THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER Vs. MUMMADI HIMABINDU AND K. NAGESWARA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Oriental Insurance Company Limited -claimant filed this appeal, having been aggrieved by the Order/Award of the learned Chairman of the Motor Accidents Claims. Tribunal -cum -l Additional District Judge, Cuddaph,(for short, 'Tribunal') in M.V.O.P. No. 823 of 2002 dated 05.10.2004, awarding compensation of Rs. 2,69,800/ - (Rupees two lakhs sixty nine thousand and eight hundred only) as against the claim of the 1st respondent of Rs. 3,00,000/ - (Rupees three lakh only), in the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act'). Heard Sri I. Maamu Vani, the learned standing counsel for the appellant and Sri V. Nitish learned counsel for the 1st respondent. The 2nd respondent who was served with notice is called absent with no representation and thus taken as heard the 2nd respondent for the absence to decide on merits and perused the record. 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 wrong conclusion on the huge quantum of compensation awarded by not going through the facts properly with regard to the things like negligence on the part of the claimant in crossing the road without taking proper care and caution, not properly going through the medical certificate which shows actually only one grievous injury to left wrist and left shoulder but considered false claim of insertion of steel plates into left thigh, even by considering the disability certificate which actually did not support the version of the claimant that she was treated for the fracture of her left thigh and the injuries mentioned by her were not tallying with the injuries mentioned in the wound certificate and even not properly considered the age of the claimant. Hence to allow the appeal.

(3.) THE facts of the case as proved before the Tribunal and not in dispute in this appeal are that, on 29.06.2002 due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle (Car bearing No. A.P. 21 W 9) belongs to the 1st respondent insured with the 2nd respondent, hit the claimant by Kum. M. Himabindu, d/o Nagasubba Reddy, aged 20 years, claimed as milk vendor by avocation while she was standing at the auto soon after getting down from it, as a result she sustained fractures to left collar bone, left wrist, left thigh and left leg below the knee (as per Exs. A.2 and A.6 medical certificates), which occurrence is covered by Ex. A.1 First Information Report in Cr. No. 41 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. 15,820/ - (Rupees fifteen thousand eight hundred and twenty only) for treatment and filed Ex. A.5 bunch of bills for Rs. 15,820/ - (Rupees fifteen thousand eight hundred and twenty only However, the learned Chairman of the Tribunal, having found said injuries sustained by the P.W.1 described in Ex. A.2 and A.6 as grievous in nature, awarded in all compensation of Rs. 2,69,800/ - (Rupees two lakh sixty nine thousand eight hundred only) out of Rs. 3,00,000/ - against the appellant and 2nd respondent herein jointly and severally.