HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 25.01.2021 in M.V.O.P.No.37 of 2017 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IX Additional District Judge, Sircilla (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 he is aged ‘37’ years and was undergoing dialysis due to failure of kidneys, and on 19.04.2016 after completion of dialysis at Apollo Reach Hospital, Karimnagar, at around 6:00 p.m., he was standing in front of Orchid Hospital to return home and in the meantime, respondent No.1 who was driving Toyota ETIOS Car bearing No.TS- 02-EG-0779 has driven his car in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed, coming from Choppadandi, dashed against the petitioner, due to which the petitioner sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, he was admitted in Orchid Hospital, Karimnagar. The petitioner had incurred huge medical expenses and therefore, claimed a compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-.

4) The respondent No.1 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 contended that he was not at all rash and negligent in driving the vehicle and that in case, if this Court awards any compensation, it would be the owner and insurer of the vehicle who are liable to pay the compensation, but he is not liable to pay the compensation.

5) The respondent No.2 remained ex-parte.

6) The respondent No.3-Insurance Company has filed counter denying the averments of the petition with regard to the occurence of the accident, age, avocation and income of the petitioner. It is further contended that the driver of the car was not holding a valid driving license as on the date of the accident, and thus, they are not liable to pay any compensation.

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

1) Whether the accident had occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle i.e., Toyota ETIOS Car bearing No.TS-02-EG-0779 driven by its first respondent?

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

3) T o what relief?

8. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PWs 1 to 3 and got marked Exs.A1 to A13. On behalf of the respondents RW1 and 2 were examined and got marked Exs.B1 to B7.

9. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. Aggrieved by the said order and decree, the present appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company. 10. Heard the submissions of Sri T. Mahender Rao, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company and Sri M.A. Rahman, learned counsel for respondent No.1, Sri Nageshwar Rao Pujari, learned counsel for respondent No.3 and Sri Mohammad Abdul Rauf, learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 to 7.

11. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the order of the trial Court is against the evidence on record. He further contended that the driver of the crime vehicle did not hold a valid driving license and that he was charged with Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles, apart from the offence under IPC which is clearly evident from the charge sheet. He therefore, submitted that the order passed by the tribunal is not sustainable in the eye of law and is liable to be set aside. He therefore, prayed to allow this appeal by setting aside the order and decree of the trial court.

12. The learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand has submitted that there is no infirmity by the orders passed by the trial court and further has submitted that the petitioner is a third party to the accident. He therefore, prayed to uphold the orders of the tribunal.

13. Based on the above rival contentions, this Court frames the following points for determination:

1. Whether th