Partly allowed

M/S. Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Veena Naga Laxmi and 4 Others

Telangana HC2 Apr 2019MACMA/3490/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the insurance company's appeal and partly allowed the claimants' cross-objections. It enhanced compensation from Rs. 4,36,000 to Rs. 9,33,800 based on the deceased's proper income and statutory multiplier, reiterating that insurers must indemnify victims even if the driver lacked a valid license.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs. 4,36,000 to Rs. 9,33,800 with interest at 7.5% p.a.; insurance company's appeal dismissed.

M/S. Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Veena Naga… — Insurance | Telangana HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT^{FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶2

WEDNESDAY. THE TWENTY^{THIRD DAY OF MARCH} TWO THOUSAND^{ANDTWENTY TWO}

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKERREDDY}

¶5

M,A.C,M.A^{.No.3490 of 2008} And CROSS OBJECTIONS^{No.24 of 2019}

¶6

AppealUnderSectionlT3ofM.V.ActandCrossobjectionsUnderorder4l Rule 27 of .cPC^{R/w Section 151 of cPCagainst the JudgmenvDecreein} o.P.No.292 of^{2005 dated 11.04.2008 on the file of the court of the specialJudge} for the Trial of offences^{under SCs and STs (POA) Act -cum-Vl Additional} tr,4etropolitan sessions^Judge -cum-^{Additional chairman, MotorAccidents claims} Tribunal -cum- XX^{Additional Chief Judge,Secunderabad'}

¶7

M.A.C.M.A.^{No.3490 of 2008}

¶8

Between:

¶9

Mis. Cholamandalam^{ltls General lnsurance- Company- Limited'Rep , by its} rrrr"nrg"i. ir,iio^{party cerr-nyo.-vrtoor,V.V.S. Vintage'Block, Varandah. 6-3-} iogo,H"j Bhavan^{R6ad,Somajiguda, Hyderabad}

¶10

'..APPELLANT/RESPONDENT^No'2

¶11

AND

¶12

Veena Naga^{Laxmi, Wo. Veena RoseReddy,aped^2z y-",1r199t' Housewife} R/,o. H.No."12-10-590/120,^{2nd Floor, Warasiguda, SefunderaDao}

¶13

V;;; P;yanr.j,^{olo. t-atbVeena Rosi Redd-v, aoed 21 vears'occ: Student} 3. Veena Siva^{Sai Xiraii -niOi,,Slo f-ate Veeni'Rdsi Redi1y, aged'18 years,} Occ: Student,

¶14

gJth Rltp""b"nt 2 and 3 represented by their^{GuardianSmt Veena Naga} Laxmi- Mother.

¶15

a. Veena Hanumayamma,^{W/o. Late Krishna Reddy, aged 60 years'Occ:} Housewife

¶16

nri ii" ilo.^{H. No.1 2-1 0-59ot 12o, znd Floor, warasiguda'Hyderabad'}

¶17

5.^{pandithlVld.Fasir Ur Rahaman,s/o. Mohd. Abdul Rahaman, agedmaiqr,. FJo'} H.No.5_13_201,^{r.rerr iai ear,;duiN"gur, Gajularamaram Road, R.R. District.}

¶18

rRR2 & 3 declares as maiors^{duly dischargingtheir guardianship Rl vide} bout-oroeioated 02.04.2019^{in'l.A No.1 of 2018)}

¶19

.,.RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER/RESPONDENT

¶20

CROSS OBJECTIONS No.24 of 2019

¶21

Between:

¶22

Veena Naga Laxmi, Wo. Veena Rose Reddy, aged 22 years, Occ: Housewife Rl/o. H.No.12-10-590/120, 2nd Floor, Warasiguda, Secunderabad.

¶23

Veena Priyanka, D/o. Late Veena Rosi Reddy, aged 21 years, Rio 5-540, Chinna Badi Street, Anumula Mandalam, Haliya, Anumula, Nalgonda District.

