Telangana High Court
MACMA/395/2005 of The Oriental Insurance Co Vs Dharmasoth Mangilal on 31 December 2014
A . SHANKAR NARAYANA M.A.C.M.A. No.395 of 2005 JUDGMENT: Aggrieved by the order dated 31.08.2001 passed in M.V.O.P No.306 of 1999 on the file of the Chairman, MACT-cum-II Additional District Judge, Warangal, whereby and whereunder a sum of Rs.20,000/- was granted as compensation with interest
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. SHANKARNARAYANA
M.A.C.M.A. No.395 of 2005
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
JUDGMENT:
Aggrieved by the order dated 31.08.2001 passed inM.V.O.P No.306 of 1999 on the file of the Chairman,MACT-cum-II Additional District Judge, Warangal,whereby and whereunder a sum of Rs.20,000/- wasgranted as compensation with interest at 9% per annumas against the claim of Rs.1,50,000/- under Section 163-Aread with 166 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 readwith Rule 455 of the A.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989, theinstant appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company—2[nd] respondent fastening liability on it.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties arehereinafter referred to as arrayed in the O.P. before theTribunal.
3. The facts in brief are that on 04.11.1998 thepetitioner D.Mangilal boarded the jeep bearing No.AP 31T 6870 at Mahabubnagar in order to go to Chinnagudur. The driver of the jeep since driven it at high speed and ina rash and negligent manner, dashed against thestationed jeep, due to which inmates of the jeep sustainedinjuries. Immediately, the petitioner was shifted to Government Hospital, Warangal and admitted as in-patient till 19.11.1998. The petitioner claiming that hewas earning Rs.12,500/- per month and due to theaccident, he is unable to attend his earlier occupation andlost his livelihood by 50%, sought Rs.1,50,000/- towardscompensation against respondents 1 and 2 i.e., ownerand insurer of the accident vehicle.
4. The respondent No.1 remained ex parte in theO.P. before the Tribunal.
5. The 2[nd] respondent—Insurance Companyopposed the claim. It is specifically contended that in theFIR the jeep number was mentioned as APT 6870 but inthe petition the registration number is mentioned as AP31T 6870. It is contended that the jeep bearing No.APT6870 was not insured with it and therefore, it is not liable topay any compensation and it is not liable to indemnify the1[st] respondent.
6. The Tribunal basing on the pleadings of rivalsides framed three (3) issues about the responsibility forthe accident. During enquiry, the petitioner examinedhimself as PW.1 besides examining D.Veeranna, co-passenger as PW.2 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-25. Onbehalf of the respondents, RW.1 was examined andmarked Exs.B1 to B3.
7. The Tribunal on issue No.1 basing on the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and taking into considerationthe evidence of RW.1, the administrative officer working inthe office of the 2[nd] respondent and discussingelaborately held that the jeep involved was only AP 31 T6870 and in favour of the petitioner. On issue No.2,basing on the evidence of PW.1 and Exs.A-2 to A-20,granted a sum of Rs.20,000/- with interest at 9% perannum. The said order is challenged in the instantappeal on the main ground that the Tribunal did notproperly appreciate the evidence on record, moreparticularly, Ex.A1—FIR, which reflects registered numberof jeep as AP T 6870, but the claim was concerning thejeep with registration No.AP 31 T 6870.
8. Heard Sri R.Venkata Rao, learned counsel for theInsurance Company.
9. The Learned counsel for appellant contendsthat the alleged jeep number is mentioned as AP 31T6870 whereas in the FIR, the alleged accident wascaused by jeep bearing No.AP T 6870 and on issue No.2held against the Insurance Company and owner of thejeep.
10. Though respondents 1 and 2 served, none represents.
11. Perused the order under challenge. The
Tribunal has recorded a definite finding basing on theevidence of PWs.1 and 2 and RW.1—administrativeofficer of legal branch of 2[nd] respondent that the jeepinvolved in the accident was registered bearing No.AP31T6870 and inadvertently “31 was omitted”. That findingrecorded by the Tribunal is well reasoned and based onappreciation of evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and RW.1. Absolutely, there is no merit in the appeal.
12. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed whileconfirming the order passed by the Tribunal. No order asto costs.
13. As a sequel thereto, MiscellaneousApplications, if any, pending in this appeal stand disposedof.
31.12.2014knl
___________________________
A. SHANKAR NARAYANA, J
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. SHANKARNARAYANA
knl
M.A.C.M.A. No.395 of 2005
Date:31.12.2014