Telangana High Court
M/S The New India Assurance Company ... vs R. Nagarjuna Chary And Another on 12 July, 2023
Author: Lalitha Kanneganti
Bench: Lalitha Kanneganti
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
M.A.C.M.A.No. 1652 of 2008
J U D G M E N T:
This Appeal is filed by the Insurance Company aggrieved by the Award dated 16.07.2007 in O.P.No. 1830 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XVII Additional Chief Judge-cum-III Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.
2. The claim petition was filed seeking compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- for the injuries sustained by the claimant in a road accident occurred on 13.06.2004 at about 08.30 p.m. on Pagidimarri-Nalgona road near Kothapally village. It is stated that the claimant was aged about 21 years at the time of accident and earning Rs.3,200/- per month as carpenter. On the date of accident, while the claimant was proceeding on scooter bearing No. AP 13 3724 along with others, at the place of accident, the tractor and trailer bearing No. APL 8981/8982 coming in the opposite direction driven by its driver in high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the scooter of the claimant. As a result, the claimant sustained fractures and injures and the rider of the scooter died on the spot.
3. The Insurance Company filed the counter denying the averments made in the Petition. It is stated that the amount 2 claimed is excessive. It is further stated that the accident was due to the collusion between scooter and offending tractor and trailer. According to the Insurance Company, the claim petition is bad for non-joinder of parties.
4. The claimant in support of his case, examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A9. On behalf of the Insurance Company, only Ex.B1 was marked.
5. The Tribunal having held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor, awarded compensation of Rs.78,000/-.
6. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that there is contributory negligence on the part of the claimant as at the time of accident, four persons were travelling on the scooter. This particular issue was not dealt with by the Tribunal.
7. The Tribunal gave a finding that even in the counter, the plea of contributory negligence was not taken. No evidence was adduced nor they have examined the driver of the vehicle to show that the accident occurred not because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor but because of the overloading of the vehicle. The Tribunal has not accepted the contention of the Insurance Company and also observed that adverse inference can be drawn. the Tribunal has rightly dealt 3 with the issue and held that the Insurance Company failed to prove that the accident occurred because of the overloading of the scooter or as four persons were riding on it. In view of the same, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the Award of the Tribunal and the Appeal is liable to be dismissed.
8. The Appeal is accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.
9. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
------------------------------------ LALITHA KANNEGANTI,J 12th July 2023 ksld