HINDUSTAN IDEAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. POKANTI ANKIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the Hindustan Ideal Insurance Co., Ltd. under section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act (IV of 1939) against the order of the Claims Tribunal (Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad at Secunderabad) awarding a sum of Rs. 17,280 as compensation. The first respondent herein filed application O.P. No. 94 of 1963 before the Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad under section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming Rs. 20,000 as compensation on account of the death of his son Ramulu who was run over on 9th September, 1963 by a lorry, A.P.J. 979 which was owned and driven by respondents 2 and 3 herein, respectively. The insurer, who was the first respondent, filed a counter statement denying all knowledge of the accident and also contended that the claim for Rs. 20,000 was untenable in law and excessive. The second respondent-owner remained ex parte throughout the proceedings but merely gave evidence stating that the lorry belonged to him and that he had insured the lorry for 'Act (Accident?) liability' with the appellant-Company. The application was contested mainly by the insurer. On a consideration of the evidence in the case, the Tribunal gave two findings, firstly, that the death of the claimant's son was caused as a result of his being knocked by the said lorry; secondly, that the claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs. 17,280 as damages or compensation. Against the said order, the Insurance Company filed the present appeal.

(2.) The only point argued before me on behalf of the appellant by the learned Counsel Sri Ramagopal is that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the claimant (respondent No. 1 herein) Sri Jayachandra Reddi, while supporting the finding on the quantum of damages, however, contended that it is not open to the Insurance Company to ques. tion the quantum of damages in view of the provisions of section 96 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, according to which the insurer is entitled to raise only certain specified grounds in defence to an action and that the said provisions do not entitle the appellant to question the quantum of compensation.

(3.) Hence there are two questions which arise for my consideration, firstly, whether the appellant is entitled to dispute the quantum of compensation; secondly, whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive and if so, what is the proper amount ? Taking up the first point for consideration it is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of the Act and the rulings which have interpreted the said provisions, in order to appreciate the objection.