THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.551 of 2022

JUDGMENT:

The present appeal is filed by the appellant-Insurance Company, challenging the order and decree dated 01.04.2022 in M.V.O.P.No.277 of 2017, passed by the learned Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II-Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar (for short ‘the Tribunal’).

2. Heard Ms.I.Mammu Vani, learned counsel for appellant/Insurance Company. None appears for the respondents/claimants.

3. The brief facts of the case are that on 21.02.2017, at about 4.30 A.M, the deceased-Kallem Krishna Reddy was proceeding on his motorcycle bearing No.TS-08-EM-2255 and when he reached near Shanthi Nikethan School at Munoganoor Village, respondent No.8 who is the driver of lorry bearing No.AP-24-Y-4158 (hereinafter referred to as “Crime Vehicle”) negligently and without due caution, applied brakes suddenly, due to which the deceased-Kallem Krishna Reddy, who was following the Crime Vehicle at a reasonable distance, could not control his motorcycle, resulting in a collision with the Crime Vehicle and sustained grievous head injury which led to his immediate death on the spot. Thereupon, a case in Crime No.152 of 2017 of P.S.Hayathnagar was registered for the offence under Section 304-A IPC.

4. The respondent Nos.1 to 6/claimants have filed MVOP No.277 of 2017 before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.60,00,000/- for the death of deceased-Kallem Krishna Reddy. The Tribunal, after conducting due enquiry and appreciating the evidence on record categorically held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle and awarded compensation of Rs.41,65,000/- under various heads.

5. Aggrieved by the said order and decree, the appellant- Insurance Company has preferred an appeal before this Court on the ground that on the date of accident, respondent No.8 herein who is driver of the Crime Vehicle did not possess any valid driving license nor the crime vehicle is validly insured with the appellant/Insurance Company and that the monthly income of the deceased was wrongly taken as Rs.25,000/- without there being any evidence.

6. This Court has heard the learned counsel for appellant and perused the record.

7. As seen from the record, during the course of enquiry before the Tribunal, the appellant-Insurance Company failed to rebut the contention regarding the possession of valid driving license by the driver of the crime vehicle and the said vehicle was not validly insured with the appellant/Insurance Company, by producing any oral or documentary evidence. Thus, appellant/Insurance Company cannot avoid its liability to pay compensation, without there being any contra evidence to disprove the case of the claimants. The burden of proving such a breach lies on the appellant/Insurance Company and it must prove with conclusive evidence.

8. In so far as, the other contention that the Tribunal has committed an error in taking monthly salary of the deceased as Rs.25,000/-, upon verification of Ex.A8 i.e., Income Tax returns of the deceased for the years 2014-15 to 2016-17, the Tribunal has rightly held that the deceased was drawing a salary of Rs.25,000/- per month and hence the said contention of the learned counsel for appellant/Insurance Company is also untenable and rejected.

9. Thus, this Court finds that the Tribunal has properly appreciated the evidence of PW-1 to PW-3 and Ex.A1 to Ex.A10 on behalf of respondents-claimants. There is no material to dispute the claim of the respondents-claimants and also there is no material placed by appellant-Insurance Company to controvert or reverse the well considered findings of the Tribunal. In my considered view, the appeal is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.

10. In view of the above findings, the Appeal is dismissed by confirming the award and decree dated 01.04.2022 in M.V.O.P.No.277 of 2017. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel the