HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 04.07.2019 in M.V.O.P.No.498 of 2016 passed by the Chariman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad (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 petitioner before the Tribunal was that on 05.05.2016 at about 14:45 hours while the deceased-Sanjeeva Reddy was proceeding from Vijaynagar Colony, Uppal to Chilkanagar on his motor bike bearing No.AP-29AF-4895, when he reached Shiva Sai Hospital and while he was trying to park the bike before the said hospital, rider of the Yamaha FZ bearing No.TSAP-05W-4888, driven by its rider in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed, dashed him due to which the said Sanjeeva Reddy sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Aditya Hospital for treatment, where he succumbed to injuries on the next day at 08:29 a.m., The claimants sought a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-.

3. The respondent No.1, 3 and 4 remained ex-parte.

4. The respondent No.2-Insurance Company has filed counter denying the age, avocation and income of the deceased and the manner in which the accident has occurred. They further contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased and that there is no negligence of the rider of the Yamaha FZ bearing No.TSAP-05W-4888. Thus, they denied their liability to pay their compensation.

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

1) Whether the pleaded accident occurred resulting in death to the victim viz., Ganta Sanjeeva Reddy, S/o9 Laxmi Narsimha Reddy, due to rash and negligent riding of the rider of Yamaha FZ bearing No.TS-08-EC-4454?

2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation and if so, at what quantum?

3) T o what relief?

6. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PW1 to 3 and got marked Exs.A1 to A11 and X1 and X2. On behalf of the respondents RW1 was examined and got marked Exs.B1 to B5.

7. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.11,41,000/-. Aggrieved by the said order and decree, the present appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company. 8. Heard the submission of Sri M. Satish Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the order and decree passed by the Tribunal is against the law and weight of evidence and against the probabilities of the case. He further argued that the Tribunal has awarded huge compensation without any proof of income established by the petitioners. He further argued that the Tribunal has dismissed the petition against the owner of the vehicle and thus, the Insurance Company would not be liable to pay any compensation. But However, the Tribunal has wrongly fastened the liability against the Insurance Company even after dismissing the case against the owner. Thus, the order of the Tribunal is against law and therefore, prayed to set aside the same. He further, argued that the Tribunal has wrongly taken the multiplier to be ‘13’ and that the deceased was aged ‘56’ years. He further has argued that the Tribunal has granted huge amounts under various heads and therefore, prayed to set aside the order and decree passed by the Tribunal.

10. The learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has submitted that there is no infirmity in the orders passed by the Tribunal and thus, prayed to uphold the same. She further argued that the deceased have to be compensated by taking into consideration their pathetic condition and that even in the absence of driving license to the driver of the crime vehicle, pay and recovery can be ordered and that the compensation granted by the Tribunal is just and reasonable. She therefore, prayed to uphold the same.

11. Based on the above rival contention