Insurance company appealed against Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awarding damages to petitioner involved in 1998 accident. Appellant failed to adduce evidence to prove petitioner was an unauthorized passenger. Court found no ground to interfere and dismissed appeal.
Appeal dismissed with no costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO
M.A.C.M.A. No.882 OF 2005
JUDGMENT:
The 2nd respondent – insurance company is the appellant in the present appeal. The 1st respondent herein filed O.P. No.1052 of 21995 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum District Judge, Nizamabad, claiming an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident that occurred on 04.11.1998 when he was coming on the side road from Sirisamunder Village towards Bichkunda. When he reached at Devada Big Village outskirts at 12.30 noon a tractor bearing No.APJ 9701 attached with trolley driven by its driver came at high speed in rash and negligent manner and caused the accident.
02. The 2nd respondent filed additional written statement before the Tribunal stating that the petitioner was travelling in a tractor bearing No. APJ 9701 which was carrying sand load and the tractor is meant for agricultural purpose. The petitioner travelled in the said tractor as unauthorised passenger. The risk of the petitioner does not cover as per the policy.
03. The Tribunal framed the issue with regard to the petitioner’s entitlement for compensation and the relief for which the petitioner was entitled. The tribunal held that the accident took place only due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor bearing No.APJ 9701, and had awarded an amount of Rs.3,52,465/along with interest @ 9% from the date of petition till realisation.
04. This appeal is filed on the ground that the petitioner was travelling as an unauthorised passenger in the tractor and the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation for the injuries sustained by the petitioner while he was travelling as a passenger.
05. The averment of the petitioner in support of claim petition was that when he was walking on the side of the road, the tractor turned turtle and sustained injuries. When those contradictory facts were advanced before the Tribunal, the appellant should have invited a finding with regard to the manner of accident and its liability. But the appellant did not adduce any evidence, except filing a copy of the insurance policy and remand case dairy. No issue was framed and none were examined in support of the plea of the appellant. In view of the circumstances, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal in O.P.1052 of 1998 dated 15.09.2004.
06. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No costs.
07. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.
A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J
12.11.2015
BV
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the tribunal's award of compensation should be interfered with given the appellant's failure to adduce evidence on its defence of unauthorized passenger.
2nd respondent-insurance company
1st respondent herein
A. RAMESWARARAO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
