Telangana High Court
MACMA/427/2013 of The New India Assurance Co Ltd Vs Tatiguntla Chennakeswava Reddy on 30 December 2015
SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY MACMA No.427 of 2013 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the insurance company against the order dated 14-12-2005 passed in OP No.519 of 2003 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-III Addl. District Judge (FTC), Kadapa, wherein the Tribunal, as against the
HON’BLESRIJUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY
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:
MACMA No.427 of 2013
This appeal is filed by the insurance company againstthe order dated 14-12-2005 passed in OP No.519 of 2003 bythe Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-III Addl. DistrictJudge (FTC), Kadapa, wherein the Tribunal, as against theclaim of Rs.3,00,000/-, granted compensation of Rs.60,000/-towards the injuries sustained by the 1[st] respondent-claimant in the motor accident that occurred on 11-01-2002.
2. Facts stated are:-The claimant on the fateful day atabout 8-30 pm was returning home from Rayachoty onhis TVS 50 vehicle and when he reached near Middekadapallivillage, the driver of the auto bearing registration no.AP 04T6658 drove it in a rash and negligent manner with highspeed, gave dash to the claimant’s motor cycle, due to theimpact of the same, the claimant fell down and sustainedfracture injuries.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant-insurance companycontended that the driver of the auto in question, which hitthe claimant, was not supposed to carry gas cylinders when itwas meant to carry passengers, and thus violated theconditions of policy, the insurance company is not liable andrespondent no.2-owner of the auto in question alone is liableto pay the compensation to the claimant. On the other hand,learned counsel for claimant-respondent no.1 contended that though the driver of the auto in question was carrying gascylinders when it was meant to carry passengers, it amountsto only violation of policy condition, but the auto is covered bya valid policy. Learned counsel further contended that byapplying the principle laid down by the Supreme Court inNATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED vs. SWARANSINGH (2004 ACJ 1) the insurance has to pay thecompensation to the claimant and recover from the owner ofthe auto in question. Learned counsel also submitted thatthe compensation awarded by the Tribunal is very low anddoes not commensurate with the injuries sustained by theclaimant.
4. There is no dispute as to the date and nature of theaccident and the fact that the claimant sustained injuries inthe said accident. The only dispute is with regard to thequantum of compensation and the liability of the insurancecompany to pay the compensation.
5. To prove his claim, the claimant himself filed affidavitin lieu of examination as PW-1. Ex.A-2 is the injurycertificate wherein the claimant is shown to have sustainedtwo grievous injuries, and other simple injuries. Theseinjuries sustained by the claimant were certified by the doctorwho treated the claimant, examined as PW-2. According tothe evidence of PW-2 the claimant sustained malunitedfracture femur and malunited fracture right pubic and thedisability sustained by the claimant was assessed at 40%. Ex.A-4 is the disability certificate issued by PW-2 doctor.
Exs.A-2 and A-4, coupled with the evidence of PWs.1 and 2prove that the claimant sustained injuries. The Tribunalgranted Rs.20,000/- towards medicines, extra-nourishmentand attendant benefits, Rs.10,000/- towards pain andsuffering, Rs.5,000/- towards transportation chargers, andRs.25,000/- towards of loss of earnings and partial disabilitytotalling to Rs.60,000/-. The compensation granted by theTribunal is based on acceptable evidence and the same doesnot warrant any interference.
6. So far the question of liability to pay the compensationis concerned, in the light of the decision in Swaran Singh’scase supra, the appellant-insurance company is liable to paythe compensation to the claimant and recover from theowner of the auto in question in the view of the fact that autoin question is covered by valid policy.
7. In the result, the appeal is disposed of and the orderof the Tribunal is modified to the extent indicate above. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this case shall alsostand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
___________________________
A. RAJASHEKER
REDDY, J
Dated: 30[th] December, 2015NRG
HON’BLESRIJUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY
MACMA No.427 of 2013
//WEB//
NRG
DATED 30-12-2015