¶24

Veena Slva Sai Kiran Reddy, S/o. Late Veena Rosi Reddy, aged 1B years, Occ: Student, R/o 5-540, Chinna Badi Street, Anumula Mandalam, Haliya, Anumula, Nalgonda District.

¶25

Veena Hanumayamma (died-The other dependants of the deceased Rosi Reddy i.e., petitioners No.1 to 3 herein are already on record being the Petitioners)

¶26

...CROSS OBJECTIONS/RESPONDENTS No.1 to 4

¶27

AND

¶28

1 lr4/s. Cholamandalam [tl]s General lnsurance Company Limited, Rep. by its Manager, Third Party Cell, Fl/o. V Floor, V.V.S. Vintage Block, Varandah, 6-31096, Raj Bhavan Road, Somajiguda, Hyderabad.

¶29

...RESPONDENT/APPELLANT

¶30

Pandith Md. Fasir Ur Rahaman, S/o. IMohd. Abdul Rahaman, aged major, R/o H.No.5-13-201, Near Lal Bahadur Nagar, Gajularamaram Road, R.R. District.

¶31

...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT No.5

¶32

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI RAMACHANDRAREDDY GADI in MACMA.No.3490/2008 and respondent No.'l in Cross Objections No.2412019

¶33

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: SRI K. VENKATESH GUPTA in MACMA.No.3490/2008 and Petitioner Nos.1 to 4 in Cross Objections No.2412019

¶34

The Court delivered the following: COMMON JUDGMENT

¶35

;

¶36

THE HON'BLE JUSTICE^{G. SRI DEVI}

¶37

M.A.C.M.A. No.3490 of 2008

¶38

and

¶39

CROSS OBJECTIONS No.²⁴ of⁷⁰¹⁹

¶40

COMMON JUDGMENT:

¶41

M.A.C.M.A.No.3490 of^{2008 is preferredby the appettant'} lnsurance Company,^{questioning the award and decree, dated} 11.04.2008^passed in O.P'No.292^{of 2005 on the fite of the} Speciat Judge for^{the Triat of Offences underSCsand STs(POA)} Act-cum-Vl Additionat^{MetropotitanSessions Judge'Additiona} Chairman, MACT-cum'XX^{Additionat Chief Judge,Secunderabad} (for short, the Tribunat). Respondents^{1 to 4/clajmants also} fited cross-objections^{seeking enhancement.}

¶42

For the sake of convenience,^{the parties have been} referred to as arrayed^{before the Tribunal'}

¶43

The claimants fited a^{petitionunder Section 166 of the} Motor Vehictes Act^{ctaiming compensationof Rs'6,00,000/-for} the death of the^{deceased Veena Rosi Reddy,who died in a} motor vehicte accident.^{lt is stated that on 09.05'2005at about} 12.00 hours, the deceased^{was on his dutyshow'ingdirection to}

¶44

¶45

the veh.icular^{traffic hotdingdirectionftag in his hand, a rider of} un-registered^{putsar bikeatong with a pittion rider' drovethe} same in^{a rash and negtigent manner and hit the deceased at} Rajiv^{Gandhi Nagar Cross Road'due to which' the deceased} sustained^{grievous injuriesand he succumbed to injurieswhite} undergoing^{treatment'On a comptaint' a casein CrimeNo'370} of 2005 has^{been registered against the rider of the PutsarBike'} Since the^{accident occurred onty due to the rashand negtigent} driving of^{the rider of the PutsarBike' the claimantsfitedthe} above^{O.P. against the respondents 1 and 2' who are the owner} and insurer^{of the sa'id Putsar Bike'}

¶46

Before^{the Tribuna[,the '1tt respondentfited counter} denying^{the averments in the cl'aim-petit'ion inctudingthe} manner^{in which the accidenttook ptace'age' avocationand} incomeofthedeceased,ltjsmaintycontendedthattheVehicle was insured^{with the 2nd respondentand the poticy was in} subsistence^{on the date of accident,as such, the 2nd respondent} atone^{is tiabte to pay the compensation'}

¶47

The 2nd^{respondentfited writtenstatementdenying the} manner.inwhichtheaccidenttookptaceandatsodeniedthe

¶48

¶49

¶50

age, income and avocation of the deceased, lt^{is atso statedin} the counter that the compensation claimed is^excessive, arbitrary and out of atl^proportions.

