THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by Insurance Company, aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 09.01.2020 in M.V.O.P.No.57 of 2016 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-

Principal District Judge, Nizamabad (for short “the Tribunal”).

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 25.10.2015 at about 1:15 p.m., the petitioner was going along with others in an auto rickshaw bearing No.TS-16-UA-3740 from Navipet towards Khudawanpur Village, the driver of the auto driven it in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed, and when it reached near the bus stand Kamtam Village Shivar, another auto bearing No.TS-16-UA-1887 coming from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed, dashed their auto in which the petitioner was travelling and as a result of which both the autos turned turtle and sustained injuries. Immediately, she was shifted to Government Hospital, Nizamabad and from there to Deepa Orthopedic Hospital, wherein she has incurred huge medical expenditure. She sought compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-.

4. The respondent No.1 remained ex-parte.

5. The respondent No.2/Insurance Company filed counter, denying the averments of the petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident, age, avocation and income of the petitioner. It is further contended that there is no rash and negligence on part of the driver of the auto bearing No.TS-16-UA-3740 and that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligence of the driver of auto bearing No.TS-16-UA-1887. It is further contended that the petition is bad for non-joinder of the owner and insurer of auto bearing No. TS-16-UA-1887. Thus, they denied their liability and prayed to dismiss the petition.

6. Based on the above rival contentions, the Tribunal has framed the following issues:-

“1. Whether the petitioner received injuries in the motor accident due to rash and negligent driving of auto bearing No.TS16UA3740 by its driver?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what extent and from whom?

3. To what relief ?”

7. To prove their case, the petitioner got examined PWs 1 and 2 and Exs.A1 to A6 and Ex.X1 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, RW1 got examined and Ex.B1 was marked.

8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.1,28,200/-. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company.

9. Heard the submissions of Sri S. Satyananda Rao, learned counsel for Insurance Company and Sri V. Rajashekar, learned counsel for the respondent No.1.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the order of the tribunal is contrary to law and that the tribunal has failed to appreciate the facts on record and the evidence adduced by the insurance company. He further argued that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the auto bearing No. TS-16-UA-3740 by its driver, but the tribunal failed to observe the said fact and that the driver of the said auto TS-16-UA- 1887 did not have a valid driving license. The tribunal failed to consider the said facts revealed from the charge sheet and has fixed the liability only on this insurance company, which has insured the auto bearing No. TS-16-UA-3740 and the said orders of the tribunal are bad in the eye of law.

11. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has submitted that the present petition is filed under Section 163-A and that the rash and negligence on part of the driver need not be proved. She further submitted that the tribunal has infact awarded less amount of compensation and that the aspect of future medical expenses was not considered by the tribunal. Though the insurance company has contended that the driver of the crime vehicle did not possess any driving license, the same is not proved by the insur