UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. KHAJA BEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 1st respondent herein, who is no more, filed O.P.No. 609 of 1992 claiming compensation of an amount of Rs. 30,000/- under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act against the owner of the vehicle bearing No. AP. 11 T 1841 and also the insurer i.e., United India Insurance Company Ltd. (i.e., the petitioner herein) stating that she boarded the tempo bearing No. AP 11 T1841 and on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said vehicle, the vehicle turtled, on account of which the 1st respondent sustained fractures on her left hand and also received multiple injuries all over her body.

(2.) Though the owner of the vehicle (1st respondent in the O.P.) remained ex parte in the Tribunal below, the insurance company i.e., the petitioner herein (2nd respondent in the O.P.) contested the matter by filing a counter. Its further contention was that the person who drove the vehicle at the time of the accident did not have valid driving licence to drive the vehicle and the vehicle was not roadworthy. On the basis of the said petition and counter, the tribunal below framed necessary issues and conducted enquiry. After examining witnesses i.e., P. Ws. 1 and 2 and getting marked Exs. A-1 to A-9 on behalf of the claimant, the tribunal below has given a categorical finding that the 1st respondent herein sustained injuries solely on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle (1st respondent in the O.P.) and as such the claimant is entitled for compensation and accordingly fixed the liability jointly and severally on both the respondents i.e., the owner of the vehicle, who remained ex parte, and the insurance company i.e., the petitioner herein and awarded compensation of Rs. 28,000/- with proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realisation.

(3.) As against the said order of the Tribunal, the insurance company i.e., the petitioner herein, filed the above C.M.A. but in that process, there occurred a delay of about 287 days in filing the appeal. Therefore, the present petition i.e., C.M.P.No. 20136 of 1999 is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the said delay.