MACMA/2916/2015 of The National Insurance Company Ltd Vs Maraboina Pentamma on 31 December 2015

COMMON ORDER:

The insurer-respondent Nos.3 and 4 filed this appealimpugning the award dated 12.08.2009 in O.P.No.519 of2008 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents ClaimsTribunal-cum-VI Additional District Judge (III F.T.C.),Warangal at Mahabubabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) alongwith the delay condonation petition with the explanation ofadministrative delay. The claim petition maintained by fiveclaimants, no other than the wife, major sons and majorunmarried daughters respectively of the deceasedM.Jaggaiah, aged about 65 years, under Section 166 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act (for short, ‘the Act’) forRs.2,00,000/- against respondent Nos.1 and 2-driver,owner of the tractor and trailer bearing Nos.AP 20 T 593and 594 and insurer i.e., appellants herein and theTribunal fixed joint liability by awarding compensation ofRs.99,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafterreferred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The contentions in the grounds of appeal are thatthe Tribunal gravely erred in ignoring the evidence ofRWs.2 and 3, no other than the owner and driver, i.e.,respondent Nos.2 and 1 of the claim petition, besides that of RW.1 employee of the insurer, by coming to thewitnesses box of very involvement of the vehiclesdisputed so also driving of the vehicle and Tribunalgravely erred in relying upon Ex.A.2 charge sheet andevidence of PW.2-so-called eye witness instead ofdismissing the claim as out come of false implication byclaimants and hence to set aside the award fixing theliability on the insurer, if not also against the owner anddriver by dismissing the claim.

4. Heard arguments for claimant Nos.1 to 5. Respondent No.1-driver even served failed to attend andappeal against respondent No.2 is dismissed thoughcontested before the trial Court for non payment of batta.

5. Perused the record. The delay of 57 days iscondoned and M.A.C.M.A.M.P.No.491 of 2010 is allowedaccordingly. At request of both parties, this appeal istaken up for hearing.

6. No doubt, the insurer adduced the best evidenceavailable of the owner and driver by examination, who arerespondent Nos.2 and 1 respectively in the claim petition. Respondent No.1-owner remained ex parte and filedcounter saying there is no negligent driving of its driver ofthe tractor involved in the accident same is covered byinsurance, hence to dismiss and the contest of theInsurance Company-respondent Nos.3 and 4 of the claimpetition is no doubt the police allegedly lodged by tableinvestigation on the driver of the vehicle and he has no valid driving licence and compensation is excessive. Inthe light of the pleadings, the Court ought to appreciatethe evidence on record supra and the driver and owneri.e., RWs.2 and 3, vis-à-vis, PW.2 is an eye witness to theaccident and police filing final report charging therespondent No.1 as driver of the vehicle which is involvedin the accident. There is nothing to say against the policeof false implication not even a case of F.I.R. notmentioned the vehicle, much less, belated and afterthought, apart from it eye witness figured in the chargesheet deposed saying vehicle involved, the Court inweighing the evidence could not believe credibility ofRWs.2 and 3 particularly RW.3 driver and thereby for thisCourt while sitting in appeal against the reasoned findingof the Tribunal also from the driver having valid drivinglicence under Ex.A.6, even it is shown merely becauseanother view possible nothing to interfere.

7. Accordingly and in the result, the appeal isdismissed.

8. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall standclosed. No order as to costs.

31[st] December 2015.

mar

____________________________

Dr. B. SIVA SANKARA RAO, J