Partly allowed

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., v. Kantayapalem Ramesh

Telangana HC3 Feb 2012MACMA/931/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge affirmed the Tribunal's finding that the accident was not due to the injured's contributory negligence. While upholding the compensation principal of Rs. 70,000/- as appropriate, the court reduced the interest rate from 9% to 7.5% per annum, resulting in the appeal being partly allowed.

What did the court decide?

Interest rate reduced to 7.5% per annum; compensation principal affirmed; appeal partly allowed.

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Vs Kantayapalem… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO

¶2

MACMA NO. 931 OF 2006

¶3

DATED: 03.02.2012

¶4

Between:

¶5

The New India Assurance Co.Ltd.

¶6

.. Appellant

¶7

And

¶8

Kantayapalem Ramesh and others

¶9

.. Respondents

¶10

THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO

¶11

MACMA NO. 931 OF 2006

¶12

JUDGMENT:

¶13

This appeal is filed by the insurance company against the Award dated 31.03.2005 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum V Additional District Judge (F.T.C), Khammam at Kothagudem in M.V.O.P.No.501 of 1999.

¶14

2. I have heard Mrs. I.Mammuvani, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/insurance company and Sri Srinivasa Rao Raoulapati, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1.

¶15

3. Challenge to the appeal is on the grounds viz. that the accident occurred due to negligence of the injured, who was proceeding on the scooter bearing No. AIJ 694 at the time of accident, but not on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No.ABK 7449 and also that the compensation awarded is on higher side. The involvement of the lorry in the accident is not in dispute.

¶16

4. According to the claimants, the lorry bearing No.ABK 7449 was proceeding in front of the scooter and the driver of the lorry without giving any signal, took a right turn suddenly, as a result of which the rear portion of the lorry dashed the scooter and thereby the injured fell down under the lorry and sustained severe injuries. As rightly

¶17

contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant there is no evidence let in by the appellant/insurance company to prove that the accident was as a result of the rash and negligent driving or the contributory negligence of the injured, who was driving the scooter. Therefore, I am not inclined to agree with the contention that the injured also contributed to the accident and as such, I affirm the view recorded by the learned Tribunal on this aspect.

¶18

5. The next question to be determined is the quantum of compensation. As could be seen from the evidence available on record, the injured received two fractures one is on the left thigh and another is on the left ankle, apart from receiving other simple injuries. The injuries were spoken to by PW.2, doctor who treated the injured claimant. The learned Tribunal against the claim of Rs.1,50,000/-, awarded compensation of Rs.70,000/- under various heads and awarded interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the injured claimant, the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal to him under various heads cannot be said to be on higher side and therefore, the same is affirmed.

¶19

6. Further the interest granted at the rate of 9% per annum being on higher side is reduced to 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.

¶20

7. For the foregoing reasons, with the above reduction in the rate of interest, the appeal filed by the Insurance company is partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶21

___________________ Date: 03.02.2012 R. KANTHA RAO, J Kvrm

¶22

THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO

¶23

MACMA NO. 931 OF 2006

¶24

DATED: 03.02.2012

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., v. Kantayapalem Ramesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., v. Kantayapalem Ramesh

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

M/s. United India Insurance Company Kimited, Vs Katakam Poolamma

Kodam Raghu Vs Panja Sammaiah

The Managing Director, Apsrtc, Vs Ruqia Begum

Mangilipalli Parvathamma Vs Anjamma

C.Kusumakumari Vs a.Venkatasubbaiah

Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Vs Kunduri Venkamma