UNITED INDIA INS CO LTD Vs. KANKANTI SATHAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MAGMA MP No.3545/2009 is filed by the vacate petitioners - respondents 1 and 2 to vacate the interim stay granted by this Court in MACMA MP No. 1507/2009. When the vacate application is came up for hearing before this Court, the Counsel on record - Sri V. Sambasiva Rao and Sri U.P. Rao, made a request for disposal of the MACMA itself finally. Hence, the same was heard finally by this Court with the consent of the Counsel on record.

(2.) Sri Sambasiva Rao, the learned Counsel representing the appellant - 2nd respondent in OP No.2205/2007 on the file of XXII Additional Chief Judge-cum- Before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, City Criminal Court at Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal below') would maintain that the judgment and Decree made by the Tribunal below cannot be sustained. The learned Counsel pointed out that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal below is excessive. The learned Counsel also pointed out to the oral and documentary evidence available on record and would maintain that at the relevant point of time, these being minors, and inasmuch as, there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased also, the awarding of compensation at the best can be 50% and the rest of the 50% awarded by the Tribunal below to be negatived. The learned Counsel placed strong reliance on Anuradha Kaushik v. Varun Ground Water Documentary Evidence. Corpn., 1 (2007) ACC 305 (DB), of Madhya Pradesh High Court.

(3.) Per contra, Sri U.P. Rao, the learned Counsel representing the contesting respondents-claimants had taken this Court through the reasons which had been recorded by the Tribunal below and would maintain that in the light of the convincing reasons recorded by the Tribunal below, this is not a fit matter to be interfered with. The learned Counsel also further pointed out that except marking certified copy of the Insurance Policy as Ex.B1, no other acceptable evidence worth-mentioning had been placed before the Court. Hence, in the absence of any evidence whatsoever in this regard, it cannot be contended that the deceased were minors at that time and further it cannot be contended that there was contributory negligence and hence, the compensation to be restricted to the 50% of the awarded compensation. The learned Counsel relied on several decisions to substantiate his submissions.