(Prayer: Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be pleased toaggrieved by the decree and judgment dt.29-09-2018, passed in OP No.42/2016 on the file of the court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional Dist Judge, Rayachoty, Kadapa Dist.

IA NO: 1 OF 2019

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the decree and judgment of the court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge, Rayachoty, Kadapa Dist Andhra Pradesh, passed in MVOP No.42/2016 dt.29-09-2018, pending disposal of the appeal.)

1. The present appeal is filed by M/s. United India Insurance Company Limited, aggrieved by order dated 29.09.2018, passed in MVOP No.42 of 2016, on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge, Rayachoty, Kadapa District.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they were referred before the Tribunal.

3. The petitioners filed claim petition under Section 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of Rs.16,00,000/- on account of the death of Upputholla Sivaiah, who was the husband of the 1st petitioner, father of petitioner Nos.2 & 3 and son of the 4th petitioner.

4. It is the case of the petitioners that, the deceased was earning Rs.30,000/- by doing cultivation in the agricultural lands belonging to him and incidentally he was also doing flower business. It is further case of the petitioners that, on 01.12.2013, the deceased engaged the offending vehicle bearing registration No.AP04-9102 on hire for transportation of flowers. It is the further case of the petitioners that, the deceased was sitting beside the driver. After crossing Gopalapuram Village, the driver/1st respondent of the offending vehicle drove the same in rash and negligent manner, thereby lost control over the same and fell in the channel situated beside the road. As a result of which, the deceased sustained bleeding injury on his head and fell unconscious. The deceased was admitted in CMC Hospital, Vellore and subsequently he was shifted to Victoria Hospital, Bangalore. While undergoing treatment he died on 03.02.2013. A complaint was given to the police and the same was registered in Cr.No.12 of 2013, under Section 304-A IPC. It is further case of the petitioners that, as the earning member of the family had died, they filed the claim petition claiming Rs.30,00,000/-, towards compensation against the respondents.

5. The respondent Nos.1 & 2 remained ex-parte. The 3rd respondent resisted the claim by filing counter affidavit contending that, at the time of the accident the 1st respondent/driver of the offending vehicle did not possess valid driving license and the said vehicle had no valid permit to transport the goods. Thus, the 2nd respondent violated the conditions of the policy and as there was no valid permit, the respondent Nos.1 & 2 are liable to pay compensation to the petitioners and prayed to dismiss the claim against the 3rd respondent insurance company.

6. In order to prove the case of the petitioners, they have examined PWs.1 & 2 and marked Exs.A1 to A9. On the other hand, the 3rd respondent examined the Motor Vehicle Inspector as RW1 and marked Exs.X1 to X3 through him.

7. Considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal by order dated 29.09.2018, partly allowed the claim petition by awarding compensation of Rs.14,87,416/-, together with interest @7.5% per annum. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed.

8. Heard counsel for the appellant and counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 4. There is no appearance for respondent Nos.5 & 6.

9. The counsel for the appellant would contend that, the accident was occurred due to negligence of the deceased and the compensation claimed is excessive. On perusal of the record, it is evident that, the appellant neither put forth any evidence nor examined any witness on its behalf so as to prove its contention. On the other hand, the petitioners have examined PW2 the eye witness who categorically deposed that the accident was occurred due to negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle and thereby the deceased sustained head injury. Apart from the same, the petitioners had also filed copies of FIR, Charge sheet, Postmortem certificate, which were marked as Exs.A1 to A3. On perusal of the same it is evident that the deceased sustained head injury and later died on 03.02.2013. As already noted supra, the insurance company miserably failed to disprove the oral and documentary evidence of the petitioners. In such circumstances, it can be held that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent/driver of the offending vehicle. Therefore, the said contention of the appellant cannot be countenanced and accordingly the same is rejected.

10. The counsel for the appellant would contend that, as on the date of the accident, the 1st respondent/driver of the offending vehicle had no valid driving license. Therefore, the respondent Nos.1 & 2 are liable to pay compensation, if it is awarded. In order to prove that the 1st respondent had no license, the Insurance Company except making a bald allegation nothing is placed on record to substantiate its contention. On the other hand, the petitioners have filed driving license of the 1st respondent which was marked as Ex.A6. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination it can be held that the 1st respondent had no driving license as on the date of the accident. Accordingly, the said contention of the appellant is also rejected.

11. Further, the Tribunal, after taking into consideration of the documentary evidence produced by the petitioners, assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.9,000/- per month and, after following the judgment of Sarla Varma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation 1 , awarded an amount of Rs.14,87,416/- towards compensation under various conventional heads. This Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal.

12. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

                  As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.