THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.M. MOHIUDDIN

M.A.C.M.A.No.252 OF 2020

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the appellant-Insurance Company,

challenging the order and decree dated 14.11.2019 in M.V.O.P.No.354 of 2017 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge at Nizamabad (hereinafter "the

Tribunal" for brevity).

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 24.07.2017 at about 5:30 P.M., the driver of the tractor bearing No.AP-25-AH-2829 (hereinafter "crime vehicle" for brevity) drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed one Besta Gangaram (deceased). As a result, the deceased fell down and the rear wheel of the tractor ran over him, due to which, the deceased sustained multiple grievous injuries and was shifted to Government Area Hospital, Kamareddy and for further treatment to NIMS Hospital. However, he succumbed to injuries while undergoing treatment on 30.07.2017. Thereafter, a case in Crime No.116 of 2017 of Lingampet Police Station was registered for the offence under

Section 304-A IPC.

3. The respondent Nos.1 to 5/petitioners being the wife, children and father of the deceased have filed M.V.O.P.No.354 of 2017 before

the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- from the appellant and respondent No.6 jointly and severally for the death of the deceased.

4. Thereafter, the Tribunal has framed the following three issues for trial:

i. Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of tractor bearing No.AP-25-AH-2829 by its driver causing the death of Besta Gangaram?

ii. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what extent and from whom?

iii. To what relief?

5. The Tribunal after due enquiry and appreciating the evidence on record categorically held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle and awarded compensation of Rs.6,55,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of realization, holding respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally liable to satisfy the compensation amount. However, applying the principle of Pay and Recovery, the appellant-Insurance Company was directed to deposit the total compensation awarded and recover the same from respondent No.6-owner of the tractor. Aggrieved by the said order and decree, respondent No.2/Insurance Company has preferred the present appeal seeking to set aside the impugned order dated

14.11.2019.

6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Perused the record.

7. The first and foremost contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant is that the Tribunal ought to have dismissed the claim petition against the appellant-Insurance Company on the ground that there was no cogent evidence to establish that the driver of the offending vehicle held a valid driving license at the time of accident. It is further contended that the vehicle continued to stand registered in the name of its previous owner, who was not impleaded as a party to the claim petition and the Tribunal erroneously applied the principle of ‘Pay and Recovery’.

8. Learned Standing Counsel for the appellant further contended that in the absence of definite proof of income, the Tribunal has erred in taking the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.4,000/-. Further, it was contended that the deceased was an agriculturist falling under the category of self-employed persons, therefore, the Tribunal wrongly awarded 25% towards future prospects as applicable to Government employees with a fixed income and finally prayed to allow the appeal by setting aside the order and decree passed by the Tribunal.

9. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 5 contended that the Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record has granted just and reasonable compensation, which does not warrant any interference of this Court.

10. Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the order and decree passed by the Trib