¶51

Basing on the above^pteadings, the^{fottowing issues are} framed before the Tribunat:-

¶52

1. Whether the accident occurred^{owingto the rash and} negtigent driving of the Putsar^{Engine No'DHGBMA} 07077 Chasis No.DHV BMA 08313?

¶53

1. What is the^just amount that^{can be awardedas} compensation and whom?

¶54

1. To what retief?

¶55

During triat, on behatf of the^{ctaimants, P.Ws.1and 2} were examined and Exs.A1 to A8^{were marked' On behatf of the} respondents, R.W.1 was examined and^{Exs.B'l to 87 were} marked.

¶56

After considering the oral and^{documentary evidence on} record, the Tribunat came to the^{conctusionthat the accident} occurred due to the rash and^{negtigentdriving of driver of the} Pulsar Bike and awarded total^{compensation of Rs'4,36,000/-} with interest @ 6%^per annum. Aggrieved^{by the said order, the}

¶57

¶58

lnsurance^{Company fited M'A'C'M'A'No'3490of 2008and the} ctaimants^{fited the Cross ObjectionsNo'24of 2019'}

¶59

Heard^{bothsidesand perused the record'}

¶60

A^{perusat of the orderreveats that the Tribunalhas} framed^{the lssue No"l as to whetherthe accident had occurred} due to^{rash and negtigentdriving of the driver of the Putsar} Bike, to^{which the Tribunalhas categoricatl'y observed thatthe} accident^{has occurred due to the rash and rregligentdrivingof} the rider^{of the PufsarBike and has answered in favourof the} ctaimants^{and against the respondents' which needsno} interference.

¶61

ll,lnsofarasthequantumofcompensationisconcerned, though^{the satary certificateof the deceased has been fited by} the ctaimants,^{which is marked as Ex'A8 and the same is not} denied^{and disprovedby the lnsurance Company'the Tribunai} has taken^{the income of the deceasedat Rs'100/-per day'} which^{appearsto be meager' Accordingto Ex'A8' the deceased} was working^{as Supervisorand was earning Rs'4'000/- per} month.^{Therefore, this Court inctinedto take the income of}

¶62

l.a-'

¶63

¶64

the deceased at^{Rs'4,000/- per month. As per the decision of} the Apex Court in^{National lnsurance CompanyLimited Vs'} Pronoy Sethi and^othersl ,^{407o for loss of futureprospectson} his^personal income^{is to be added. lf 40Y"iscatcutated towards} loss of future^{prospects,the totat amount woutd be Rs'4,000/-*} 1,600l- = 5,6A0l'.^{From this, 1/4th is to be deductedtowards} personaI and tiving expenses of^{the deceasedas the dependents} are five in number.^{Afterdeducti ng 1l4th amounttowards his} personaL and tiving expenses, the^{contribution of the deceased} to the famity would^{be Rs.4,200/-per month' lt js not in} dispute that the^{deceased was aged about 30 years'As per the} decision reported in^{Sarla Verma Y, Delhi Transport} Corporation2, the^{appropriate multiptier for the agegroup} between 26 to^{30 years woutd be '17"Adopting muttiptier} '17',^{the total toss of dependencywoutd be Rs'4,200/'x 17 x 17} = Rs.8,56,800/-.^{The claimants are atso entitled to Rs'77,000/'} under the conventionaI^{heads as per Pranay Sethi's case} (1 supra). Thus, in att the^{claimants are entitled to} Rs,9,33,800/^-.

