HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA MACMA No.3318 of 2005 Dated: 24.6.2010 Between: The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office at Vengalraonagar Colony, Hyderabad. ..Petitioner And 1. Tammali Veeramallaiah and others .. Respondents. This Court made the following: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA MACMA No.3318 of 2005 JUDGMENT: Heard Smt. P. Vijaya Lakshmi representing the appellant and Sri C. Pratap Reddy, representing respondents 1 to 6. Smt. P. Vijaya Lakshmi states that the learned Counsel has given up his vakalat as against Respondent No.7-owner of the vehicle. In view of the same, MACMA is dismissed against Respondent No.7. The learned Counsel pointed out the grounds raised in the appeal and would maintain that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appeal is to be allowed. On the contrary, the learned Counsel representing respondents 1 to 6 had pointed out the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal and would maintain that in the light of the convincing findings, it is not a fit matter to be interfered with. In the light of the submissions of the learned Counsel, the following points arise for consideration in this CMA: 1) Whether the findings recorded by the learned Principal District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy are to be confirmed or to be disturbed in the facts and circumstances of the case? 2) If so, to what compensation, the claimants are entitled to? POINT No.1: The parties hereafter would be referred as arrayed in O.P.No.115 of 2005 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Medak, at Sangareddy (in short referred as “the Tribunal”), for the purpose of convenience. The claimants filed the O.P. stating that on 11.12.2004 at about 6.30 a.m., when the deceased was riding his bicycle on the left side of the road to go to Sangameshwara Temple and when he was in front of Anand Arts, near APHB colony, lorry bearing No.AP-23/T-7478 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed his cycle, due to which, accident occurred causing fractures to his head, both legs and other injuries all over the body. He was shifted to Government Hospital, Sangareddy and after giving preliminary treatment, he was referred to NIMS Hospital, Hyderabad and while undergoing treatment, he succumbed to the injuries at 3.00 P.M. One, K. Papaiah, who witnessed the accident, lodged a complaint with the Police, Sangareddy (Rural) basing on which, a case in Crime No.187 of 2004 was registered against the driver of the said lorry. The deceased was working as an Attender in the Court and drawing monthly salary of Rs.6,571/- which he was contributing to petitioners 1 and 2 (his parents), petitioner No.3 (his wife), petitioners 4 & 5 (his sons) and petitioner 6 (his daughter), who were all depending on his earnings. The petitioners having lost their breadwinner, made the above claim for compensation from respondents 1 and 2, who are respectively the owner and insurer of the said lorry that was validly insured at the time of accident. The 1st respondent had not chosen to contest the matter in the O.P. The 2nd respondent filed counter denying the averments made in the petition. On the strength of the pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial: (i) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of crime vehicle? (ii) What is the just compensation the petitioners are entitled and from whom ? (iii) To what relief? On behalf of the claimants, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A9 were marked. Ex.B1 was marked with consent. The learned Judge while answering issue No.1 recorded reasons at paragraph Nos.6 and 7 and came to the conclusion that the claimants established that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP-23/T-7478, resulting into the death of the deceased. While answering issue No.2, the learned Tribunal referred to the decisions and recorded findings at paragraphs No.8 and 9 and ultimately came to the conclusion that as per Ex.B1 copy of Insurance policy, the lorry AP-23/T-7478 owned by the 1st respondent in OP was insured with the second respondent and the insurance was valid with effect from 21.10.2004 to 20.10.2005 and the crime vehicle was validly insured as on the date of accident i.e., 11.12.2004. While further answering at paragraphs No.11 and 12, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that by virtue of the findings recorded, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.7,38,672/- or say Rs.7,39,000/- and respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the same to the petitioners. Thus, the O.P. was partly allowed. This Court had gone through the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and also Ex.B1 copy of policy; Ex.A1 certified copy of FIR; Ex.A2 certified copy of Inquest; Ex.A3 certified copy of scene of offence panchanama; Ex.A4 copy of PME report; Ex.A5 certified copy of charge sheet; Ex.A6 Salary certificate of the deceased; A7 service certificate; A8 outpatient ticket; and Ex.A9- a bunch of medical bills; and appreciated the findings recorded by the Tribunal. In the light of the convincing findings recorded by the Tribunal, this Court is not inclined to disturb the said findings. POINT No.2: In the result, the MACMA shall stand dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ Justice P.S. Narayana Date: 24th June, 2010 Nn. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA MACMA No:3318 OF 2005 24th June, 2010