THE HON’ BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

M.A.C.M.A No. 416 of 2019

JUDGMENT:

The appellant-United India Insurance Company Limited (insurance

company, for short) challenges the Order dated 20.11.2018 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Nalgonda, in M.V.O.P. No. 743 of 2014. By the impugned Order, the Tribunal a compensation of Rs.4,97,756 with proportionate costs and interest at 7.5%

per annum from the date of petition to the date of actual payment.

2. Heard Mr. Srinivasa Rao Vutla, learned Standing Counsel for the insurance company; and Mr. Aravind Kumar Kata, learned counsel representing Mr. P.S.P. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel on record for the claimants. Perused the record. For convenience, the parties will be referred as

“insurance company” and “claimants”.

3. Brief facts of the case, as per the claim petition MVOP No. 743 of 2014 filed by the claimants before the Tribunal, are that on 23.08.2014, Mr. Shaik Khajamiya (the deceased) left Gudibanda Village and was proceeding along with Shaik Hussain Saheb (pillion rider) on TVS XL motorcycle bearing No.AP-24-AD-7601, and when they reached Indian Oil Bunk, a Car bearing No.AP-26P-7209, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the motorcycle of the deceased, due to which the deceased and Shaik Hussain Saheb fell down and sustained fracture injuries all over the body, and they were shifted to Government Hospital, Kodad, for treatment. The deceased succumbed to injuries while undergoing treatment on 11.12.2015 at his house.

After his death, the Police Kodad Rural, conducted inquest over the dead body, and the Community Health Centre, Kodad, conducted autopsy.

3.1 The claim petition was initially filed claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000 in 2014, however, subsequent to the death of the deceased on

11.12.2015, the claim was enhanced to Rs.10,00,000.

3.2 In the claim petition, on behalf of the claimants, PWs.1 to 4 were examined and exhibits Exs.A-1 to A-13 were marked; and on behalf of the respondents, no witnesses were examined, however, Ex.B-1-copy of insurance policy was marked.

3.3 The Tribunal, considering the evidence available on record, partly-allowed the claim petition by the impugned Order dated 20.11.2018 by awarding Rs.4,97,756 with proportionate costs and interest at 7.5% per annum, holding the respondents jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

Challenging the same, the insurance company filed this appeal.

4. Learned Standing Counsel for the insurance company essentially contends that there was head-on collision and therefore the Tribunal ought to have fastened the liability of contributory negligence at 50% on the deceased; that there is no nexus between the injuries sustained by the deceased on 23.08.2014 and his subsequent death on 11.12.2015, after a gap of more than a year, as he sustained injuries only to his arms and legs and not to the head or chest, and further he was discharged in good condition; that the claim petition is not maintainable after the death of the deceased; that the legal representatives of the deceased are majors and they are not dependent on the earnings of the deceased to claim loss of dependency.

5. Learned counsel for the claimants, on the other hand, contends that the occurrence of accident due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending Car has been proved by the evidence of PW-2 who is an eye- witness to the incident and he also deposed about the death of the deceased while undergoing treatment on 11.12.2015. It is contended that spouse and children are the dependents and the Tribunal has entertained the claim petition. It is also contended that the Tribunal has assessed the salary at Rs.3,000 per month which is on the lower side and the Tribunal ought to have granted higher compensation, and this Court has powers to grant higher compensation. 6. Having considered the respective contentions and perused the record, it may be noted that the oc