UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. SABERA BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The United India Insurance Company Limited - the second respondent in O.P. No. 2497 of 2003 on the file of the V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge (Manila Court) - cum - XIX Additional Chief Judge, City Criminal Courts, Hyderabad (hereinafter in short referred to as 'the Court' for the purpose of convenience) had preferred the present MACMA.

(2.) The Respondents - Claimants filed the said O.P. under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter in short referred to as 'the Act' for the purpose of convenience) claming compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- for the death of the deceased in an accident which occurred on 06-01-2002. The Court in the light of the respective pleadings of the parties having settled the issues, recorded the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and RW-1 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-6 and Ex.B-1 as well and ultimately came to the conclusion that the O.P. to be partly allowed awarding compensation of Rs. 1,25,000/- with interest at 7% per annum from the date of filing of petition till the date of realization with proportionate costs.

(3.) Aggrieved by the same, the present MACMA had been preferred. Sri A.V.K.S. Prasad, Learned Counsel representing the appellant would maintain that the Court below failed to see that the deceased who was going on the scooter as pillion rider at the time of accident was not covered under the policy of insurance under Ex.B-1 and the Court below without going through the oral and documentary evidence placed before it erroneously fix the liability on the insurance company as well at 50% per annum on the ground of contributory negligent. This approach adopted by the Court below cannot be sustained. The Learned Counsel also had taken this Court through the evidence of RW-1 in particular and would maintain that in the light of the clear evidence of RW-1 since there was no cross-examination or even suggestion the same to be taken as proved that of pillion rider is not covered by the policy under Ex.B-1 when that being so, the appellant insurance company cannot be fastened with liability at all. The Learned Counsel placed reliance on several decisions.