HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.580 OF 2000 JUDGMENT: Challenging the dismissal of O.P. No.50 of 1996 vide order dated 08-12-1999 by the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – cum – I Additional District Judge, Nalgonda, claimant preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 2. The owner of the lorry bearing No.AHK – 9199 involved in the accident and its insurer are respondents Nos.1 and 2 respectively in the O.P. before the Tribunal. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the O.P. before the Tribunal. 4. The case of the claimant before the Tribunal is that on 08-05-1995, when he boarded the autorickshaw bearing No.AP11 – 5701 at Hyderabad along with his flourmill electric motor and proceeding towards his village Siripuram, at National Hotel, Malkapuram, lorry bearing No.AHK – 9199 belonging to respondent No.1 and being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and high speed dashed against the autorickshaw in which the claimant was travelling, as a result, driver of the autorickshaw and another person died on the spot and the claimant sustained fracture of skull, left hand, left leg, injuries to testicles and several other grievous injuries all over his body. Immediately he was shifted to Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad, where he took treatement. He spent about Rs.21,600/- for treatment and still he is taking treatment from private doctors. He was running a flourmill and also doing agriculture and thereby earning a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month. Due to the injuries, he became permanently disabled and unable to do any work. Hence, he claimed a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. 5. The O.P. was dismissed against respondent No.1, the owner of the lorry involved in the accident, for non-payment of bata. 6. Respondent No.2, insurer of the above lorry, alone filed its counter denying the case of the claimant and its liability for payment of compensation. 7. Based on the pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial by the Tribunal: “ISSUE No.1:- Whether the petitioner sustained injuries having involved in a motor accident due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the lorry bearing No.AHK 9199? ISSUE No.2:- Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, for what amount and payable by whom? ISSUE No.3:- To what relief?” 8. To prove his case, claimant got examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-5. On behalf of the insurance company, except marking a copy of the insurance policy of the lorry involved in the accident as Ex.B-1, no oral evidence was adduced. 9. However, the Tribunal dismissed the O.P. holding that there was no need of going into the merits of the case in view of the settled legal position laid down by this Court in PULLAIAH v. AMAR BIN SAHEB[1] and SATYANARAYANA v. J. RAMA RAO[2], where it was held that in case the petition is dismissed for default against the owner of the lorry involved in the accident, the question of fixing liability for payment of compensation on the insurance company does not arise and in the case on hand owner of the offending vehicle, respondent No.1, was not served for want of full address particulars and payment of bata and therefore the petition was dismissed against him for non-payment of bata, as such, the insurance company is also not liable for payment of compensation. 10. Now the learned counsel for the claimant – appellant submits that on account of oversight of the counsel appearing for the claimant before the Tribunal, effective steps were not taken for serving notice on respondent No.1 and for that reason, petition could not be dismissed, and therefore, he prays to remand the matter to the Tribunal for fresh disposal. 11. Now the point that arises for consideration is whether there are any grounds for allowing this appeal ? 12. The accident in dispute has taken place on 08-05-1995, which is more than 15 years back. Hence, I see no merit for remanding the matter to the Tribunal for fresh disposal after this length of time in view of the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant, which are not much serious, there is no justification in putting the parties to further inconvenience and expenditure, and therefore, I am inclined to dispose of the matter here itself. 13. Coming to the question of accident in question, evidence of the claimant as PW.1 is that accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No.AHK – 9199 and in the accident, the driver of the autorickshaw in which the claimant was travelling and another person died on the spot. Further, to disprove the evidence of PW.1, there is no rebuttal evidence on behalf of the respondents. Hence, it is held that the accident in question has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending lorry only. 14. Then coming to the question of compensation, as per the material available on record, claimant sustained two fractures. However, gravity of the injuries is not clear. In the circumstances, I am of the view that awarding a total compensation of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) to the claimant would meet the ends of justice. 15. Ex.B-1 insurance policy of the offending lorry shows that the offending lorry is insured with respondent No.2, insurance company, and the same is in force as on the date of accident, as such, it is clear that the insurance company is liable for its tortuous liability being insurer of the offending lorry. 16. Accordingly, the compensation of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) is awarded to the claimant against both the respondents for payment of the same jointly and severally with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization. The claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire compensation soon after its deposit along with accrued interest. 17. As the amount that is being awarded is partly and as the matter is pending for more than a decade an as it is a social welfare measure, award is being passed without service on respondent No.1 instead of remanding, as such, it shall not be taken as a precedent. 18. With the above directions, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part. No order as to costs. ____________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J December 23, 2010. PV [1] 1993 (1) ALT 786 [2] 1990(2) ACJ 997