THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA M.A.C.M.A.NO.72 OF 2020

JUDGMENT

This appeal has been preferred by the appellant-

Insurance Company being aggrieved by the Award and decree, dated 25.09.2019 in M.V.O.P.No.95 of 2012 passed by the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-

Additional District Judge, Nizamabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’).

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The brief facts of the case are that on 24.01.2010 the claimant was proceeding on his M&M Xylo Car bearing No.AP-25-AB-2972 from Hyderabad towards Nizamabad and when he reached in front of Gurudwara in the outskirts of Ramayampet, Medak District, the driver of tractor bearing No.AP-23-U-4936 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, came on wrong side and dashed the claimant’s Car, as a result of which, the car completely damaged and the claimant also sustained grievous injuries. Immediately after the accident, the claimant was shifted to Government Hospital, Ramayampet and thereafter, he was shifted to Yashoda Hospital, Secunderabad where he was admitted as inpatient on 25.01.2010 and surgery was done and he was discharged from the hospital on 28.01.2010. The claimant incurred an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- towards nursing and hospital charges. It is stated that the claimant is aged about 36 years at the time of accident and he is an agriculturist and used to earn an amount of Rs.15,000/- per month by doing agricultural work. It is also stated that due to the said accident, the car was completely damaged and caused loss to a tune of Rs.5,00,000/- to the claimant. Hence, the claimant claimed compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- in all under all heads for the injuries suffered by him in the accident.

4. Respondent No.1, who is owner of the crime vehicle, remained ex parte before the Tribunal, whereas the respondent No.2-insurance company alone contested the claim petition by filing counter-affidavit denying the material averments in the claim petition and also denying the rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the crime vehicle in driving the vehicle. It is further stated that respondent No.2 also denied the age, avocation, income and also denied that the said crime vehicle driven by its driver was having valid and subsisting driving licence at the time of accident. He further contended that the accident has occurred not due to the rash and negligent driving of driver of tractor and he is not having valid driving licence to drive the vehicle and hence, respondent No.2-insurarnce company is not liable to pay compensation to the claimant and hence, prayed to dismiss the O.P.

5. Basing on the above pleadings, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues for consideration:

“1. Whether on 24.01.2010 at about 11:45 PM in the outskirts of Ramayampet, tractor No.AP-23-U-4936 was driven in rash and negligent manner by its driver as a result sustained injuries?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from which respondents?

3. To what relief?”

6. After due enquiry and taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that Ex.A.1-Charge sheet clearly establishes that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of tractor bearing No.AP-23-U-4936 and partly allowed the O.P. in favour of the claimant directing respondent Nos.1 and 2 to jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.7,70,888/- with interest @7.5% per annum. Being aggrieved by awarding of compensation, the appellant-

Insurance Company filed the present appeal. Though, the appellant-insurance company has raised as many as 13 Grounds in the appeal, it is restricting its claim only in respect of granting of compensation of Rs.5,63,888/- towards damages of the Car and it is not in serious dispute as to the compensation granted in respect of injuries sustained by Respondent No.1-clai