UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. GORLA SHANKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by respondent No.4 in O.P.No. 148 of 1998 on the file of the Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Adilabad.

(2.) The appellant-4th respondent is the United India Insurance Company Limited, represented by its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Adilabad.

(3.) The facts in brief are as specified here under: The parents of the deceased Gorla Laxmi filed O.P., claiming compensation stating that the said deceased Gorla Laxmi was travelling in a jeep bearing registration No.AP.1.8331 on 17-10-1997 from Boath towards Adilabad and 1st respondent, the driver of the jeep, drove the jeep in a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and as a result, the jeep went out of control and dashed to a lorry bearing No.AP.7V.4579 coming in the opposite direction near Devapur Cross Roads on the National Highway No.7 at about 1.10 p.m., and due to the said accident, on person died on the spot and the deceased Gorla Laxmi sustained grievous injuries and she was shifted to Government Hospital, Adilabad, where she succumbed to the injuries. On a report, the police of Adilabad registered Crime No.66 of 1997 under Sections 304-A, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code against the driver of the jeep. The deceased was aged about 15 years and was hale and healthy and she was a Shepherd and she was also attending to the agricultural work and she used to earn Rs. 1,200/- per month and used to contribute her entire income to the claimants and she is the only daughter of the claimants and hence it was prayed by the claimants that compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- may be awarded. In the said O.P.No.148 of 1998, respondents 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 remained ex parte. 4th respondent i.e., the present appellant-insurance company of the jeep in question filed a counter denying all the allegations. It was pleaded that the facts leading to the accident, the rash and negligent driving attributed to the jeep driver, the age and income of the deceased all are denied. It was also pleaded that the driver of the jeep had no subsisting and valid driving licence and hence the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation in view of the violation of the policy conditions. It was further pleaded that the jeep in question was being plied as a taxi, which is against the terms of the policy. It was further pleaded that the compensation claimed is highly excessive, arbitrary and exorbitant. On the strength of the pleadings of the respective parties, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal had settled the following issues: