Dismissed

M/S.Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Garigala Lalitha & 3 Ors.

Andhra Pradesh HC20 Nov 2024MACMA/2693/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed appeals by an insurer against awards of compensation made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for deaths of two drivers resulting from a head-on collision. The court held the insurer liable and found no grounds for interference with the Tribunal's compensation assessment.

What did the court decide?

Both M.A.C.M.A.s dismissed with no order as to costs. Interim orders vacated.

M/S.Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Garigala… — Motor Accident Claims | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF NOVEMBER

¶3

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS

¶6

M.A.C.M.A. NO: 2693 OF ?nifi

¶7

Between;

¶8

M/s. Oriental Insurance Co Ltd, rep by its Divisional Manager 0/0.9/2 Arundelpet, Guntur.

¶9

...Appellant/Respondent No.2

¶10

AND

¶11

Garigala Laiitha, W/o.late Somaiah Hindu aged 38 yrs, (wife of

¶12

deceased). R/o. Nehru Nagar, Macherla Mandal. Guntur District.

¶13

... .Respondent/Petitioner

¶14

M. Srinivasulu, S/o. Venkateswarlu, R/o.Dubagunta Post, Kandukuru

¶15

Mandal, Prakasam District. [Owner of Lorry Bearing No. AP 27 W 1029]

¶16

M/s.Chandan Road Ways rep by its Manager O/o.R-40, South

¶17

Extension-ll, New Delhi-110 049. [Owner of Lorry Bearing no.HR 38 H 8768]

¶18

ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co Ltd, rep by its Manager O/o.

¶19

Legal Office: Anjaneya Towers 4th Floor, Labbipet, Vijayawada.

¶20

[Insurer of the Lorry Bearing No.HR 38 H 8768]

¶21

...Respondents/Respondents

¶22

Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V. Act aggrieved by the Order and decree in MVOP No.525/2010 dated 23-06-2012 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum V Addl. District Court, Fast Track Court, Guntur. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and material papers in the Suit and upon hearing arguments of Smt. Manimma Medida, Advocate for the Appellant and Sri V.K Naidu, Advocate for Respondent No.4.

¶23

This Court doth Order and decree as follows;

¶24

That the MAGMA be and hereby is dismissed.

¶25

That there shall be no order as to Costs in this MAGMA.

¶26

Sd/- A VIJAYA BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY//

¶27

To,

¶28

S ION OFFICER

¶29

The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - Cum - V Additional District Curt (FTC), Guntur.

¶30

Three CD Copies

Skm sree

HIGH COURT

DATED:21/11/2024

DECREE

MACMA.No.2693 of 2016

¶36

DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS

¶37

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶38

THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF NOVEMBER

¶39

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶40

PRESENT

¶41

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS

¶42

M.A.C.M.A. Nos: 844 OF 2015

¶43

Between:

¶44

M/S. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, 9/2,Arundelpet, Guntur City

¶45

(Insurer of the Lorry No. AP 27 Y 1029)

¶46

...Petitioner/Respondent No.4

¶47

AND

¶48

Shaik Saidabhi, W/o. Shaik Jhon, aged 39 (Wife of the Deceased)

¶49

Shaik Phatimon, D/o. Shaik Jhon, aged 19 yrs, (Daughter of the Deceased)

¶50

Shaik Mirabhi, D/o. Shaik Jhon, aged 12 yrs (Daughter of the Deceased)

¶51

Shaik Mahabhin, D/o. Shaik Jhon, aged 11 yrs, (Daughter of the Deceased)

¶52

Shaik Rashib, S/o. Shaik Jhon, aged 9 yrs, (Son of the Deceased)

¶53

(Respondents 3 to 5 are being minors rep. by their next friend and natural guardian i.e 1®* Respondent Shaik Saidabi, W/o. Shaik Jhon, aged 39 yrs,)

¶54

(All are R/o Madugula Village, Gurajala Mandal, Guntur District

¶55

. ■ .Respondents/Petitioners

¶56

M/s. Chandan Road Ways, Rep. by its Manager, R-40, South Extension-ll, New Delhi-110049

¶57

ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep.by its Manager, Legal Office at Anjaneya Towers, 4**" Floor, Labbipet, Vijayawada (Insurer of the Lorry bearing No. HR 38H 8768)

¶58

M. Srinivasulu, S/o. Venkateswarlu, Dubagunta Post, Kandukuru Mandal, Prakasam District. (Owner of the Lorry bearing^No. AP²⁷ w 1029)

¶59

...Respondents/Respondents

¶60

Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V. Act, aggrieved by the Order and decree in MVOP No. 869 of 2010 dated 23-6-2012 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Cum V Additional District Curt (FTC), Guntur.

