1 and B.2 were marked.

On consideration of material on record, the Tribunal held that the alleged accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of offending vehicle, and thereby awarded compensation of Rs.64,355/- to the petitioner, against the respondents, jointly and severally.

On 30.06.2016, the appeal against the 1st respondentclaimant was dismissed for default, as no notice was served upon him.

Learned Standing Counsel for the insurance company contended that the crime was registered on 23.02.2004 after lapse of four months of occurrence of accident on 24.10.2003 as such the liability to pay compensation to the petitioner cannot be tagged on to the insurance company. He further contended that the compensation of Rs.64,355/- granted to the petitioner is excessive, and therefore, he prayed to dismiss the petition. A perusal of the award under appeal shows that there is no dispute with regard to the occurrence of alleged accident on 24.10.2003 due to rash and negligent driving of driver of offending auto-rickshaw. There is clear evidence of the petitioner-injured that he suffered fracture on his left leg and other injuries in the accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending auto-rickshaw.

There is also evidence of the doctor, P.W.2, that the petitioner suffered grievous injuries and one simple injury. Ex.A-5, attested copy of the wound certificate, reveals the same. There is also evidence on record that, due to the injuries, the petitioner was bedridden and even could not attend to his regular works. In this case a report is given to the Police by the petitioner himself. Ex.A-1 is the attested copy of charge sheet; Ex.A-2 is the attested copy of crime details form, which corroborates with the evidence of petitioner.

the involvement of the offending auto-rickshaw in the accident and the injuries suffered by the petitioner. There is ample oral and documentary evidence on record to believe the same. When a person suffers fracture to his left leg and other injuries, it is not expected for that person to go and lodge a report with the police concerned, immediately. Therefore, the delay of four (4) months caused in lodging the report with the Police is not fatal in this case. On the ground of delay, the case of the petitioner cannot be thrown out. The Tribunal has analyzed all the material available on record, including oral and documentary evidence, and arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner suffered injuries due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending auto-rickshaw and as such no other opinion can be substituted.

Grant of compensation of Rs.64,355/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. is based on the oral evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and the documents marked as Exs.A-1 to A-27. The Tribunal has given elaborate reasons and assessed the compensation awarded on all heads relying on the medical record. There is no discrepancy, so no other opinion can be substituted. Further, it is made clear that there is valid insurance of the subject autorickshaw with the appellant-insurer; Ex.B-1 - copy of insurance policy reveals the same. There is also no evidence to believe the defence set-up by the appellant-respondent. R.W.1 is the

employee of the appellant-insurer. His evidence is also of no use to the appellant-respondent to substantiate the defences set up. All the defences urged on behalf of the appellant-respondent before this Court do fail. There is no infirmity in the award under appeal and as such the Appeal is liable to be dismissed. In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the award under appeal.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand dismissed in consequence. No order as to costs. ____________________________ Dr. SHAMEEM AKTHER, J 27th JANUARY, 2017.

kvni