Tata Aig General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Nagaboyina Ratna Kumari

¶1

APHC010614112022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

[3333]

¶4

MONDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 526/2022

¶7

Between:

¶8

TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, REP. BY ITS MANAGER, NICHOLAS PIRAMAL TOWER, 9TH FLOOR, G K MARG, LOWER PAREL, MUMBAI. HOLDING ITS OFFICE AT HYDERABAD REP,BY ITS AUTHORIZED PERSON

¶9

...APPELLANT

¶10

AND

¶11

NAGABOYINA RATNA KUMARI, W/O. SATYANARAYANA, HINDU, AGED 35 YEARS, SURYACHANDRA RAO PETS, DWARKA TIRUMALA MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ... RESPONDENT/PETITIONER

¶12

ORUSU RAMBABU, S/O. VENKATAIAH, AGED 36 YEARS, DRIVER OF MINI LORRY, DUGYALA VILLAGE, PEDDAADHISHARALAPALLY MANDAL, NALGONDA DISTRICT.

¶13

VARIKUPPALA SRINU, S/O. MUTHYALU, HINDU, OWNER OF MINI LORRY, HOUSE NO.8-7-117, GROUND FLOOR, VYSHALI NAGAR, HASTHINAPURAM, SAROOR NAGAR, RANGAREDDY DISTRICT

¶14

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶15

Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying that the High court may be pleased to set aside the impugned decree and judgment of Motor Accident claims Tribunal cum VII Additional District Judge, West Godavari at Eluru dated 2206-2022 passed in MVOP no. 444 /2016 and allow this appeal with costs in the interest of justice.

¶16

2

¶17

VS,J MACMA.No.526 of 2022

¶18

IA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶19

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 may be pleased to condone the delay of 9 days in preferring the appeal against the decree and judgment dated 22.06.2022 passed in MVOP no. 444/2016 on the file of Motor Accident claims Tribunal cum VII Additional District Judge, West Godavari at Eluru and pass such

¶20

IA NO: 2 OF 2022

¶21

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 may be pleased to stay the execution of decree and judgment dated 22-062022 passed in MVOP no. 444 / 2016 on the file of Motor Accident claims Tribunal cum VII Additional District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru pending disposal of Appeal and pass such

¶22

Counsel for the Appellant:

¶23

1.D RAVI KIRAN

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶25

1.

¶26

The Court made the following:

¶27

3

¶28

VS,J MACMA.No.526 of 2022

¶29

JUDGMENT:

¶30

The TATA AIG General Insurance Company Ltd., filed the present appeal challenging the award passed in M.V.O.P.No.444 of 2016 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VII Additional District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru, whereby and whereunder, the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.1,03,200/(Rupees One Lakh three thousand two hundred only) to the petitioner herein as against the claim of Rs.2,00,000/-, on account of the injuries of Nagaboyina Ratna Kumari.

¶31

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.

¶32

The case of the petitioners is briefly as follows:

¶33

On 09.05.2015 noon hours the petitioner along with her husband and cousin son Nagaboyina Dharma Teja proceeding on a motor cycle bearing No.AP37AF6929 from Suryachandra Rao peta, going towards Eluru to see her brother-in-laws son who was hospitalized at Eluru, at about 4.30 pm when they reached near Denduluru check post, opposite to the Raghava Coffee hotel, at the same time one mini lorry bearing No.AP22V5919 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner without following traffic rules and without blowing the horn dashed the

¶34

4

¶35

VS,J MACMA.No.526 of 2022

¶36

Motor cycle of the petitioner. As a result minor boy sustained severe bleeding injuries and other injuries on his vital parts of the body and died instantaneously. The petitioner and her husband Satyanarayana sustained multiple, bleeding injuries all over their bodies. Immediately she was shifted to Government Hospital, Eluru, later she was shifted to Sentini Hospital, Vijayawada and got admitted her as in-patient, where she underwent treatment to her injuries, she spent nearly Rs.30,000/- for her medicines.

¶37

Before the Tribunal, respondent Nos.1 & 2 remained ex parte .

¶38

Respondent No.3 filed written statement denying certain allegations of the petition and specifically contended that on the date of accident 09.05.2015 the said crime was not insured with the respondent and the policy commence only from 10.05.2015. The respondent has not received any information from the policy authorities. Hence, the respondent is not liable to pay the compensation. Therefore, prayed the court to dismiss the petition.

¶39

Basing on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial:

¶40

“1. Whether the petitioner Nagaboyina Ratna Kumari sustained injuries in the motor vehicle accident dt.09.05.2015 at about 4.30p.m near Denduluru Check Post,

¶41

5

¶42

VS,J MACMA.No.526 of 2022

¶43

Malkapuram Panchayat, Eluru due to rash and negligent driving of lorry bearing No.AP22V5919 driven by its driver/respondent No.1?

