The Branch Manager Vs Sri. Hanumantha

THE BRANCH MANAGER, BRANCH OFFICE, M/S ROYAL SUNDARAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO LTD.,) SUNDARAM TOWERS, NO.45/46, WHITES ROAD, CHENNAI - 600 014, TAMIL NADU, REPRESENTED BY REGIONAL OFFICE: NO.30, 3RD FLOOR, JNR CITY CENTRE, RAJARAM MOHAN ROY ROAD, SAMPANGIRAMA NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 027, BY ITS STATE HEAD LEGAL MR. S.K. SANDEEP.

¶12

(BY SRI. RAVI S. SAMPRATHI, ADVOCATE)

¶13

…APPELLANT

¶14

AND:

¶15

SRI. HANUMANTHA, S/O HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/OF ESWARAGERE VILLAGE, HIRYUR TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 501.

¶16

SRI. L. RAJANNA, S/O LINGANNA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/OF ESWARAGERE VILLAGE,

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12606 MFA No. 7638 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 7637 of 2018

¶18

HIRYUR TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 501.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(R1 AND R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶21

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 14.06.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.12/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDITIONAL MACT, HIRIYUR, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.20,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 7.5% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.

¶22

IN MFA NO. 7637/2018

¶23

BETWEEN:

¶24

THE BRANCH MANAGER, BRANCH OFFICE, M/S ROYAL SUNDARAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO. LTD.,) SUNDARAM TOWERS, NO.45/46, WHITES ROAD, CHENNAI - 600 014, TAMIL NADU, REPRESENTED BY REGIONAL OFFICE: NO.30, 3RD FLOOR, JNR CITY CENTRE, RAJARAM MOHAN ROY ROAD, SAMPANGIRAMA NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 027, BY ITS STATE HEAD LEGAL MR. S.K. SANDEEP.

¶25

...APPELLANT

¶26

(BY SRI. RAVI S. SAMPRATHI, ADVOCATE)

¶27

AND:

¶28

SRI. GURUMURTHY, S/O KANUMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, RESIDENT OF ESWARAGERE VILLAGE, HIRYUR TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 501.

¶29

SRI. L. RAJANNA, S/O LINGANNA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,

¶30

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12606 MFA No. 7638 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 7637 of 2018

¶31

RESIDENT OF ESWARAGERE VILLAGE, HIRYUR TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 501.

¶32

...RESPONDENTS

¶33

(RESPONDENT SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶34

THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 14.06.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.203/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDITIONAL MACT, HIRIYUR, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS 30,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 7.5% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT.

¶35

THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶36

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶37

ORAL COMMON JUDGMENT

¶38

Aggrieved by the awards passed in M.V.C. No.203/2013 & M.V.C.No.12/2014 dated 14.06.2018 by the Senior Civil Judge & Addl. MACT, Hiriyur, the Insurance Company is before this Court by filing M.F.A.Nos.7637/2018 and 7638/2018 respectively. The Tribunal had disposed of the cases by way of a common judgment. Hence, this Court is disposing of the matters by a common judgment.

¶39

According to the claimants, they were travelling in the Tractor & Trailer as loaders/unloaders and they have sustained injuries. It is the case of the Insurance Company that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation

¶40

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12606 MFA No. 7638 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 7637 of 2018

¶41

as they are not the employees of the Insurance Company. The Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the claimants are travelling in the tractor for loading and unloading purpose and as per the policy, the employees are covered and accordingly granted compensation of an amount of Rs.30,000/- in M.V.C.No.203/2013 and Rs.20,000/- in M.V.C.No.12/2024 with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a., from the date of petition till realization.

¶42

Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance

¶43

Company submits that when there is no evidence to show that they are the employees and when they are the gratuitous passengers who are not covered as per the insurance policy, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation and the Tribunal without considering all these facts, had granted the compensation and further, the interest that is awarded by the Tribunal at the rate of 7.5% is on the higher side.

¶44

Though notice is served on the respondents/

¶45

claimants and owner of the vehicle, no vakalath is filed on their behalf.

¶46

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:12606 MFA No. 7638 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 7637 of 2018

¶47

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant - Insurance Company, perused the material on record. The first submission of the learned counsel that they are the gratuitous passengers. Whether they are the gratuitous passengers or the loaders and unloaders as stated by them. It is the specific case of the claimants that they were travelling in the said vehicle for loading and unloading purpose and as per their case, on that day, they were carrying the mud in the said tractor. There are two people who were travelling. It is the contention that it is nowhere stated that they are the employees. When the loader and unloader is taken on a daily basis, definitely they will not plead that they are the employees. In the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal had rightly held that they are travelling in the said vehicle for loading and unloading purpose, they cannot be termed as a gratuitous passengers. In that case, the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation and the Tribunal had rightly held that the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation. The compensation that is awarded is reasonable and no interference is called for. As far as the rate of interest is concerned, the Tribunal had granted 7.5% which is on the

¶48

6 -

¶49

NC: 2025:KHC:12606 MFA No. 7638 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 7637 of 2018

¶50

higher side and the same is reduced to 6%. Accordingly, this Court is passing the following:

¶51

ORDER

¶52

i) The appeals are partly-allowed reducing the rate of interest from 7.5% to 6%.

¶53

ii) The amount in deposit shall be forthwith transferred to the Tribunal.

¶54

iii) The Insurance Company shall deposit the amount within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. On such deposit, the claimants are entitled to withdraw the entire amount without furnishing any security.

¶55

iv) Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶56

SD/(LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE

¶57

KA

¶58

CT: BHK

The Branch Manager v. Sri. Hanumantha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Branch Manager v. Sri. Hanumantha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nagaraju Vs Ashwatha

Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Radha N K

Shafiulla Vs Halesh Naika

Smt. Monisha S Vs Sri Raghavendra

The Legal Manager Vs Manjappa

The Manager Vs Sri E Nagaraj