NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. DEVULA RAMULU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals sprout out of the same award passed on the OP. 349 of 1987 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nizamabad dated 20th October, 1989. The appeliant in C.M.A. 303 of 1990 is the Insurer of the vehicle which involved in the accident. The appellant in CMA. 451 of 1990 is the claimant. It is an injury claim case.

(2.) The claimant aged 18 years and a labourer while travelling in an auto- rickshaw ATT 6206 belonging to one S. Narasaiah, the respondent No. 2 and while it was being driven by one Madhu Rajanna respondent No. 1 met with an accident on National Highway No. 7 near Gandhi-chow k at Mupkal village. The claim was laid on the allegation that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the auto-rickshaw by respondent No. 1. The claimant pleaded that he sustained serious injuries, he lost the abilities and also the then income and the future income, he suffered pain etc., and therefore, wanted to be compensated reasonably. It was resisted by the respondents 2 and 3. After inquiry, wherein the claimant examined himself as P.W.I and two witnesses as per P. Ws. 2 and 3 and produced certain documents, and after hearing both sides and after considering the material placed before him, the Tribunal held that the accident 'was due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the respondent No. 1 and that the claimant is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.35,800/-by way of compensation and accordingly passed the award fixing the liability jointly and severally on all the respondents.

(3.) Mr. Kota subb Rao, learned Advocate for the appellant has presented a very serious grievance that although the Insurer-appellant has raised serious contention that the limit of liability, if any, could not have exceeded Rs.15,000/- in view of the fact that the vehicle involved In the accident is an auto-rickshaw and by virtue of Section 95(2) (b) (ii) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 but the Tribunal even did not consider that question much less accepted it which was the legal position in favour of the appellant.