HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 20.05.2021 in M.V.O.P.No.260 of 2017 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge, Adilabad (for short “the Tribunal”).

2. For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The case of the petitioner before the Tribunal was that on 16.03.2017 the deceased and her family members were waiting for bus at Mothuguda Village bus stand, and in the mean time, one Mahindra Bolero Vehicle bearing No.TS-01-UB-4302 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed, dashed the deceased, as a result of which the deceased sustained grievous injuries. Immediately she was shifted to Government Hospital, Asifabad and from there she was shifted to Pulse Hospital, Mancherial for better treatment on 17.03.2017 and her left leg above the knee was amputated. Subsequently on 20.03.2017 she died while undergoing treatment. The family members of the deceased sought a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-.

4. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 were set ex-parte.

5. The respondent Nos.3 and 4 filed counter denying the averments of the petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident, age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is further contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased, that the deceased was crossing the road without observing the vehicular traffic negligently and thus met with the accident. It is further contended that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid driving license as on the date of the accident and that their company is not liable to pay compensation. 6. Based on the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal has framed the following issues for trial:

i) Whether accident occurred on 16.03.2017 at 21:30 hours near Muthuda Village bus stand, due to rash and negligent driving of driver of Mahindra Bolero Vehicle No.TS-01-UB-4302?

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

iii) To what relief?

7. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PW1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A13. On behalf of the respondents RW1 was examined and Exs.B1 to B5 were marked.

8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.4,94,028/-. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company.

9. Heard the submission of Sri A. Rama Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the Insurance Company. No representation on behalf of the respondents.

10. Learned counsel for appellant has submitted that their company has not issued policy to the alleged crime vehicle and that the policy marked under Ex.B1 is issued to some other vehicle i.e., Tata Indica bearing No.KA-05-AE-2005. The crime vehicle as per the charge sheet is Bolero bearing No.TS-01-UB-4302 and that the policy does not cover the crime vehicle as on the date of the accident and hence, their company is not liable to pay any compensation. It is his further contention that they could prove their case before the Tribunal through the evidence of RW1 and Ex.B1 to B5. He further submitted that Ex.A3/MVI report also discloses the crime vehicle/Bolero pick up bearing No.TS-01-UB- 4302. The counsel has further argued that the Tribunal has arrived at huge amount of compensation based on assumptions and also that the Tribunal has awarded interest @ 9% per annum which is very high and prayed to reduce the same to 6% per annum in case if this Court fixes liability on their company. It is further submitted that the Tribunal has granted an amount of Rs.80,000/- under parental consortium and has also awarded Rs.1,00,000/- under the head of love and affection which is excessive. He therefore submitted that the Order and Decree of the Tribunal is not tenable in the eye of law and hence, prayed to set aside the same by allowing thi