Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC before the High Court

The Court made the following:

JUDGMENT:

Introductory:

1. Claimant in O.P.NO.249 of 2010 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Hindupur (for short “the learned MACT”), feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the award and decree dated 30.11.2012 awarding a compensation of Rs.42,000/- as against the claim made for Rs.1,00,000/-, against the respondent No.1 alone, filed the present appeal questioning the dismissal against Respondent No.2 and also the adequacy of compensation awarded.

2. Respondent No.1 is the owner of the bus bearing No.ATA 3191 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”), remained ex parte before the learned MACT and respondent No.2 is the insurer.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as “the petitioner” and “the respondents” as and how they are arrayed before the learned MACT.

Case of the petitioner:

4. The petitioner was travelling in bus / offending vehicle on 19.08.2000 to go to Sira and at about 07:30 p.m. the driver of the offending vehicle drove it in a rash and negligent manner on Agali-Sira road and the front wheel of the bus got removed, whereby the accident occurred and the petitioner sustained grievous injures. Immediately, the petitioner was shifted to Community Hospital, Madakasira, for treatment. She received fracture injury to her left clavicle and contusion injury on her left knee and her three teeth were removed. Petitioner was earning Rs.200/- per day by doing daily milk vending business. She became disabled due to the accident and is entitled for compensation.

Case of respondent No.2 / Insurance Company:

5. The claimant shall prove the pleaded accident, negligence, injuries, entitlement for compensation, compliance of policy conditions, including want of driving licence to the driver of the offending vehicle and that the accident occurred due to the mechanical defect. Therefore, the respondent Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation.

Findings of the learned MACT:

6. The learned MACT believed the accident and negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle and also rejected the objection as to want of driving licence to the driver of the offending vehicle. By referring to the injuries, wound certificate and injuries thereunder and two among them are being grievous and one simple, found the entitlement of claimant for compensation under the head of pain and suffering at Rs.22,000/-, Rs.15,000/- towards disability and Rs.5,000/- towards medical expenses. In all, awarded a compensation of Rs.42,000/-.

7. However, with regard to the liability, found that the MVI report is not containing complete policy particulars, particularly with regard to the validity period. Therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable and dismissed the application against the Insurance Company while fastening the liability against respondent No.1, the owner of the offending vehicle alone.

Arguments and grounds in the appeal:

For the appellant:

8(i). Dismissal of claim against the Insurance Company is not correct.

(ii). The Insurance Policy details are mentioned in the MVI report and they are sufficient. The petitioner is a third party and the owner of the offending vehicle remained ex parte. Therefore, the burden is on the Insurance Company to show want of policy. Hence dismissal is unjustified.

(iii). The injuries sustained by the petitioner are grave in nature and the compensation awarded is unjust and inadequate.

(iv). The claimant is entitled for enhancement of compensation and against both the respondents.

Arguments for respondent- Insurance Company:

9(i). Dismissal of claim against Insurance Company is justified.

(ii). There are no grounds to interfere.

10. Heard both sides. Perused the record. Thoughtful consideration is given to the arguments advanced by both sides.

11. Points that arise for determination in this appeal are:

1) Whether the dis