Dismissed

The Branch Manager, National Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Nagireddigari Umadevi and 3 Others

Andhra Pradesh HC13 Sept 2023MACMA/949/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh upheld the compensation award granted by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The appellant Insurance Company challenged the Tribunal's finding of rash and negligent driving and the quantum of compensation. The Court found no legal flaw in the Tribunal's conclusion and affirmed the award of Rs. 13,06,000/- to the c

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed; the decree and order dated 13.12.2012 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal were confirmed.

The Branch Manager, National Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs… — Medical Negligence | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶2

WEDNESDAY .THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

¶5

''r

¶6

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 949 OF 2013

¶7

Between:

¶8

The Branch Manager, National Insurance Co.Ltd., National Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office, 81-D, Chetty Street, Opposite Bus Stand Tiruchengode Town & Post Taluka, Namakkal Districtr, Tamilnadu State, PIN63721 1.

¶9

...Appellant/2"“ respondent

¶10

AND

¶11

¶12

Nagireddigari Umadevi, W/o N.Konda Reddy, aged about 48 years Hindu Housewife.

¶13

Nagireddigari Konda Reddy, S/o Venkata Swamy Reddy, aged about 54 years, Hindu.

¶14

Nagireddigari Pavani, D/o N.Konda Reddy, aged 28 years, Hindu

¶15

■A,
•*

¶16

(Respondents 1 to 3 are Residing at D.No.17-469-9-4-1, Vivekananda Nagar, Madanapalle Town & Post, Madanapalle Mandal, Chittor Dist, A.P.)

¶17

.. .Respondent/Petitioner

¶18

N.Palani Sarny, S/o P.Nalliya Gounder, aged 63 years,

¶19

(Residing at D.No.119, Bungalow Street, Thiruchengode village, post & Taluk, Namakkal District, Tamilnadu State, PIN-637211.)

¶20

...Respondent/1®* Respondent

¶21

Appeal filed under Section 173 Of M.V.ACT. that the High Court may be pleased to set aside the order passed in M.V.O.P.No.111 of 2011 on the file of the court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-ll Additional District Judge at Madanapalle, dated 13th December, 2012.

¶22

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 A. JAYANTHI for the Appellant and of Sri Bhaskar Gandham for Respondent.

¶23

This Court doth Order and decree as follows:

¶24

N
f:
.>•
I: -v i:
V.
i
/»
<br>

¶25

That the Appeal be and is hereby dismissed.

¶26

That the decree and order dated 13.12.2012 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-ll Additional District Judge, Madanapalle , in M.V.O.P.No.111 of 2011 is hereby Confirmed.

¶27

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

¶28

Miscellaneous Appeal

¶29

SD/- K. KASI RAO ACHARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶30

To,

¶31

//TRUE COPY// i SECTION OFFICER

¶32

The court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-ll Additional District Judge at Madanapalle.

¶33

Three CD Copies

¶34

>

¶35

t iH /
•»
HIQH COURT
f
V. .r
/•

DATED:13/09/2023

DECREE

MACMA.No.949 of 2013

I 27 MAR 202*1 <br>^ . Current Section

¶40

M.A.C.M.A IS DISMISSED

¶41

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶42

WEDNESDAY ,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶43

PRESENT

¶44

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

¶45

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 949 OF 2013

¶46

¶47

Between:

¶48

The Branch Manager, National Insurance Co.Ltd., National Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office, 81-D, Chetty Street, Opposite Bus Stand, Tiruchengode Town & PostTaluka, Namakkal District, Tamilnadu State,^PIN-637211.

¶49

...Appellant/2"'' respondent

¶50

AND

¶51

Nagireddigari Umadevi, W/o N.Konda Reddy, aged about 48 years, Hindu, Housewife.

¶52

Nagireddigari Konda Reddy, S/o Venkata Swamy Reddy, aged about 54 years, Hindu.

¶53

Nagireddigari Pavani, D/o N.Konda Reddy, aged 28 years, Hindu (Respondents 1 to 3 are Residing at D.No.17-469-9-4-1, Vivekananda Nagar, Madanapalle Town'& Post, Madanapalle Mandal, Chittor Dist, A.P.)