¶65

1 2017 ACJ 2700

r 2oo9 ACJ 1298 (sc)

lnsofar^{as the tiabitity of the insurance companyis} concerned,^{the contentionof the learned Standing Counselfor} the lnsurance^{Companyis that the rider of the motor cycte has} no vatid^{driving licence at the time of accident' as such' the} lnsurance^{Company is not tiabte to pay the compensation and} the Tribunat^{erred in directing the lnsurance Company to pay} the compensation^{first and then recover the same'}

¶70

A^{perusal of the materialon record woutdshow that since} the'l't^{respondentfaited to producethe driving ticence of the} rider of the^{motorcycte and therefore' the Tribunal'has drawn} an adverse^{inference. ln National lnsurance CompanyLtd' V'} Sworan^{Singhand otherss, the ApexCourt consideredthe} doctrine^{of "pay ondrecover"examinedthe tiabitity of the} insurance^{companyin cases of breach of poticy conditiondue to} disquat'ifications^{of the driver or invatid drivingticenseof the} driver and^{hetd that in caseof third party risks' the insurer has} toindemnifythecompensationamounttothethirdpartyand the insurance^{company mayrecover the same from the insured'} Further,^{recentty, the ApexCourt inShomanna v'The} Divisionol^{lvlanager,the Orientol lnsurance ComponyLimited}

'^{(zoo+l g sccz9z}

ond Others4, fottowing its earlier decision in Swaran Singh (3 supra), reiterated that "eyen if the driver does not possess any driving license, sfill the insurer is liable to poy the compensation and thot he can recover the oward amount from the owner of the offending vehicle after paying the amount." ln view of the above, the Tribunal has rightty directed the lnsurance Company to pay the compensation amount at the first instance and then recover the same from the owner of the vehicle, which warrants no interference.

¶75

At this stage, the learned CounseI for the Insurance company submits that the ctaimants clajmed onty a sum of Rs.6,00,000/^- AS compensation and the quantum of compensation which is now awarded woutd go beyond the ctaim made which is impermissible under [aw. lt is also submitted that the claimants fited the cross objections in the year 2019 i.e,, 11 years after fiting of the appeal, as such, they are not entitted interest.

'20ts^Ac.J2t63

15.^{ln Laxman@ LaxmonMouryaVs' Divisional lAanager'} orientot^{rnsuroncecompanyLimited ond onothers'the Apex} court^{white refer.ingto Nogappa vs. Gurudoyol Singh5 hetd as} under:

¶80

"lt^{is true that in the petition fited by him under Section} 166^{of the Act' the appettant had ctaimedcompensation} of Rs'5,00,000/'onty'^{but as hetd in Nagappavs'} GurudayaL^{Singh (2003) 2SCC774'in the absence of any} bar^{in the Act' the Tribunat and for thatreason any} competent^{Court isentitted toaward higher} compensation^{to the victim of an accident'"}

¶81

16.^{ln view of the Judgments of the Apex court referredto} above,^{the ctaimantsare entittedto get more amount than what} has^{been cta'imed'Further'the Motor Vehictes Act beinga} beneficiai^{piece of iegistation'where the interest of the} claimants^{is a paramount considerationthe Courts shoutdatways} endeavour^{to extendthe benefit to the ctalmantsto a just and} reasonabte^extent'

¶82

2008^{fited bY the} M.A.C.M,A.No'3490^of 17.^AccordinglY' the Cross-objections lnsurance^{ComPanYwas dismissedand}

¶83

5 (201 l) 10 scc 7 56

¶84

o )oo: act tz rsc)

¶85

;

¶86

¶87

No.24 of^{2019 fited by the ctaimants is attowed in part' The} compensation^{amount awarded by the Tribunat is hereby} enhanced^{from Rs'4,36,000/-to Rs'9'33'800/-' The enhanced} amount witl^{carry jnterestat7'5o/o p'a' from the date of fiting} the cross^{objectionstitt the date of reatization' The enhanced} amount^{shatt be apportioned in the manner as orderedby the} Tribunat,^{At this stage,the fearned Counset for the ctaimants} woul'd submit^{that duringpendency of the appeal,the 4th} ctaimant^{died and her share shatt be apportionedamongthe} ctaimants^{1 to 3.ln view of the above submission' the share of} the 4th^{ctaimantshatt be apportionedamongthe ctaimants1} to 3.^{However,the ctaimantsare directedto pay Deficit Court} There shatt^{be no orderas to} Fee on the^{enhanced amount'} costs.

