Dismissed

The General Manager v. Patnam Narsimlu

Telangana HC6 Feb 2012MACMA/3850/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge dismissed the appeal filed by the Insurance Company (appellant) against the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal's award of Rs. 21,000 compensation to the petitioner for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. The court held that the Insurance Company failed to adduce evidence to prove the cover note was forged or irrelevant to the offending vehicle.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is dismissed. The Tribunal's award remains in force. The appellants are at liberty to recover the amount from the vehicle owner.

The General Manager Vs Patnam Narsimlu — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO

¶2

M.A.C.M.A.No.3850 OF 2011

¶3

JUDGMENT:

¶4

The appeal is filed by the appellant/respondent No.2 against the award in M.V.O.P.No.316 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, questioning the liability.

¶5

2. A claim for compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- was made for the injuries received by the petitioner. Parties are referred as arrayed in the lower Tribunal.

¶6

3. According to the case of the petitioner, on 11.03.1999 while the petitioner along with others was travelling on a tractor bearing No.AP 28 B 1875 from Masaipet to Venkatpur villages labourers, when the tractor reached the outskirts of Manoharbad village on National High Way No.7, the lorry bearing No.AP 10 T 1956 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came in the opposite direction and dashed against the tractor-trailer, due to which the petitioner and others received multiple injuries. The 1^st respondent, who is owner of the lorry, remained ex parte. The 2^nd respondent, which is Insurance Company and appellant herein, filed counter denying the averments made in the petition and putting the petitioner to strict proof of rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry, nature of injuries received by the petitioner and also the medical expenses incurred by him. After considering the contentions, the lower Tribunal has granted a sum of Rs.21,000/- fastening the liability to the Insurance Company. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed questioning the liability.

¶7

4. The point for consideration is whether the award passed by the lower Tribunal is legal and sustainable?

¶8

5. POINT:

¶9

According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the cover note bearing No.573758 filed by the claimant is not genuine one for the reason that the cover note bearing same number i.e., 573758 dated 17.09.1997 was issued to Shri Muza Kasim Baig covering vehicle No.AP 13T 1468 for a period from 17.09.1997 to 16.09.1998 and no insurance was issued covering vehicle No.AP 10 1956 which met with an accident on 11.03.1999. Cover note filed by the claimant does not pertain to the offending vehicle. Under these circumstances, the learned Tribunal should have considered the above facts and circumstances and should have come to the conclusion that the cover note filed by the claimant does not pertain to the offending vehicle and as such, the offending vehicle was not validly insured with the appellant, as such lower Tribunal should have exonerated the appellant from payment of the awarded compensation amount.

¶10

6. There is no dispute about the nature of incident or the quantum of compensation. When once the insurance company has taken a positive plea that there is no valid cover note and the cover note, which was referred to and relied on by the petitioner is not valid one, it is necessary for the Insurance Company to produce the same evidence to that effect and prove the same. Without there being any evidence mere plea in the counter is not sufficient. Therefore, in the absence of any such material, it is difficult to accept the contention of the appellant. However, as per the directions of this Court, half of the amount has already been deposited. The Insurance Company will be at liberty to recover the entire amount from the owner of the vehicle for the grounds pleaded here and award will not be a bar to such a claim made by the Insurance Company.

¶11

With the above observation, the appeal is dismissed. There

¶12

shall be no order as to costs.

¶13

_______________________________ JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO Date: 06.02.2012 INL

The General Manager v. Patnam Narsimlu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The General Manager v. Patnam Narsimlu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Vs D.Ramulamma

The Public Prosecutor Vs Chada Mahender reddy (A-1)

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Vs D.Chinna Malla Reddy

The Public Prosecutor Vs E.Sourirayulu

Beenathi Gangadhar, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Gangaram Patel