¶54

.. .Respondent/Petitioner

¶55

N.Palani Sarny, S/o P.Nalliya Gounder, aged 63 years, (Residing at D.No.119, Bungalow Street, Thiruchengode village, post & Taluk, Namakkal District, Tamilnadu State, PIN-637211.)

¶56

...Respondent/1®* Respondent

¶57

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2013(MACMAMP. NO: 2201 OF 20131

¶58

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased To grant stay of operation of the decree and judgment in M.VOP.No.111 of 2011 on the file of the court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-ll Additional District Judge at Madanapalle, dated 13th December, 2012., pending disposal of the main CMA.

¶59

Counsel for the Appellant :SRI. A JAYANTHI

¶60

Counsel for the Respondents: BHASKAR GANDHAM The Court made the following:

¶61

fT.' I >. '*. '■)

¶62

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

¶63

M.A.C.M.A.No.949 of 2013

¶64

JUDGMENT:

¶65

The appellant is respondent/Insurance company and respondents are claimant Nos. 1 to 3 and respondent in M.V.O.P.No. 111 of 2011 on the file of the Chairman,^{MotorAccidents} Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Madanapalle. The appellant/Insurance company filed the instant appeal questioning the legal validity of the award passed by the Tribunal.

¶66

Both the parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the claim petition before the Tribunal.

¶67

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, 1989, against the respondents praying the Tribunal to award compensation of Rs. 15,00,000/- for the death of Nagireddigari^Mohana Krishna (hereinafter be referred as ‘the deceased’), who is son of claimant Nos. 1 and 2 and brother of the 3'’'* claimant, in a motor accident that occurred on 04.05.2009.

¶68

2 VGKRJ MACMA No.949of2013

¶69

Brief averments in the petition filed by the claimants are as follows:

¶70

On 04.05.2009, at about 8.30 a.m., the deceased started on his motor cycle bearing registration No.PY-Ol-AS-3325 from his house to drop his father at APSRTC Bus Stand, Madanapalle,^and after dropping his father, while he was returning to^hishouse, at about 9.00 a.m., when he was proceeding on a culvert^onBahuda River, C.T.M. Road, Madanapalle, a loriy bearing registration NO.TN-34-A-8804 being driven by its driver in a rash^andnegligent manner. dashed against the deceased from rear side and ran over the deceased, as a result, the deceased died on the^spot.

¶71

The 1®‘ respondent remained ex-parte. The 2"'^ respondent^filed a written statement by denying the claim of the claimants. It is pleaded that the driver of the loriy, which was involved in the accident, was not having valid and effective driving^licenceatthe time of the accident and as such, the 2"<i respondent/Insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation to the^claimants.

¶72

VGKR,J MAGMA No.949of2013

¶73

¶74

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

¶75

(1) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing registration^No.TN 34 E 8804 involved resulting in the death of the deceased^by name Nagireddigari Mohana Krishna?

¶76

(2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation?^Ifso, by whom and to what amount?

¶77

(3) To what relief?

¶78

During the course of the enquiry in the claim petition,^onbehalf of the claimants, P.Ws.l to 3 were examined and Exs.A.¹ to A. 10 and Ex.X.l were marked. On behalf of the 2"^ respondent/insurance company, R.W.l was examined and Ex.B. 1 was marked.

¶79

At the culmination of the enquiry, basing on the material^on record, the Tribunal awarded total compensation of^{Rs.13,06,000/-to} claimant Nos.l and 2 with proportionate costs and interest^attherate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date^{ofrealizationand} liability is fastened against both the respondents.^{Aggrievedbythesaid} award, the 2n<i respondent/Insurance company preferred the instant

¶80

¶81

VGKRJ MACMA No.949of2013

¶82

appeal questioning the legal validity of the award passed by the Tribunal.

¶83

Heard learned counsels on both sides and perused the material on record.

¶84

Now the point for determination is:-

¶85

“Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference, if so, to what extent?”

¶86

POINT; In order to prove the rash and negligent driving of^the driver of the lorry, the claimants relied on the evidence of P.Ws.l and 2. The 2nd claimant is examined as P.W.l, but he is not an eye to the accident. The evidence of P.W.2, coupled with Ex.A. 1-certified copy of First Information Report, Ex.A.2-certified copy of the Charge Sheet and Ex.A.S-certified copy of the MVI Report, goes to show that the accident in question occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly came to a conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the loriy. I do not fmd any legal flaw or infirmity in the said finding given by the Tribunal.

