HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company, aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 23.03.2021 in M.V.O.P.No.81 of 2015 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Karimnagar (for short “the trial Court”).

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

3. The case of the petitioners before the Tribunal was that on

13.07.2014 at about 3:00 p.m., while the deceased was returning to his house on Scooter, when he reached near Rana Rexene works at Bellampally Chowrastha, one Tata Van bearing No.MH-33-4378 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed, dashed the deceased from his back, due to which the deceased fell down, sustained severe head injury and died on the spot. The claimants sought a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-.

4. The respondent No.1 died during the pendency of the proceedings.

5. The respondent No.2 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 rash and negligence of the deceased himself and that there is no rash and negligence on part of the driver of the Tata Van bearing No.MH-33-4378. It is further contended that their vehicle is insured with respondent No.3 and that in case if this Court awards any compensation, it is only respondent No.3 which is liable to pay compensation.

6. The respondent No.3 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 driver of the offending vehicle did not possess valid driving license and that the offending vehicle was not having valid permit and thus, their company is not liable to pay any compensation.

7. Based on above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues:

1) Whether the accident had occurred on account of the use of the offending vehicle Tata Van bearing No.MH-33-4378 by respondent No.1?

2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation. If so, to what amount and from whom?

3) To what relief?

8. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PW1 and PW2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P10. On behalf of the respondents RW1 and 2 were examined and Ex.R1 was marked.

9. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.8,08,540/-. Aggrieved by the said award, the present appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company.

10. Heard the submissions of Sri Ramachandra Reddy Gadi, learned counsel for the Insurance Company. None appeared on behalf of the respondents.

11. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted the offending vehicle did not have valid permit as on the date of accident and has placed reliance on Ex.P3 and contended that when there is no permit to the offending vehicle, there is gross violation of the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act and therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation. He further argued that the rider of the Scooter i.e., the deceased and also the driver of the Tata Van did not possess valid driving license as on the date of the accident. He further disputed the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal saying that the Tribunal has wrongly calculated the quantum of compensation.

12. Based on the above contentions, this Court frames the following points for determination:

1. Whether the crime vehicle bearing No.MH-33-4378 did not have

valid permit as on the date of the accident. If so, whether the

Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation?

2. Whether the compensation granted by the Tribunal is just and

reasonable?

3. Whether the order and decree of the trial Court need any interference?

4. To what relief?

13. POINT NO.1:

a) The learned counsel for the appellants has strongly relied upon Ex.P3/Form-54 i.e., Accident Inform