HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
ANIS, J.
The Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Company Ltd., Cuddapah. - Appellant
Vs.
Acchigari Prasad and two others - Respondents
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPAL No.3453 of 2004
Decided on : 25.07.2014
This appeal is filed by the appellant/second respondent under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’), aggrieved by the award dated 25.05.2004, passed by the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court), Cuddapah, in M.V.O.P.No.302 of 2001, awarding compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-.
2. The respondent Nos.1 & 2/petitioners filed the above O.P under Section 166 of the Act read with Rule 476 of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of the death of their daughter Harathi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) in a motor vehicle accident. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed in the Original Petition.
3. The brief averments made in the petition are that the deceased was aged about three years and was studying nursery in Don Bosco English Medium School, Cuddapah, and on 18.08.2000 at about 4:30 p.m, while she was coming from school along with her teacher, one tipper bearing No.AIK.244 belonging to the first respondent came in rash and negligent manner without blowing horn and dashed the deceased causing her severe injuries and she succumbed to the said injuries and therefore, the petitioners claimed Rs.1,00,00/- as compensation.
4. Before the Tribunal, the first respondent remained ex parte.
5. The brief averments made in the counter filed by the second respondent are as follows:
The second respondent put the petitioners to prove the manner of accident, age of the deceased and stated that there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the tipper and further stated that the girl aged about four years suddenly crossed the road on account her confusion and the driver of the vehicle was not having any valid driving license and that the claim of the petitioners is high and excessive and therefore, prayed the Court to dismiss the petition.
6. Basing on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed three issues and to substantiate the claim, on behalf of the petitioners, the first petitioner got himself examined as PW.1 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.4. On behalf of the contesting respondent, RW.1 was examined and Exs.B1 & B2 got marked.
7. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tipper bearing No.AIK.244 and awarded compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- along with interest at 9% p.a to the petitioners against both the respondents.
8. Being aggrieved by the award passed by the Tribunal, the second respondent preferred the present appeal.
9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/second respondent argued that the Tribunal failed to appreciate that the deceased was aged about 3 years and studying in nursery and the compensation awarded to the petitioners is totally high and excessive. Further, the driver of the tipper has no driving license and the license possessed by him under Ex.B2 belongs to other person and therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation and prayed the Court to set aside the award passed by the Tribunal.
10. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 & 2/petitioners argued that the petitioners lost their daughter, who was studying nursery in Don Bosco School and the Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence, rightly awarded compensation against the appellant/second respondent and the owner of the tipper, which needs no interference by this Court and prayed the Court to dismiss the appeal.
11. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both parties, the only point which is to be decided in this appeal is as follows:
Whether the appellant is entitled for setting aside the award dated 25.05.2004 passed by the Tribunal in M.V.O.P.No.302 of 2001 or not?
12. The appellant/second respondent claimed that when the deceased was coming
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.