Dismissed

United India Insurance Company Limited v. Smt. Y. Hymavathi and 5 Ors.

Andhra Pradesh HC15 Sept 2023MACMA/473/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh dismissed the appeal filed by United India Insurance Company Limited. The Court confirmed the Tribunal's award of Rs. 9,98,520/- to the claimants, finding no infirmity or contrary evidence to justify interference.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; decree of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal dated 12.01.2007 confirmed.

United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt… — Motor Accident Claims | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶2

FRIDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSANDAND TWENTYTHREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

¶5

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL Nn ±7:k of 2013

¶6

Between:

¶7

DivlbnLlCTnSaNTlOflTSoo'r'*"^' '

¶8

...Appellant/Respondent No.2

¶9

AND

¶10

Housewlfe'^^'^^^^'’ Subbarayulu, aged about 37 years,^Occ:

¶11

Sri Y. Vindhya, D/o.Late Subbarayulu, aged about 23 years, Occ: Student

¶12

Sri Y. Sandhya, D/o.Late Subbarayulu, aged about 21 years, Occ; Student 7/9/2011)^^ against R3 dismissed for default vide^{courtorderdated}

¶13

Sri Y. Seshaiah Naidu, S/o.Late Rama Naidu, aged 61 years.

¶14

Smt. Chengamma, W/o.Y. Seshaiah Naidu, aged 61 years, Occ; Housewife. Chitt'S)r^Distrfct^^°'°'^°‘^^^^°’ ^enkateswara Colony,^{Kongareddipalli,}

¶15

...Respondents/Petitioner No.s 1 to 5

¶16

S/o.Ramakrishna, Ma or. Owner of the Lorry,

¶17

R/o.D.No. 13/77, Bazaar Street, Penumur, Penumur Mandal, Chittoor District.

¶18

...Respondents No.1

¶19

Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V.ACT. aggrieved bv the decree and 12.01.2007 passed in OP.No.134/2002 on S^ie file of th^Mot^^^^ Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-l Additional District Judge at Chittoor. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the Suit and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Srinivasa Rao Vutia for the Appellant.

¶20

This Court doth Order and decree as follows:

¶21

1. That the Appeal be and is hereby dismissed.

¶22

/ /

¶23

That the decree and order dated 12.01.2007 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-I Additional District Judge, Chittoor, in

¶24

M.V.O.P.No.134 of 2002 be and hereby is confirmed.

¶25

That there be no order as to costs in this Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous

¶26

Appeal.

¶27

Sd/- N. NAGAMMA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

SECTION OFFICER

Chitto“f°' Tribunal-cum-l Additional District Judge

¶32

One CC to Sri Srinivasa Rao Vutia, Advocate [OPUC]

¶33

THREE CD Copies

HIGH COURT

DATED: 15/09/2023

DECREE

MACMA.No.473 of 2013

6’P
o
o
J!:x:
.3 , 3 m 202*' ll
Current oection
Ge •::>
rrrP.'^

¶40

M.A.C.M.A IS DISMISSED

¶41

6 Copiej PrL

¶42

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶43

FRIDAY ,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶44

PRESENT

¶45

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VGOPALA KRISHNA RAO

¶46

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 473 OF²⁰¹³

¶47

Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V.ACT, aggrieved^{bythedecreeand} judgment dated 12.01.2007 passed in OP.No. 134/2002^onthe file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-l Additional District Judge at Chittoor.

¶48

Between:

¶49

United India Insurance Company Limited, rep., by its^{DivisionalManager,The} Divisional Manager, United India Insurnce Company Limited^{DivisionalOffice,} D.No. 10/31, Chottoor.

¶50

...Appellant/Respondent No.2

¶51

AND

¶52

Smt. Y. Hymavathi, W/o.Late Subbarayulu, aged about^37years,Occ: Housewife

¶53

Sri Y. Vindhya, D/o.Late Subbarayulu, aged about 23^{years,Occ:Student} 3. Sri Y. Sandhya, D/o.Late Subbarayulu, aged about 21^{years,Occ:Student}

¶54

R3 dismissed for default vide court order dt.7/9/2011

¶55

Sri Y. Seshaiah Naidu, S/o.Late Rama Naidu, aged 61 years, 5. Smt. Chengamma, W/o.Y. Seshaiah Naidu, aged 61 years,^{Occ:Housewife.} All are Hindus, R/o.D.No.2/880, Sri Venkateswara Colony, Kongareddipalli, Chittoor District.

