SMT. S. DASLI Vs. M/S. ARORA POULTRY PRODUCTS LTD., REP. BY R. DEVA DAS PILLAI AND UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., REP. BY SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE injured -claimant filed this appeal, having been aggrieved by the Order/Award of the learned Chairman of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum -II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge -cum -XVI Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad, (for short, 'Tribunal') in M.V.O.P. No. 337 of 2003 dated 17.09.2004, awarding compensation of Rs. 8,100/ - (Rupees eight thousand one hundred only) as against the claim of Rs. 1,00,000/ - (Rupees one lakh only), for enhancement of compensation as prayed for in the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act'). Heard Sri C. Vikram Chandra, the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Naresh Byrapaneni, learned standing counsel for the 2nd respondent -United India Insurance Company Limited. The appeal against the 1st respondent -M/s. Arora Poultry Products Limited is dismissed for default. In this regard, in M. Chakradhara Rao v. Y. Baburao : 2001 (1) ALT 495, the Division Bench of this Court at paragraph No. 12 held that statutory liability of the insurance company, in the absence of the owner of the crime vehicle in the appeal filed by the claimants, can be decided and maintainable as held in New India Assurance Company Limited v. Harijana Babakka : 1992 (2) ALT 155 for fixing statutory liability, the presence of the owner at the appellate stage is not necessary. The same was also quoted with approval in G. Aravind Kumar v. Md. Sadat Ali : (2011) (4) ALD 804. Thus, the contention that the appeal is not maintainable without impleading owner of the vehicle as co -respondent against the insurer of the vehicle is not sustainable and thereby it can be taken up for hearing. The parties hereinafter are referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience in the appeal.

(2.) THE contentions in the grounds of appeal in nutshell are that the award of the Tribunal is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case, that the Tribunal was erred in arriving a wrong conclusion on the quantum of compensation and awarded a very meager amount instead of awarding as claimed and prayed for from the nature of the injuries proved sustained, pain and sufferance there from and treatment undergone, amount incurred for the same and hence to allow the appeal by enhancing and awarding full compensation as prayed for.

(3.) THE facts of the case as proved before the Tribunal and not in dispute in this appeal are that, on 12.11.2002 due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle (lorry bearing No. AP 28 U 6009) belongs to the 15t respondent insured with the 2nd respondent covered by Ex.B.1 policy, came in opposite direction, hit the claimant by Smt. Dasli w/o S. Ramulu, aged 41 years, Cooli by avocation while she along with her husband was proceeding on foot, as a result she sustained a blunt injury over abdomen (as per Ex.A.3 medical certificate and Ex.A.4 discharge summery), which occurrence is covered by Ex.A.1 First Information Report in Cr. No. 192 of 2002 under Section 337 IPC, and Ex.A.2 charge sheet. As per the evidence of the claimant - P.W.1, she spent Rs. 7000/ - (Seven thousand rupees only) for treatment and filed Ex.A.8 bunch of bills for Rs. 5850/ - (Rupees five thousand eight hundred and fifty only). However, the learned Chairman of the Tribunal, having found said injury sustained by the P.W.1 described in Ex.A.3 read with Ex.A.4 as simple in nature, simply awarded in all compensation of Rs. 8,100/ - (Rupees eight thousand one hundred only) against respondent Nos. 1 and 2 jointly.