¶44

2. Whether 1^st respondent had valid and effective driving license as on the date of accident and violated the Provision of M.V.Act?

¶45

3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents?

¶46

4. To what relief?”

¶47

On behalf of the petitioner, the petitioner herself was examined as PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A10. On behalf of 3^rd respondent/Insurance company, its Senior Manager (legal) was examined as RW1 and got marked Ex.B1.

¶48

After hearing both parties and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal allowed the claim petition against respondents, awarding compensation of Rs.1,03,200/-(Rupees One lakh three thousand and two hundred only) with interest @ 7.5% per annum with proportionate costs. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are directed to deposit the entire compensation amount within three months from the date of the award.

¶49

Aggrieved by the said award, the respondent No.3 preferred this appeal contending that the Tribunal failed to consider that the insurance company had issued a policy to the vehicle bearing No.AP 22 V 5919

¶50

6

¶51

VS,J MACMA.No.526 of 2022

¶52

with specific mention of time and date of commencement of insurance as from 00.00 Hrs 10.05.2015 to 09.05.2016, whereas as per the claim petition the alleged accident took place on 09.05.2015 at 16.30 Hrs which is one day prior to commencement of the policy issued by the appellant and therefore, the appellant insurance company has no contractual liability for the claim in the petition. Hence, prayed to allow the appeal.

¶53

On the other hand, learned counsel for the injured/ respondent No.1 herein has supported the impugned award and prayed to dismiss the appeal.

¶54

Now the point for consideration is:

¶55

Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference?

¶56

POINT:

¶57

To prove the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle by the respondent No.1, the petitioner herself was examined as PW1 besides marking documentary evidence as Exs.A1 to A10. The Tribunal through the oral evidence of PW1 coupled with documentary evidence i.e., Exs.A1 to A10 established that the accident was occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle by the 1^st respondent, due to which the petitioner sustained injuries. Therefore, the

¶58

7

¶59

VS,J MACMA.No.526 of 2022

¶60

Tribunal has rightly articulated the rash and negligent driving of driver of crime vehicle which needs no interference.

¶61

With regard to the ground raised by the Insurance Company that the date of commencement of insurance policy is from 00.00 hours 10.05.2015 to 09.05.2016, whereas the alleged accident took place on 09.05.2015 at 16.30 hours, which is one day prior to the commencement of policy issued by the appellant.

¶62

In the present case, in Ex.B1 policy, the Insurance Company mentioned as follows:

¶63

“I/we hereby certify that the policy to which this certificate relates as well as this certificate of insurance are issued in accordance with provisions of Chapter X and XI of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

¶64

In witness whereof this policy has been signed at Hyderabad on 09.05.2015 receipt No.106001000454260 09.05.2015”

¶65

Relying on “ ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Ponnusamy and others¹ ” “ Kasthuri Vs. M.Gopu² ” “ Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Sunder Singh³ ”, the Tribunal held

¶66

that by the date of accident the insurance policy was in existence,

¶67

1 2020 ACJ 2483

¶68

2 2015 ACJ 2711

¶69

3 2007 ACJ 1297

¶70

8

¶71

VS,J MACMA.No.526 of 2022

¶72

therefore, 3^rd respondent cannot be exonerated from liability as the payment was recognized by the office in the Bond and answered issue No.2 in favour of the petitioner.

¶73

So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, as the injured PW1 is doing milk business and getting income as on the date of accident. No document of proof is filed, hence the Tribunal considered to fix minimum wages of the injured at Rs.300/- per day and she was at hospital for 6 days, towards loss of earning it would be Rs.1,800/(Rs.300/- x 6). In addition to the above, the Tribunal also awarded Rs.36,400/- towards medical expenses, Rs.30,000/- towards mental agony pain and suffering, Rs.15,000/- towards attendant charges, Rs.20,000/- towards diet and extra nourishment. In view of the above reasons, this Court finds no error in the said finding of the Tribunal, warranting interference with the impugned award.

¶74

In the result, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶75

Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated.

¶76

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶77

___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶78

Date: 09.02.2026 PBS

Tata Aig General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Nagaboyina Ratna Kumari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tata Aig General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Nagaboyina Ratna Kumari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Lakshmi Tractors Vs Sri B Rajasekhar

Sri Lakshmi Tractors, Vs Sri. Budithi Rajasekhar

K Vaanisree Vs Naraparedy Mourya IAS

Boddula Babu Rao Vs Kappala Israil

Syed Magbul alias Sd. Mabul Vs Aluru Lalithamma

Nimmakayala Ganga Bhavani Vs Mussadi Bhaskar