¶56

...Respondents/Petitioner No.s 1 to 5

¶57

Sri G.Gowri Sankar, S/o.Ramakrishna, Major, Owner of the^Lorry, R/o.D.No.13/77, Bazaar Street, Penumur, Penumur Mandal,^{ChittoorDistrict}

¶58

...Respondents No.1

¶59

I.A. NO: 2 OF 2007(MACMAMP. NO: 3533 OF 2007)

¶60

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in pursuance^{oftheorderandtheDecree} dated. 12.1.2007 passed in OP.No. 134/2002 on the file^{oftheMotorAccidents} Claims Tribunal-cum-lst Addl. District Judge at Chittoor, pending dispsoal of the above appeal

¶61

Counsel for the Appellant: Sri SRINIVASA RAO VUTLA

¶62

Counsel for the Respondent:

¶63

The Court made the following:

¶64

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

¶65

M.A.C.M.A.No.473 of 2013

¶66

JUDGMENT:

¶67

The appellant is the 2"'^ respondent/Insurance company^andthe claimant Nos.l to 5 and the respondent in respondents are M.V.O.P.No.134 of 2002 on the file of the Chairman,^{MotorAccidents} Claims Tribunal-cum-1 Additional District Judge, Chittoor. The appellant filed the instant appeal questioning the legal validity^ofthe award passed by the Tribunal.

¶68

Both the parties in the appeal will be referred to^astheyare arrayed in the claim petition before the Tribunal.

¶69

The claimants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with Rule 455 of the^A.P.M.V. Rules, the Tribunal to award 1989, against the respondents praying the death of Y. Subbarayulu (the compensation of Rs. 13,00,000/- on deceased), who is husband of the claimant and father of claimant Nos.2 and 3, in a road accident that occurred on 03.06.2001.

¶70

Brief averments in the petition filed by the claimant^{areasfollows.}

¶71

¶72

V6KR,J MACMA No.473 of 2013

¶73

On 03.06.2001, at about 7.30 p.m., while the deceased was going on Chittoor-Puttur Road on his scooter bearing registration No.AP-03-4-343 and when he reached near a Church, a lorry bearing registration No.AP-03-U-3227 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the scooter, as a result, the deceased succumbed to injuries. In connection with the above incident, a case was registered against the driver of the loriy for the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC in Crime No.33 of 2001 of Traffic Police Station, Chittoor.

¶74

The 1st respondent was set ex-parte. The 2"^ respondent^filed a counter by denying the claim of the claimants.

¶75

Based on the above pleadings of both the parties, the following issues are settled for trial by the Tribunal:

¶76

(1) Whether the accident in question was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No. AP-03-U-3227 or the deceased Subbarayulu while riding the Scooter bearing No. AP-03-4-343 or any one of them?

¶77

(2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for any compensation? If so, to what quantum? And from whom?

¶78

¶79

VGKR,J MACMA No.473 of 2013

¶80

behalf in the claim petition, on 7. During the course of the enquiry examined and Exs.A.l to A.7 were of the claimants, P.Ws 1 to 4 were examined and behalf of respondents. no witnesses were marked. On Ex.B.l was marked.

¶81

the material on 8. At the culmination of the enquiry, basing on Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.9,98,520/to record, the the rate of 7.5% costs and interest at the claimants with proportionate of realization. Aggrieved by . from the date of petition to till the date p.a company preferred the the said award, the 2-^ respondent/Insurance of the award passed by the instant appeal questioning the legal validity . Tribunal.

¶82

ppellant/United India Insurance 9. Heard learned counsel for the and perused the material on record. Company Limited 10. Now the point for determination is;interference, if so. order of the Tribunal needs any Whether the to what extent?”

