HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. SUNKULAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M.A.C.M.A.No.3934 of 2014 is preferred by the insurance company, HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Limited, questioning the order and decree, dtd. 19/9/2011 made in O.P.No.485 of 20010 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Mahabubnagar at Gadwal (for short, the Tribunal). Challenging the very same order and decree, the claimants filed cross-objections seeking enhancement of compensation.

(2.) The claimants filed a petition under Sec. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000.00 for the death of the deceased, Kurva Chinna Ramudu, aged about 32 years, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 12/8/2009. It is stated that on the fateful day, while the deceased was proceeding towards Jillamgeri of Karnataka State on a motorcycle, at about 6:00 p.m., when he reached the limits of Baligera Village, bus bearing No. AP 27Y 0102, owned by Respondent No. 2, insured with Respondent No. 3 and hired with Respondent No. 1, being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the motorcycle of the deceased. As a result, the deceased fell down and died on the spot. According to the claimants, the deceased was getting an income of Rs.1,00,000.00 per annum by doing agriculture apart from Rs.200.00 per day from dairy business. Therefore, they laid a claim for Rs.5.00 lakhs against the Respondents.

(3.) Before the Tribunal, while the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 remained ex parte, Respondent No. 3, insurance company, opposed the claim petition. After considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending bus by its driver and awarded total compensation of Rs.4,04,000.00 with interest @ 7.5% per annum to be paid by the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 jointly and severally. Aggrieved by the said order, the insurance company filed the appeal and seeking enhancement of compensation, the claimants filed the cross-objections.