THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA M.A.C.M.A.No.365 of 2023

JUDGMENT:

Heard Sri Kondadi Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms. Vladimeer Khatoon, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

Perused the entire record.

2. This appeal is preferred by the appellant/respondent No.2 i.e., insurance company aggrieved by the award passed by the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, in M.V.O.P.No.185 of 2018 dated 20.04.2022, wherein an amount of Rs.20,27,000/- was awarded towards compensation in a claim petition filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein seeking compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- on account of death of one Nenavath Babu Naik in a road traffic accident from the appellant and respondent No.3 herein jointly and severally.

3. The brief facts are that on 15.08.2016, the deceased and his friend (respondent No.3 herein) were going from Hyderabad to Somashila on motorcycle bearing No.TS 10 EG 9227 and on reaching Rajapur limits on NH-44, Balangar, Mahabubnagar, respondent No.3, who was riding the motorcycle, drove the motorcycle in rash and negligent manner in high speed causing the fall of the motorcycle. As a result, the deceased sustained injuries and was shifted to Area Government Hospital, Jedcherla and then to NIMS, Panjagutta, Hyderabad, where he died on 29.08.2016. On account of death of the deceased, the parents of the deceased i.e., respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-.

4. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein/claim petitioners got examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and got exhibited Exs.A-1 to A-8. On behalf of the appellant, Ex.B-1 was got marked. Upon examining the evidence on record, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.20,27,000/- leading to filing of the present appeal by the appellant i.e., insurance company.

5. In grounds of appeal, the appellant-insurance company pleaded that the accident occurred due to own negligence of the deceased and the appellant-insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation. Further, it is emphasized that no eyewitness is examined and P.W.2, who is examined as eyewitness denied his involvement in the accident. Lastly, it is pleaded that respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein colluded with police and falsely implicated the insured vehicle for compensation and prayed that the present appeal be allowed by setting aside the impugned award.

6. A perusal of the police record shows that the deceased was pillion rider of the motorcycle involved in the accident and the same was driven by one Nenavath Rajesh Naik. Since the deceased was not riding the motorcycle, no negligence can be attributed to him for occurrence of the accident. In fact, the deceased was the victim of negligent driving of the rider of motorcycle.

7. The next point pleaded in grounds of appeal is that the P.W.2 is not eyewitness to the accident. When the evidence of P.W.2 is perused, it is seen that P.W.2 deposed that he along with another person were travelling on motorcycle on the date of the accident and they witnessed the accident. P.W.2 never deposed that he himself was involved in the accident. It is rightly contended by the appellant that the name of P.W.2 does not figure in the charge sheet. However, any eyewitness whose name does not figure in the charge sheet can also be examined in-case he or she witnessed the accident. As such, no fault can be found with the evidence of P.W.2, who allegedly witness the accident and deposed before the Tribunal.

8. Lastly, the appellant alleged mala fide implication of insured vehicle in the accident for seeking wrongful gain. In that context, a perusal of the counter filed by the appellant before the Tribunal does not show any pleadings with respect to false implication of the insured vehicle in the accident. The counter filed by the appellant before the Tribunal contains routine defences taken about driving license violation, non-filing of accident information report, viol