HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N .RAO NALLA M.A.C.M.A. No. 4660 of 2008 DATED 11.11.2010 Between : The Regional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. … APPELLANT A N D 1. S. Sravani 2. Syed Ghouse … RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT: This Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order dated 13.12.2002 made in O.P. No. 2659 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, whereby an amount of Rs.49,000/- together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum was awarded to the petitioner-claimant against her claim of Rs.1,00,000/-. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed in the Original Petition. The facts of the case in brief are that on 25.11.2001, at about 04.30 P.M., when the petitioner-claimant-N.Sravani and the members of her family were travelling by Maruti Car bearing No. AP10 C 2424 from Hyderabad to Nizampet, and when they reached near Padmavathi Plaza of Kukatpally, the lorry bearing No. ABT 1876 belonging the 1st respondent driven by its driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, came from behind and dashed against the Car dragging it to some distance, causing grievous injuries to the claimant and other inmates of the Car. It is stated that the passers-by admitted the claimant and the injured in hospital. The petitioner- claimant took treatment by spending huge amount. Hence, she filed O.P. No. 2659 of 2001 claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. The 2nd respondent-United India Insurance Company Limited filed counter affidavit before the Tribunal inter alia denying the averments made in the petition and further stated that the injuries if any sustained by the claimant have been healed completely, and the claimant is not suffering from any permanent disability and the claim made is highly exorbitant. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: i) Whether the accident in question which resulted in injuries to the petitioner was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the 1st respondent’s Motor Vehicle? ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from which of the respondents? iii) To what relief? To substantiate the claim of the claimant, she was examined as PW1 and got marked Exs. A1 to A6. Nobody was examined except the marking of Ex.B1 – Insurance policy of the lorry, on behalf of the 1st respondent-Insurance Company. Taking into consideration the evidence and other material on record, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.49,000/- together with interest at 9% per annum and proportionate costs. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the Regional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited has preferred this Appeal. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material placed on record. The evidence of PW1-claimant would go to show that on the date of the accident, when herself and the members of her family were travelling by a Maruti Car to go to Nizampet, at Padmavathi Plaza of Kukatpalli, the lorry belonging to the 1st respondent came at high speed and dashed against the Car from behind, as a result, all the inmates of the Car sustained injuries. Further, the accident took in broad daylight and the driver of the lorry had every occasion to avoid accident as it was proceeding from behind the Maruthi Car. Her version is fully fortified by Ex.A1 - report given by one of the injured, who sustained injures while travelling by the Car. It is to be noticed that the respondents did not get the driver of the lorry examined to prove the alleged contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the Maruthi Car. There is no iota of evidence to prove that the driver of the Maruthi Car contributed negligence for causing the accident. Hence, the evidence of PW1 is trustworthy, reliable and remained unrebutted. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the opinion that the Tribunal is rightly justified in arriving at the conclusion that the driver of the lorry caused the accident by driving the vehicle in rash and negligent manner, and also in awarding just and reasonable compensation. Hence, the order impugned in this appeal does not warrant interference from this Court. Hence, the appeal is devoid of merits and the same shall stand dismissed. No costs. _________________ B.N. RAO NALLA, J 11-11-2010 bcj