HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY M.A.C.M.A.NO.35 OF 2025

JUDGMENT

The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-Insurance Company aggrieved by the impugned order, dated 18.04.2016 in M.V.O.P.No.378 of 2011 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Addl.District Judge at Nizamabad (for short, ‘Tribunal’) and thereby, seeking to set aside the impugned order.

2. Heard Sri V.Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the appellant- insurance company and Sri M.Raja Malla Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2/claim petitioners.

3. The appellant herein is the respondent No.3-insurance company, respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein are the claim petitioners and respondent No.3 herein is the respondent No.1-driver of the crime vehicle and respondent No.4 herein is the respondent No.2-owner of the crime vehicle before the Tribunal. For convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.

4. The brief factual matrix of the present appeal is that on 07.02.2003 at about 5.30 p.m., while N.Limbadri, aged about 10 years (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’) was playing infront of the house of T.Maruthi at Arsapally village, the driver of Car bearing registration No.AP-09-M-

2348, drove the car in rash and negligent manner and hit the deceased and as a result, the deceased sustained head injury and while undergoing treatment at Sai Krishna Super Speciality Neuro Hospital, he died on 05.03.2003. On a complaint, the Police, P.S. Traffic, Nizamabad registered a case in Crime No.44 of 2003 against the driver of crime vehicle and filed charge sheet altering the section of law from Section 337 IPC to Section 304-A IPC.

5. The claim petitioners filed MVOP No.378 of 2011 claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- on account of death of deceased. According to the petitioners, the deceased was aged 10 years, was hale and healthy and on account of said accident, petitioners suffered mental agony.

6. Before the Tribunal, respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained ex parte. Respondent No.3-Insurance Company filed counter denying all the allegations in the claim petition as regards the accident to the deceased, age, avocation and income of the deceased. It was further contended that respondent No.2 is not aware of criminal proceedings lodged against the driver of crime vehicle; that as per the complaint, the driver of the crime vehicle drove the vehicle in rash and negligent manner in a drunken state and hit the balcony top area in front of the house of petitioners, where the deceased was playing and therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation as respondent Nos.1 and 2 violated the rules and regulations of the Motor Vehicles Act, and the compensation claimed is excessive and exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

7. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial:

1. Whether accident occurred on 07.02.2003 at about 5.30 p.m., in front of the house of T.Maruthi at Arsapally village, due to rash and negligent driving of Car No.AP-09-M-2348 by its driver ?

2. Whether Nayakwadi Limbadri received injuries in that accident and died of the injuries ?

3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation ? if so, to what amount and from which respondent ?

4. To what relief ?

8. On behalf of the petitioners, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to Ex.A24 were marked. On behalf of the respondent No.3- insurance company, R.W.1 was examined and Ex.B1-copy of insurance copy was marked.

9. The Tribunal, on due consideration of oral evidence and documents placed on record, came to conclusion that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle by its driver and awarded total compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum. The Tribunal further directed the respondent No.3 to pay compensation to the petitioners at first instance and thereafter to recover the same from the respondent Nos.1 and 2 j