¶61

This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and material papers m the Suit and upon hearing arguments of Smt. Manimma Medida, Advocate for the Appellant and Sri V.K Naidu, Advocate for Respondent No.7.

¶62

This Court doth Order and decree as follows:

¶63

1. That the MACMA be and hereby is dismissed.

¶64

That there shall be no order as to Costs in this MAGMA.

¶65

Sd/- A VIJAYA BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶66

//TRUE COPY//

¶67

SECTION OFFICER

¶68

To, 1. The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - Cum - V Additional District Curt (FTC), Guntur.

¶69

Three CD Copies

Skm

sree

HIGH COURT

DATED:21/11/2024

DECREE

MACMA.No .844 of 2015

¶76

sfo?
5 (l?W2l»5 „
^ . Cutrani Section
^4oespatc«^^

¶77

DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS

¶78

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶79

THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF NOVEMBER -
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR 4^! -•■■4
•v/
•P*'
p 0*
■O

¶80

PRESENT

¶81

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS^^^^

¶82

M.A.C.M.A. Nos: 844 OF 2015 & 2693 nf

¶83

jyi.A.C.M.A. No. 844 nf 9ni^-

¶84

¶85

Between:

¶86

M/S. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by its Divisional Manager Divisional Office, 9/2, Arundelpet, Guntur City

¶87

(Insurer of the Lorry No. AP 27 Y 1029)

¶88

...Petitioner/Respondent No.4

¶89

AND

¶90

Shaik Saidabhi, W/o. Shaik Jhon, aged 39 (Wife of the Deceased)

¶91

Shaik Phatimon, D/o. Shaik Jhon, aged 19 yrs, (Daughter of the

¶92

Deceased)

¶93

Shaik Mirabhi, D/o. Shaik Jhon aged 12 yrs (Daughter of the

¶94

Deceased)

¶95

Shaik Mahabhin, D/o. Shaik Jhon, aged 11 yrs, (Daughter of-the Deceased)

¶96

Shaik Rashib, S/o. Shaik Jhon, aged 9 yrs, (Son of the Deceased)

¶97

(Respondents 3 to 5 are being minors rep. by their next friend and natural guardian i.e 1®' Respondent Shaik Saidabi W/o. Shaik Jhon aged 39 yrs,)

¶98

(All are R/o Madugula Village, Gurajala Mandal, Guntur District

¶99

... Respondents/Petitioners

¶100

M/s. Chandan Road Ways, Rep. by its Manager, R-40, South Extension-ll, New Delhi-110049

¶101

ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by its Manager, Legal Office at Anjaneya Towers, 4"’ Floor, Labbipet, Vijayawada (Insurer of the Lorry bearing No. HR 38H 8768)

¶102

M. Srinivasulu, S/o. Venkateswarlu Dubagunta Post, Kandukuru

¶103

Mandal, Prakasam District. (Owner of the Lorry bearing No. AP 27 w 1029)

¶104

...Respondents/Respondents

¶105

LA. NO: 1 OF 2015(MACMAMP. NO: 2235 OF 2015)

¶106

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 suspend operation of the judgment and decree in MVOP. No. 869 of 2010 on the file of the MACT-cum-V Additional District Judge (FTC) Guntur dt. 23/06/2012.

¶107

Counsel for the Appellant: SMT. MANIMMA MEDIDA

¶108

Counsel for the Respondent No.7:SRI V.K. NAIDU

¶109

M.A.C.M.A. NO: 2693 OF 2nifi

¶110

Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V. Act, aggrieved by the Order and decree in MVOP No.525/2010 dated 23-06-2012 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - cum - V Addl. District Court, Fast Track Court, Guntur.

¶111

Between:

¶112

M/S. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. rep. by its Divisional Manager 0/0.9/2 Arundelpet, Guntur.

¶113

...Appellant/Respondent No.2

¶114

AND

¶115

Garigala Lalitha, W/o.late Somaiah, Hindu aged 38 yrs, (wife of

¶116

deceased), R/o.Nehru Nagar, Macherla Mandal, Guntur District.