¶83

the rash and negligent driving of In order to prove 11. POINT: the claimants relied upon on the evidence of the driver of the lorry.

¶84

¶85

4 VGKRJ MACMA No.473 of 2013

¶86

P.W. 1, P.W.2, Ex.A. 1-Certified copy of the First Information Report and Ex.A.2-Certified copy of the Charge Sheet. The material on record reveals that the accident in question occurred^duetorashand negligent driving of the driver of the lorry. The Tribunal^alsocameto the same conclusion. Therefore, I do not find any legal flaw of infirmity in the said finding given by the Tribunal.

¶87

The main contention of the 2”^ respondent/Insurance company is that there is contributory negligence on the part^{oftheriderofthe} motor cycle. But, the same is not supported by any^evidence.

¶88

In order to prove the income of the deceased, the claimants relied on the evidence of P.W.3, Superintendent in Irrigation Department, Chittoor. P.W.3 brought the Service Register^pertaining to the deceased to prove that he was working as a Draftsman in Second Grade in the Irrigation Department, Chittoor.^Asperthe Service Register of the deceased, his date of birth^{was15.12.1954} and the deceased was aged about 46 years at the time^ofaccident. Since the gross salary of the deceased was Rs. 10,245/-^andhisnet salary was Rs.8,895/-, the Tribunal applied appropriate^multiplier by deducting. 1/3^^ towards personal expenses of the^deceasedfrom

¶89

¶90

VGKR,J MAGMA No.473 of 2013

¶91

out of Rs.10245/- per month i.e., Rs. 1,22,940/- annually and if 1/3'^'* is deducted i.e. Rs.40,980/- towards personal expenses of the deceased, the contribution would be Rs.81,960/-. The^Tribunalalso applied the relevant multiplier ‘12’ and awarded an amount of Rs.9,83,520/to the 1 St claimant being wife of the deceased. The Tribunal also awarded an amount of Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of consortium to the 1 claimant. In total, the Tribunal rightly awarded an amount of Rs.9,98,520/- to the claimants.

¶92

It is not in dispute that the lorry is insured with the 2^^ respondent/Insurance company and the policy was in^forceandthe driver of the lorry is having valid and effective driving^licenceatthe time of accident and there are no violations in Ex.B. 1-policy.

¶93

For the forgoing reasons, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the Tribunal and the impugned^{orderisperfectly} sustainable under law and it warrants no interference and the appeal is devoid of merits, therefore, it is liable to be dismissed.

¶94

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed while confirming^thedecree and order dated 12.01.2007 passed by the Chairman,^{MotorAccidents}

¶95

¶96

¶97

VGKR,J MACMA No.473of2013

¶98

Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Chittoor, in M.V.O.P.No. 134 of 2002. No order as to costs.

¶99

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the appeal

¶100

shall stand closed.

¶101

Sd/- N. NAGAMMA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

To,

SECTION OFFICER

The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge at Chittoor. ^

¶106

One CC to SRI. SRINIVASA RAO VUTLA Advocate [OPUC]

¶107

The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi.

¶108

Three CD Copies

HIGH COURT

DATED: 15/09/2023

JUDGMENT+DECREE

MACMA.No.473 of 2013

.70
/. o
AO \ 3 MAR 202'! O' 'i
Current Section
i-

¶117

M.A.C.M.A IS DISMISSED

¶118

G Go?!^

United India Insurance Company Limited v. Smt. Y. Hymavathi and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

United India Insurance Company Limited v. Smt. Y. Hymavathi and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Ongole Municipality, by Its Commissioner, Ongole Vs Mohammad in Fran and 32 Ors.

Bachanaboina Venkateswarlu Vs Y.V. Ramana Reddy and 2 Ots

National Insurance Company Litd Vs Dasari Lakshmi Devi and 2 Others

Kamepalli Sitaramaiah Vs Nalluri Krishna Mohan Rao

Peetani Nageswara Rao and 2 Ors. Vs D.Krishna and 4 Ors.

United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Bandla Palli Chinnakka