The court reinforced insurer liability for compensation in vehicle accident claims, emphasizing the importance of evidence substantiation while adjusting interest rates to legal standards.

JUDGMENT:

This M.A.C.M.A. is preferred by the appellant-United India Insurance Company Limited under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short (‘the Act, 1988’), aggrieved by the award and decree, dated 11.09.2019 passed in M.V.O.P.No.182 of 2018 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Asifabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’).

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The brief facts of the case are as under:-

(i) that the petitioner filed a claim-petition under Section 166 (1) (a) of the Act, 1988 read with Rule 455 of Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 claiming compensation of Rs.34,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 13.03.2018. It is stated that on 13.03.2018 the petitioner, along with his family, was proceeding on Indica Car bearing No.AP 10 BB 7880 from Hyderabad and when they reached near Kondapaka Village at Ananda Nilyam in the outskirts of Thimmareddypally Village, within the limits of Kukunurpally Police Station, the driver of the said Car drove it in a rash and negligent manner, due to which the said Car was turned turtle and the petitioner and other inmates of the Car sustained bleeding injuries.

(ii) The petitioner said to have sustained traumatic cervical spine injury with quadriparesis and immediately after the accident, he was shifted to Government Hospital, Siddipet and after taking first aid he was shifted to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad and from there he was admitted in Aware Glenagles Blobal Hospitals, L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad, where P.W.2-Dr.J.Gauri Shankar, conducted surgery for “C6 corpectomay + cageplacement + C5-C7 fixation done and he incurred an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- for his treatment.

(iii) Based on the complaint, the police, Kukunoorpally registered a case in Crime No.27 of 2018 and filed charge sheet against respondent No.1 for the offences under Section 337 and

338 of I.P.C.

(iv) At the time of accident, the claimant was aged about 20 years, he was hale and healthy and used to earn a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month as a Mason Coolie and due to the said injuries he is unable to do his work and that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the car. Therefore, he filed claim-petition claiming compensation of Rs.34,00,000/-. Since the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Car, respondent Nos.1 to 3 being the driver, owner and insurer of the Car are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation claimed by the petitioner.

4. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 failed to file the Counter.

5. Respondent No.3 filed counter denying the averments made in the petition and also denied the factum of rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the said Car, so also denied the claim made by the petitioner. It is contended that the said Car was not engaged by the petitioner for hire as such, respondent No.3 is not liable to pay the compensation as there is a clear violation of the terms and conditions of the policy.

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

1. Whether petitioner sustained injuries in the accident that occurred on 13.03.2018 at about 22.30 hours, at Ananda Nilayam, Kondapaka Village?

2. Whether the said accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of driver of Tata Indica car bearing No.AP-1—BB-7880?

3. Whether petitioner is entitled to claim compensation? If so how much and against which of the respondent?

4. To what relief?

7. Before the Tribunal, on behalf