Dismissed

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Gudugundla Pichaiah

Telangana HC15 Feb 2013MACMA/336/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge dismissed an insurance company's appeal challenging a Regional Transport Authority order granting compensation for a motor accident injury. The court rejected the insurer's contention that the accident occurred prior to the policy period, upholding the Tribunal's award.

What did the court decide?

The appeal filed by the insurer challenging the award of compensation was dismissed.

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Gudugundla Pichaiah — Insurance | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR

¶2

M.A.C.M.A.NO.336 OF 2013 Date: 15.02.2013

¶3

Between:

¶4

United India Insurance Company Limited represented by its Branch Manager

¶5

… Appellant

¶6

AND

¶7

Gudugundla Pichaiah S/o Iddaiah and one another

¶8

… Respondents

¶9

JUDGMENT:

¶10

The insurer of the vehicle bearing No. AP 24W 9230 preferred the appeal questioning the award of the Tribunal granting compensation at Rs. 3,71,200/- together with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till deposit. Question of apportionment did not arise as the claim was for the injuries sustained by the claimant himself. The dispute is not regarding the quantum of compensation but only the liability on the part of the insurer.

¶11

2. The case of the claimant is:

¶12

On 18.10.2008, the claimant along with his brother-in-law was proceeding in the offending auto bearing Registration No. AP 24W 9230 owned by the second respondent herein and insured with the appellant. The driver of the auto drove the same in a rash and negligent manner resulting in which the auto turning turtle. The injured-claimant who

¶13

sustained injuries was shifted to the hospital of Dr. Yadagiri, Miryalguda. The claimant suffered amputation of his right leg. The claimant consequently sought for compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- and laid the claim under Sections 163-A and 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

¶14

3. The owner of the offending auto remained ex parte. The insurer, who was the second respondent before the Tribunal and the appellant herein, filed statement denying the allegations of the claimant and putting the claimant to strict proof. The claimant examined himself as PW-1. He examined two doctors as PWs 2 and 3 and exhibited A1 to A9 in support of his contention. Considering that the case was proved, the trial Court accepted the claim. Compensation was awarded at Rs. 3,72,200/-, as against the claim of Rs. 3,00,000/directing the claimant to pay the court fee for the balance amount awarded by the Court.

¶15

4. As already pointed out, the appellant-insurer is not contending that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not reasonable. Sri V. Sambasiva Rao, learned counsel for the insurer contended that there was no dispute with regard to

¶16

the claimant sustaining injuries in the accident and his suffering amputation. His basic claim is that the accident in fact occurred on 21.09.2008 and not on 18.10.2008 as alleged by the claimant and that as the policy itself was taken on 15.10.2008, the very accident was not covered by the policy, so much so the insurer was not liable for the claim. 5. As already noticed, it is the case of the insurer that the accident occurred on 21.09.2008, indeed owing to the rash and negligent driving of the offending auto. He claimed that the claimant was admitted in Gandhi Hospital on 22.9.2008 and that on 2.10.2008, the claimant was discharged against medical advice. His further case is that having come to know that the policy was obtained for the offending vehicle on 15.10.2008, the FIR under Ex. A-1 was lodged on 19.10.2008 showing as if the accident occurred on 18.10.2008. He further contended that the insurer in fact addressed a letter to the Standing Counsel before the Trial Court informing the Standing Counsel that the accident occurred on 21.9.2008 and that steps be taken to bring the same to the notice of the Trial Court. Be that as it may, it is the further case of the

¶17

learned counsel for the appellant that the facts as informed by the insurer to the Standing Counsel through letter dated 19.1.2001 was never brought to the notice of the Trial Court so much so the award was passed in ignorance of these circumstances. 6. It is the basic contention of the learned counsel for the insurer that the accident occurred on 21.9.2008. Ex. B-6 is the case sheet of the claimant from Sai Sanjeevani Hospital, Hyderabad. Exs B7 to B-9 are the medical records relating to the claimant as available with the Gandhi Hospital. Indeed Ex. B6 discloses that the claimant sustained injuries in a road transport accident. Exs. B-7, B-8 and B-9 show that there was amputation of the right leg. The certificate was issued by no other than PW-2. When such is the case, the evidence of PW2 takes precedence over the certificate under Ex.B9. It may also be noticed that it is not the prayer of the appellant to record additional evidence but to receive additional documents only. The additional documents have been received as Exs. B-1 to B- 9 as already pointed out. Ex. B-9, which specifically refers to amputation of right leg, has no intrinsic and evidentiary value where PW-2, the author of the

¶18

same did not speak about the said document. That apart, it is for the appellant to correlate the injuries as mentioned in Exs. B-6 to B-9 to the injuries sustained by the claimant as alleged by the claimant in respect of which the claim was laid by the injured. Such a correlation has not been made out by the insurer. I therefore, consider that the insurer has failed in showing that the accident occurred on 21.09.2008 and that the make belief story has been created by the claimant with a view to obtain wrong claim against the insurer.

¶19

7. I therefore, see no merit in this appeal and accordingly the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶20

__________________________ JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR

¶21

DATE: 15.02.2013 KA

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Gudugundla Pichaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Gudugundla Pichaiah

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

M.Venkat , Venkat Rathod, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

T.Rajasekhar Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M/s.Ap State Road Transport Corporation Vs Smt.P.Suvarna

Tanguturi Lakshminarasimham Vs Jonnalagadda Venkata Ramaiah and 9

Mamthena Valli Kumari Vs Pentyala Hanumantha Rao and Ors.

Ambati Ja yaramaiah, Vs The Commissioner