U.DURGA PRASAD RAO, J. - (1.) AGGRIEVED by the Award dated 01.07.2008 in O.P.No.473 of 2007 passed by the Chairman, M.A.C.T -cum -District Judge, Eluru (for short the Tribunal), the 3rd respondent in the O.P/ Cholamandalam M.S General Insurance Company Limited preferred the instant MACMA.
(2.) a) On factual side, on 21.08.2006 when the claimant along with his friendKayala Ramu was travelling in a motorcycle bearing No.AP 16 AK 5118, one Muppidi Durga Devi (claimant in MVOP.No.50/2007) requested for lift and boarded the bike and while they were proceeding towards Prattipadu ring road, a Toyota Innova Car bearing No.AP 13 X 1443 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and at high speed and dashed the motorcycle. As a result of which, the petitioner and two others fell down on the road and claimant sustained grievous injuries. It is averred that the accident was occurred due to the fault of driver of the car. With these averments, the claimant filed O.P.No.473 of 2007 under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against respondents 1 and 2, who are the driver and owner and respondent No.3 who is the insurer of the offending car and claimed Rs.4,86,000/ - as compensation. b) Respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained ex parte. c) Respondent No.3/Insurance Company filed counter denying all the material averments made in the petition and urged to put the claimant in strict proof of the same. R3 denied the avocation and income of the injured. R3 also contended that as the accident occurred due to the fault of motorcyclist, claim against R3 is liable to be dismissed. Finally, R3 contended that the compensation claimed is highly excessive and thus prayed to dismiss the O.P. d) During trial, PWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A13 were marked on behalf of claimant. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of respondents. e) The Tribunal on appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence on record, has awarded total compensation of Rs.4,86,000/ - with costs and interest at 7.5% p.a. against respondents 1 to 3. Hence, the appeal by Insurance Company.
(3.) THE parties in this appeal are referred as they stood before the Tribunal. Heard arguments of Sri Kota Subba Rao, learned counsel for appellant/ Insurance Company and Sri A.Veeraswamy, learned counsel for respondent No.1/ claimant. R2/ driver is not necessary party in this appeal vide Cause Title. Notice sent to R3/owner was unserved.;