Kota Mariyamma vs. Kondeti Varaha Laxmi Narasimha Murthy
AI Summary
Get an AI-powered analysis of this court order
Order Issued After Hearing
Purpose:
First Hearing
Listed On:
21 Sept 2011
Original Order Copy
Get a certified copy of this order
Order Text
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO
M.A.C.M.A.No.2194 OF 2011
JUDGMENT:
The appeal is filed by the appellants/petitioners against the order in O.P.No.429 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Khammam, where-under for a claim of compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- consequent on the death of the deceased Kota Yesu, a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- was granted but the insurance Company was excluded.
$\overline{2}$ According to the case of the petitioners, the deceased was travelling in the lorry bearing No. ABW 2277 to go to Tiruvuru and when the lorry reached near Sathemmagudi of Ganeshpadu village due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry driven by its driver i.e., respondent No.1, the lorry turned turtle and the said Yesu received injuries and died. Respondents Nos.1 and 2 remained ex parte. Respondent No.3 filed counter denying the averments in the petition, and putting the petitioners to strict proof of rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle and cause of death of the deceased. After considering the material on record, the lower Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.1,80,000/- against respondents 1 and 2 only and dismissed the claim against respondent No.3-Insurance Company holding that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger and therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation.
<span id="page-0-0"></span> $3.$ Evidently, the facts clearly disclose that the deceased was travelling as a gratuitous passenger and the liability of the Insurance Company is not there as per the decision reported in New India Assurance Company Vs. Asha Rani<sup>[1]</sup>. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, Rs.2,00,000/- was claimed and a claim of
Rs.1,80,000/- was granted and though the learned counsel for the appellants claims that he is entitled for enhancement of compensation, the reasons given by the lower Tribunal are clear with regard to the quantum of compensation and there are no merits in the appeal.
Accordingly, M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
_______________________________ JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO
Date:21.09.2011 INL
<span id="page-1-0"></span>[1] 2003(1) ACJ 1