¶88

Mjsceltaneouspetitions,ifany,pendingshattstandclosed'

¶89

SD/.B.SATYAVATHI ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR //TRUE^COPY// ,="#(oFFrcER

¶90

and STs^{(POA) Act -} To, 1 The Special^{Judge for the Trial of offences ulder !!s} "ii[3 !, 1,.^{--'i i ni o itt} " " r r"r't'o ryi ffi "fi *:' *'XH,flLT' " tll, ""i trrlotor^{AccidentsClaims}

¶91

g"'t'3t"f^'3,Idii3""m-Lmil^".x',i;iir?iiltetoPucr

¶92

3 4 Two CD^Copies 5. One^SpareCoPY gbr

a'lk

HIGH COURT

DATED: 2310312022

COMMON^JUDGMENT

MACMA.No.3490^{of 2008} AND

¶98

'18. E STAI
<br>I
o<br>e
(ig o1 Atlczozz ()
(kE-P

¶99

CROSS OBJECTIONS^{No.24 of 2019}

¶100

DISMISSING THE MACMA^AND PARTLY ALLOWING^{THE CROSS OBJECTIONS} WITHOUT COSTS

¶101

;j4

¶102

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR^{THE STATE OF TELANGANA}

¶103

AT HYDERABAD

¶104

WEDNESDAY, THE^{TWENTY THIRD DAY OF MARCH} TWO THOUSAND AND^{TWENTY TWO}

¶105

PRESENT

¶106

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKERREDDY}

¶107

M.A.C,M.A, No.3490^{of 2008}

¶108

And

¶109

CROSS OBJECTI^{ONS No.24of 2019}

¶110

M.A.C .M.A.No.3490 of²⁰⁰⁸

¶111

Between:

¶112

M/s. Cholamandalam^{Ms General lnsurance CompanyLimited, Rep} .^{by^ i\s} N,4anager,ThirdPartyCell,R/o.VFloor'V.V.S.VintageBlock,Varandan'o-J1096,"Raj Bhavan^{R6ad, Somajiguda, Hyderabad.}

¶113

-"e

¶114

...APPELLANT/RESPoNDENT^No'2

¶115

AND

¶116

Veena Naoa Laxmi, W/o.^{Veena RoseReddy' aged22 years, Occ: Housewife} n/o. H.No."rz r0-590/120,^{2nd Floor, Warasiguda, Secunderabad'}

¶117

2 veena^privanka. D/o. Late^{Veena Rosi Reddy, aged 21 years, Occ: Student} 3 Veeni Siria Sai kiran^{Reddy,Sio. Late Veena Rosi Reddy,aged 18 years,} Occ: Student, B;th R;p;ft"nt 2^{and 3 representedby their GuardianSmt Veena Naga} Laxmi- Mother.

¶118

4 V"enu f-finrrayamma,^{W/o. Late Krishna Reddy, aged 60 years,Occ:} Housewife

¶119

Ari iie R/o. H.No.12-10-590/120,2nd^{Floor, Warasiguda, Hyderabad'}

¶120

5 Pandith Md. Fasir^{Ur Rahaman,S/o. Ir/ohd.Abdul Rahaman, agedmajor'.R/o'} H.No.5-13-20l,NearLalBahadurNagar,GajularamaramRoad,R'R'urstrrct'

¶121

(RR2 & 3 declares as maiors duly discharging their^{guardianship Rl vide} bourt Order dated 02.04.2019^{in l.A.No.1 of 2018)}