¶117

.... Respondent/Petitioner

¶118

M. Srinivasulu, S/o.Venkateswarlu R/o.Dubagunta Post, Kandukuru

¶119

Madnal, Prakasam District. [Owner of Lorry Bearing No.AP 27 W 1029]

¶120

M/s.Chandan Road Ways, rep by its Manager O/o.R-40, South Extension-ll, New Delhi-110 049. [Owner of Lorry Bearing^No.HR 38 H 8768]

¶121

ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co Ltd, rep by its Manager 0/o.Legal Office. Anjaneya Towers, 4^^ Floor, Labbipet, Vijayawada. [Insurer of the Lorry Bearing No.HR 38 H 8768]

¶122

...Respondents/Respondents

¶123

I.A. NO: 2 OF 2012(MACMAMP. NO: 8397 OF 2012^

¶124

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 suspend operation of the judgment and decree in MVOP No.525/2010 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - cum - V Addl. District Judge, [FTC], Guntur dated 23.06.2012.

¶125

Counsel for the Appellant: SMT. MANIMMA MEDIDA

¶126

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI V.K. NAIDU

¶127

The Court made the following COMMON ORDER:

¶128

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS

¶129

M.A.C.M.A.Nos.844 of 2015 & 2693 of 2016

¶130

COMMON JUDGMENT:

¶131

These appeals are directed against the orders dated^23.06.2012 in M.V.O.P.No.869 of 2010 and M.V.O.P.No.525 of 2010 respectively of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-V^Additional District Judge (F.T.C), Guntur (hereinafter called as 'the Tribunal')2. Since these appeals arise out of same accident and as the material facts are common, the same are being disposed of by this common judgment.

¶132

Both the M.A.C.M.As are preferred by the insurer of the Lorry bearing No.AP 27 Y 1029 (hereinafter referred to as "crime vehicle"). The respondent Nos.l to 5 in M.A.C.M.A.No.844 of 2015^arethewife and children of the Shaik John (hereinafter called as "deceased No.l"). The respondent No.l in M.A.C.M.A.No.2693 of 2016 is^{wifeofSomaiah} (deceased No.2).

¶133

For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter^referredto as they arrayed before the tribunal.

¶134

The case of the claimants, in the petitions before^{theTribunalin} both M.V.O.Ps. is that:

¶135

i). On 19.01.2010 the deceased Nos.l and 2 are travellingⁱⁿ a lorry bearing No.AP 27 W 1029 from Tummala Cheruvu^and when the said lorry reached near Oxford Public School at Dachepalli, Guntur District, at about 5.00 p.m., one lorry

¶136

¶137

bearing No.HR 38 H 8768 came in opposite direction with high speed and hit the lorry bearing No.AP 27 W 1029 and in the said accident both the lorries got fully damaged and in result, Shaik John who is driver and Somaiah who is cleaner of lorry bearing No.AP 27 W 1029 died on the spot. ii).Being dependants, the claimants individually claimed compensation of Rs.4,00,000/and Rs.3,00,000/respectively against theowners and i insurers of the crime vehicles.

¶138

Respondent Nos.l and 3 remained exparte.

¶139

Respondent No.2 filed written statements in both the claim petitions denying the material averments of the claim petition and contended that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of driver of lorry bearing No.AP27 W 1029 and not on the part of the driver of the 1“ respondent. It is further contended that the compensation claimed is highly excessive and hence, prays to dismiss the petition with costs.

¶140

Respondent No.4 also filed written statements in both the claim petitions denying the material averments of the claim petition and contended that the deceased No.l is travelling in a goods carrying lorry and carrying of passengers in the said vehicle is prohibited and it is completely violation of policy conditions. Hence, this respondent is not liable to pay compensation and prays to dismiss the petition with costs.

¶141

¶142

The Tribunal settled the following issues for enquiry basing on

¶143

the material in M.V.O.P.No.844 of 2015:

¶144

'l.Whether the death of the deceased was caused in a Motor Vehicle accident on account of use of lorry bearing^No.HR 38 H 8768 and AP27 W 1029?

¶145

2.Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, what extent and from whom?

¶146

3.To what relief?"

¶147

The Tribunal settled the following issues for enquiry basing on the material in M.V.O.P.No.2393 of 2016:

¶148

"l.Whether the accident occurred due to use of lorry^No.AP27 W 1029 and Gas Tanker No.HR 38 H 8769? If so, Garigala Somaiah, husband of the petitioner, received injuries^inthe said accident and died due to these injuries?

