BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, NELLORE Vs. MARAMREDDY KISHORE REDDY @ KISHORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The claimant injured (1st respondent to the appeal) filed the claim petition, in M.V.O.P.No.679 of 2005 on the file of the Chairman of the Motor Accidents Claims TribunalcumI Addl. District Judge Nellore (for short,Tribunal) against the owner and insurer of the motor cycle bearing No.AP26CT/R 3842 for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident dated 12.10.2004 while he was riding his motor cycle with pillion rider with learners licence from collusion of both vehicles, for claim of Rs.8,00,000/- since awarded by the tribunal of Rs.4,92,500/- out of the amount arrived of Rs.9,85,000/- with the finding of contributory negligence on the part of the claimant also being the opposite motor cycle rider of each 50% with joint liability, for which the Insurer preferred the appeal with the contentions in the grounds of appeal that the quantum of compensation arrived by the Tribunal is exorbitant and excessive and not rationale on the medical expenses awarded of Rs.4,00,000/- and for disability another Rs.4,00,000/-, leave about the other sums under different heads and the tribunal should have seen that there was violation of permit and policy conditions from the 1st respondent-owner of the crime motor cycle referredwas having only learners driving licence and as per rule 3 of the circular, the M.V. Rules read with Sec.3 of the Act, he must take assistance of an experienced person as a pillion rider while riding that was not done and the tribunal should have exonerated thereby the Insurer and thereby sought exonerating the insurer from liability. It is also the contention that the cross-objections filed by the claimants are not maintainable in view of the specific ruling of this Court Division Bench in New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Vasireddy Sujatharani, 2011 4 ALT 664 from Section 173 of the M.V.Act not specifically provided any right to provide cross- objections so also Rule 473 of the A.P.M.V.Rules and the cross- objections filed under Order XLI Rule 22 wont lie and liable to be rejected.

(2.) The 1st respondent-owner of the motor cycle did not put forth his appearance having remained ex-parte before the tribunal and the claimant contended that the fixing of 50% contributory negligence on the part of the injured-claimant is without any basis and unsustainable for the fault entirely lies with the 1st respondent and once the learners licence is a valid licence under law and the trial Court having considered the same in fixing joint liability on the Insurer and insured, for this Court while sitting in the appeal there is nothing to interfere so also on the quantum of compensation but for to enhance as sought in the cross-objections, that rate of interest at 7%p.a. awarded is utterly low to enhance. It is also contended that in view of the settled propositions of the law of the apex Court of cross-objections maintainable and it is not a case of there is any specific bar under M.V.Act with any non- obstante clause to say the CPC has no application, said decision relied upon on by the Insurer will not come in the way to maintain the cross-objections, hence to enhance the compensation by reducing the contributory negligence percentage to just amount. Perused the material on record. The parties hereinafter are referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience in the appeal.

(3.) Now the points that arise for consideration in the appeal are: