LAWS(TLNG)-2022-7-17

RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. AMMA NIKHIL

Decided On July 05, 2022
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Appellant
V/S
Amma Nikhil Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the award in M.V.O.P.No.288 of 2011, the second respondent therein i.e., Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., through its Branch Manager has filed this appeal and challenged the award passed in favour of the respondents/claimants.

(2.) The appellant has pleaded that the trial Court committed a grave error in awarding Rs.4,49,670.00 with interest. The insurance company has pleaded that the above said O.P. was filed under Sec. 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, but the trial Court awarded Rs.75,000.00 for injury No.1, Rs.20,000.00 for the second injury and awarded Rs.25,000.00 towards shock, pain and suffering. The amount of compensation awarded by the trial Court is against the Second Schedule of Motor Vehicles Act, by which fixed amounts can be allowed in case of an application under Sec. 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act, thereby, sought for setting aside the award.

(3.) M.V.O.P.No.288 of 2011 was filed by the respondents No.1 and 2 under Sec. 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act for a sum of Rs.4,00,000.00 on account of the injuries caused to the respondent/claimant in a road accident. It was the case of respondent/claimant that on 25/10/2010, at about 11.00 a.m., while he was travelling in a car bearing No.AP-25-V-1414 from Nizamabad to Armoor and when he reached outskirts, the driver of the car drove it in a rash and negligent manner with high speed, he could not control the car and dashed trees which were by the side of the road, thereby, the car was completely damaged, he suffered severe injuries, thereby, he prayed for Rs.4,00,000.00. The first respondent/car owner filed a written statement denying the material allegations of the petition and further claimed that since the car was already insured with respondent No.2, he is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimant. Whereas, the insurance company which is shown as respondent No.2 filed a separate written statement denying the material averments of the petition and prayed for dismissal of the petition.