¶87

5 VGKR,J MACMA No.949 of 2013

¶88

It is not in dispute by both sides that the lorry is^{insuredwiththe} 2’^^ respondent/Insurance company under Ex.B. 1-policy^andthedriver of the lorry is having valid and effective driving^{licenceatthetimeofthe} accident. 13. Coming to the compensation, as per the case of the^{claimants,the} deceased being an engineering graduate, the Tribunal^{heldinitsorder} that the deceased passed II Semester of 4^1’ year in B.Tech Course. Ex.A.7 also supports the same. The material on record^{revealsthatthe} deceased has completed B.Tech Course in the branch^{ofElectricaland} Electronics. As per the case of the claimants, the^{deceasedwasaged} about 23 years and he was a bachelor as on the date^{oftheaccident.} The claimants are father, mother and sister of the deceased. By giving cogent reasons, the monthly income of the deceased^{wasnotionally} fixed at Rs. 12,000/p.m. by the Tribunal. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the said finding given by the Tribunal^is quite just and reasonable. Therefore, the annual income of the deceased is Rs. 1,44,000/- (Rs. 12,000/-, X 12). Since the deceased^{wasabachelor.} 50% of the income has to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. If 50% of the amount is deducted, an amount of Rs.72,000/is available towards contribution to the family members^{ofthedeceased.}

¶89

¶90

VGKR,J MACMA No.949 of 2013

¶91

As per the decision of the Hon^ble Supreme Court of^Indiain Sarla Varma case, the relevant multiplier applied by the^{Tribunaltotheage} group of the deceased is ‘18’ and by applying the same,^theTribunal awarded an amount of Rs. 12,96,000/- (Rs.72,000/- x 12) towards loss of dependency, to claimant Nos.l and 2. Further, the^Tribunal also awarded an amount of Rs.5,000/towards funeral expenses and Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate. In total, the Tribunal^awardedan amount of Rs. 13,06,000/- to claimant Nos.l and 2.^{Whereas,bygiving} cogent reason that the 3^^ claimant cannot be termed^{a‘dependent’of} the deceased, the claim of the 3'^'^ claimant is dismissed.^{Outofthetotal} compensation, an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- was apportioned^tothe 1 St claimant and an amount of Rs.3,06,000/- was apportioned^tothe 2’^^ claimant. I do not find any illegality or infirmity^{intheawardpassedby} the Tribunal.

¶92

For the forgoing reasons, I do not find any illegality^{orirregularity} 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.

¶93

¶94

¶95

VGKR,J MACMA No.949 of 2013

¶96

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed while confirming^thedecree and order dated 13.12.2012 passed by the Chairman,^{MotorAccidents} Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Madanapalle, in M.V.O.P.No.lll of 2011. No order as to costs.

¶97

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

¶98

shall stand closed.

¶99

SD/- K. KASI RAO ACHARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶100

//TRUE COPY// / SECTION OFFICER

¶101

To,

¶102

The court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-ll^{AdditionalDistrict} Judge at Madanapalle. (with records if any)

¶103

One CC to SRI. A JAYANTHI Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRI. BHASKAR GANDHAM Advocate [OPUC]

¶104

The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court of Andhra^{PradeshatAmaravati.} 5. Three CD Copies

Pvd

HIGH COURT

f^: - -m if' In? DATED:13/09/2023

¶109

JUDGEMENT+DECREE MACMA.No.949 of 2013

¶110

..X
^ ?, 7 MAR 20211 g
vl*" Current Section

¶111

M.A.C.M.A IS DISMISSED

The Branch Manager, National Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Nagireddigari Umadevi and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Branch Manager, National Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Nagireddigari Umadevi and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kamepalli Sitaramaiah Vs Nalluri Krishna Mohan Rao

D.Prabhavathi and 4 Ors. Vs M.Yalladri and Anr.

United India Insurance Co. Ltd, Anantapur Rep. by Dm, Vs S.a.Haroon and Others

Shaik Khaja Peer at Rangasamuddram Khajapeer Vs B.Venkatarayappa

Aksharabharathi Educational Society, Vs Nagothi Gopal Krishna

P. Peddanna,minor, rep.by N.F.Guardian, Vs C.Ramasubba Reddy