¶149

2.Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation?

¶150

3.Whether the respondents are liable to pay compensation, if any the petitioners are entitled?

¶151

During enquiry, in M.A.C.M.A.No.844 of 2015, PWl was examined and Ex.Al to A5 were marked and on behalf of respondents, RWs 1 to 3 are examined and Ex.Bl to B3 are marked and XI and X2 are also marked.

¶152

During enquiry, in M.A.C.M.A.No.2693 of 2016, PWl was examined and Ex.Al to A3 were marked and on behalf of respondents, RWs 1 to 3 are examined and Ex.Bl to B5 are marked and XI and X2 are also marked.

¶153

¶154

On the material, the Tribunal, having concluded that the accident occurred due to head on collision of both the vehicles and rash and negligent driving of both the drivers and that both the vehicle owners as well insurers are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation and that the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.2,43,400/- and Rs.2,95,000/respectively, with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. 14. It is against the said orders; these appeals are preferred by theinsurer of thecrime vehicle.

¶155

Heard Ms. Manimma Medida, learned counsel for the appellant/insurer and Sri V. K. Naidu, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants in both the appeals.

¶156

Now, the point that arises for determination is whether the order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside, if so, to what extent? 17. POINT:

¶157

It is not in dispute about the death of deceased Nos.l and 2 in the accident, involvement of crime vehicle, rash and negligent driving of driver of both the vehicles and that Ex.B2 policy^which covers third party insurance coverage is in force by the date of incident, It is also a fact that the claimants as well owner of the crime vehicle did not prefer any appeal against the findings of the Tribunal. 18. The grounds urged by the appellant in the appeal grounds were not at all pleaded in the evidence nor pleaded before the tribunal. The only contention raised by the insurer is that the deceased No.l is an

¶158

¶159

unauthorized passenger and gratuitous passenger in^thecrime lorry and that the said vehicle is a goods carriage vehicle.^{But,asperEx.X2} the said vehicle is a goods vehicle and its seating^{capacityisonlythree} in all i.e.., driver, cleaner and owner of the goods.^{Inthatratioalso,} only two persons are travelling in the vehicle and^{bothofthemdiedon} the spot.

¶160

Now, coming to the just compensation, the Tribunal by considering the material on record and assessing annual^incomeofthe deceased No.l at Rs.2100/- and deceased No.2 at Rs.2500/-and considering their age and rightly applied the multiplier^andawarded compensation to the claimants including conventional heads, thereby. which does not require any interference.

¶161

Having regard to the above discussion, there are no valid reasons warrant interference of this Court to the findings recorded by the Tribunal, as such, the appealspreferred by theinsurer^isliablefor dismissal.

¶162

In the result, both the M.A.C.M.A.Nos.844 of 2015 &²⁶⁹³ of 2016 are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶163

Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated.

¶164

Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, stand closed.

¶165

Sd/- A VIJAYA BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY//

¶166

To.

¶167

SECTION OFFICER

¶168

The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - Cum - V Additional

¶169

District Curt (FTC), Guntur, (with record)

¶170

One CC to Smt. Manimma Medida, Advocate [OPUC]

¶171

One CC to Sri. V.K. Naidu, Advocate [OPUC]

¶172

The Section Officer, V.R. Section, High Court of A.P., at Amaravati

¶173

Three CD Copies

Skm

sree

HIGH COURT

DATED:21/11/2024

I2JUN20W CO.
^ . CucwnI SMiio" ^

¶179

COMMON JUDGMENT + DECREE

¶180

MACMA.Nos.844 of 2015 & 2693 of 2016

¶181

DISMISSING BOTH THE MACMA’s WITHOUT COSTS

M/S.Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Garigala Lalitha & 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Garigala Lalitha & 3 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

Nandyala Chandra Sekhara Reddy Vs Malempati Prasad Rao

Apsrtc, Hyderabad Vs Pagilla Srinivasa Rao, Krishna Dist & 2 Others

Mukkola Pavani, W/o Krishna Rao, Vs The State of a.P., rep. by its

A. Ramesh Kumar, Guntur Dt. & Anr. Vs State of a.P., Rep. by P.P., Challapalli

National Insurance Company Limited Vs Ekabattula Alias Akkabottola Samabaiah

Apsrtc & Another Vs Pothineni Chenchu Lakshmi & 5 Others