¶122

...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERYRESPONDENT

¶123

CROSS OBJECTIONS^{No.24 of 2019}

¶124

Between:--'i.-v"un" Naga Laxmi, w/o. Veena Rose Reddy, aged 22 years,.occ: Housewife nl'c-' rl No]rz-10-590/120'^{2nd Floor' Warasiguda'Sel:underabad} - - '^

¶125

Z. Veena Priyanka,^{D/o. LateVeenaRosi Reddy' aged 21 years',FUo} ?^5i9-l-, - Chinna Bddi Street, nhumula Mandalam, Haliya, Anumula, Nalgonda District. 3 V;;;; Siva Sai^{Kiran Reddy,S/o Late Veena RosiRed-dy' aged 19 yqgry} Occ: Student, R/o 5-540,^{Chinna Badi Street, Anumula Mandalam'Halrya'} Anumuta, Nalgonda^District.

¶126

;

¶127

Veena Hanumayamma (dled-The other dependants of the deceased Rosi Reddy i.e., petitioners No.1 to 3 herein are already on record being the Petitioners)

¶128

...CROSS OBJECTIONSiRESPoNDENTS No.'l to 4

¶129

AND

¶130

M/s. Cholamandalam l\4s General lnsurance Company Limited, Rep. by its N4anager, Third Party Cell, R/o. V Floor, V.V.S. Vintage Block, Varandah, 6-31096, Raj Bhavan Road, Somajiguda, Hyderabad.

¶131

.RESPONDENT/APPELLANT

¶132

Pandith lt/d. Fasir Ur Rahaman, S/o. Mohd. Abdul Rahaman, aged major, R/o. H.No.5-13-201, Near Lal Bahadur Nagar, Gajularamaram Road, R.R. District.

¶133

...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT No.5

¶134

Appeal Under Section 173 of M.V. Act and Cross Objections Under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC R/w Section 151 of CPC against the Judgment/Decree in O.P.No.292 of 2005 dated 11.04.2008 on the file of the Court of the Special Judge for the Trial of offences under SCs and STs (POA) Act -cum- Vl Additional lvletropolitan Sessions Judge -cum- Additional Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum- XX Additional Chief Judge, Secunderabad.

¶135

ORDER: This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the Suit and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Ramachandra Reddy Gadi, Advocate for the Appellant in MACI\IA.No.3490/2008 and Respondent No.1 in Cross Objections No.24l2019 and Sri K. Venkatesh Gupta, Advocate for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 in MACIT/A.No.3490/2008 and Petitioner Nos.1 to 4 in Cross Obiections No.2412019.

¶136

This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

¶137

That the MACMA.No.3490/2008 filed by the lnsurance Company be and hereby is dismissed.

¶138

That the Cross Objections No.2412019 filed by the Claimants be and hereby is allowed in part.

¶139

That the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal be and hereby enhanced from Rs.4,36,000/- (Rupees four lakhs and thirty six thousand only) to Rs.9,33,8001 (Rupees nine lakhs thirty three thousand and eight hundred only)

¶140

That the enhanced amount be and hereby shall carry interest al 75% p.a. from the date of filing of cross objections till the date of realization.

¶141

That the enhanced amount be and hereby shall be apportioned in the manner as ordered by this Tribunal

¶142

lt I

¶143

That the share^{of the 4th claimant be and hereby shall be apportioned among} the claimants^{1 to 3, and the claimants are directed to pay Deficit courtFee} on the enhanced amount.

¶144

That there shall^{be no order as to costsof these Apoeals} .

¶145

SDi-B.SATYAVATHI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY// trt

secrtffitrrtcen

To,

The Special Judge^{for the Trialof offences under SCs and STs (POA) Act -} cum_ vt Addition;l^{Niletropolitan sessions Judge -cum-Additionalchairman'} MotorAccidentsClaimsTribunal-cum.XXAdditionalChiefJudge, Secunderabad.^{(with records)}

¶150