The court upheld the Tribunal's decision, confirming the validity of the insurance policy and the reasonableness of the compensation awarded for grievous injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident.

JUDGMENT :

TIRUMALA DEVI EADA, J.

This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 22.01.2021 in M.V.O.P.No.288 of 2015 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, (II FTC), Nalgonda (for short “the trial Court”).

2. For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The case of the petitioner before the Tribunal is that on 08.02.2014 at about 3:00 p.m., the petitioner was going along with her husband on a Splendor motor cycle bearing No.Ap-24-AB- 0283 from Nalgonda to Narketpally and while on the way, at around 3:45 p.m., when they reached near Renuka Yellamma Temple near Madhava Yadavally Village, a tractor driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed, dashed the motor bike of the petitioner parallelly, due to which the injured fell down from the motor bike and the tractor wheel ran over her legs, as a result of which she sustained fracture injuries. Immediately she was shifted to Kamineni Hospital, Narketpally, where she took first aid and then she was referred to Kamineni Hospital, L.B Nagar, where she underwent inpatient treatment and incurred huge expenditure. Thus, she sought a compensation of Rs.50,00,000/-.

4) The respondent No.1 was set ex-parte.

5) The respondent No.2-Insurance Company has filed counter denying the averments of the petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident, the age, avocation and income of the injured- petitioner. Further, they contended that the accident occurred due to the gross negligence on part of the husband of the petitioner who was riding the motor bike and that there was no negligence of the driver of the Tractor bearing No.AP-24-UB-TR-6886. They further contended that the driver of the tractor did not have a valid driving license as on the date of the accident and that they are not liable to pay any compensation.

6. Based on above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues:

1) Whether the petitioner-injured sustained injuries due to rash and negligent driving of driver of tractor bearing No.AP-24_UB-RT- 6886?

2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for any compensation. If so, to what amount and from whom?

3) To what relief?

7. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PW1 to 10 and got marked Exs.C1 to C17. On behalf of the respondents RW1 and 2 were examined and got marked Exs.B1 to B4.

8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.21,02,400/- with interest @ 9% per annum. Aggrieved by the said order and decree, the present appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company.

9. Heard the submission of Sri K. Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and N. Mukund Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Tribunal has passed an erroneous judgment which is beyond the weight of evidence. He further argued that there was a delay of two days in filing the complaint after the accident and that the said delay was not explained properly. He further argued that the petition is bad for non-joinder of the owner and insurer of the motor bike and that the Tribunal has failed to consider the evidence adduced by the Insurance Company. It is specifically contended by the appellant counsel that their policy was issued while the tractor was under temporary registration and that the tractor did not possess valid and effective insurance policy as on the date of the accident. He therefore, prayed to absolve the insurance company from its liability. He further contended that the Tribunal has awarded huge amounts under various heads towards compensation, which is not proper. He therefore prayed to allow their appeal by setting aside the order and decree of the Tribunal.

11. The respondent counsel on the other hand has submitted that the income of the petitioner is proved by Ex.C13 and C14 and that the trial Court has rightly