IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld the Tribunal's decision to award enhanced compensation for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident, emphasizing the claimants' entitlement despite the original claimant's death during proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao, J.

This Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited aggrieved by the order and decree dated 15.04.2014 passed in M.V.O.P.No.219 of 2010 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy (for short ‘the Tribunal’).

2. Heard Sri Narsi Reddy Teegala, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri P.Vittal Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record.

3. For convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.

4. Brief facts of the case are as follows:-

On 08.01.2010 at about 08.00 p.m., petitioner No.1 was proceeding on the motorcycle of his friend, bearing No.KA-38-E-5833 as a pillion rider from Nyalkal to Bidar via Hadnoor-Gangwar cross-road, and when they reached Shanker Rao farm house at 8.00 p.m., a Tata Indica Car bearing No.MH-1Y-5443 came in the opposite direction, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and hit the Motorcycle, due to which, both the rider and the pillion rider fell down. The rider of the Motorcycle Kashinath, died on the spot, and the pillion rider sustained severe injuries, while the motorcycle was completely damaged. The injured pillion rider was shifted to Mythri Hospital, Chandanagar and was later referred to NIMS Hospital, Hyderabad and subsequently took treatment at MNR Hospital, Sangareddy. The Police, Hadnoor registered a case in Cr.No.7/2010 under Sections 304-A and 337 IPC against the driver of the Tata Indica Car, and the same was pending before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Zaheerabad. Therefore, the injured filed the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-, which was later enhanced to Rs.30,00,000/- and subsequently to Rs.1,50,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident.

5. The injured claimant died during the pendency of the petition and his legal representatives were brought on record as claimant Nos.2 to 5.

6. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.1 filed a counter contending that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the rider of the motorcycle bearing No.KA-38-E-5833 and the owner and the insurer of the said motorcycle were also necessary parties. Further, the Tata Indica car bearing No.MH-1Y-5443 was used without any breach of the terms and conditions of the policy, and it was validly insured with respondent No.2 covering the period of the accident. As such, if any award were to be passed, the same had to be awarded against respondent No.2.

7. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company filed a counter denying the allegations made in the claim petition and called for strict proof of the same. It further contended that the amount claimed is excessive.

8. To prove the petitioners’ case, PWs.1 to 12 were examined, and Exs.A1 to A21 and Exs.C1 to C4 were marked. On behalf of the respondent No.2, RWs.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.B1 to B5 were marked.

9. After considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal allowed the claim petition granting compensation of Rs.38,87,607/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 were jointly and severally liable to pay the awarded amount. Challenging the same, the Insurance Company filed the present appeal.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company contended that the Tribunal ought to have held that there is no involvement of the vehicle bearing No.MH-01-Y-5443, since Ex-A1 FIR does not disclose the insured vehicle in the alleged accident, and neither was the class of the vehicle involved in the accident mentioned. The Tribunal ought to have seen that the implication of the insured vehicle in the alleged accident is only an afterthought, mainly to gain wrongful compensation from the Insurance Company. Further, the Tribunal ought not to have considered the evid