Allowed

National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Jada Muthyali and 4 Ors.

Telangana HC10 Mar 2022CMA/613/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal under the Workmen's Compensation Act, the High Court allowed the appeal filed by the National Insurance Company. The court held the owner failed to fulfill duties regarding the driver's license and entitled the family to 20% interest and withdrawal of deposited amounts.

What did the court decide?

Interest at 12% from accident date, withdrawal of amounts deposited by insurer against the vehicle owner, and insurance company's right to recover said amount.

National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Jada Muthyali and 4 Ors. — Insurance | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF N/ARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SMT, JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

¶5

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 613 OF 2005

¶6

Appeal Under Section 30 (1) of Workmen's Compensation Act against the Order in W.C.No.104 of 2004 dated 01.03.2005 on the file of the Commissioner for the Workmen's Compensation and the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Hyderabad-ll.

¶7

Between:

¶8

National Insurance Company Ltd., Rep. by its Divisional Manager The Divislonal Manager, National lnsurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office-lV, Abids, Hyderabad.

¶9

...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT No.2

¶10

AND

¶11

Jada Ir/uthyali, W/o.late Taladri, aged 20 years, Occ: Nil

¶12

Jada lt4uthamma, W/o.Pullaiah, aged 50 years, Occ: Nil

¶13

Jada Pullalah, S/o.Venkaiah, aged 60 years, Occ: Nil

¶14

Jada Sunitha, S/o.Pullaiah, Minor, Occ: Nil

¶15

Rep. by its natural guardian J. Pullaian R-3

¶16

All are Presently R/o.Boduppal, Hyderabad. Permanently R/o.Garlamanpalli, Nampally, Nalgonda District.

¶17

...RESPONDENTS/APPLICANTS

¶18

B.Narsimha, S/o.Bandaiah, aged 42 years, Occ: Ownerof the Lorry R/o.10, Sahebnagar, Vanasthalipuram, Hyderabad.

¶19

...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT No.1

¶20

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI NISARUDDIN AHMED JEDDY

¶21

Counsel for the Respondents: NONE APPEARED

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE P,SREE SUDHA

¶24

C.M.A.N o.613 of 200s

¶25

ORDE R

¶26

This alrpeal is rilecr b-v rhc National Insurance compan_v, against thc orders of the Commissioner for Workmer-r's Compensation ancl Assistant Commissioner of Labour, I'{yderabad-il, in W.C.No. t04 o{ 2OO4 dated 01.03.2005, whereunder the Commissioner granted compensation of Rs 2'51,929 /- to the applicants, who are the regal heirs of the deceased,

¶27

-).. l.-rom thc pe rusal ol the r.rrdcr in W.C.No.104 ol. 2OOul ir \ r)Lrl(l rcrl!'ct lri,r rh:lr one yai:rcrrr u,as r,r,or.kirrg irs a r;orc g,crl lrr'lpcr anri u.as enrplol,ccl b-1. thc Ou.ner. of thc vchiclc be:rring l-orn' No.r\ll'f (;5bj. ()n Ol.04.2004, ri,ltilc irc uaLs n,orking :rs slrr:h, thc crlivcr or'rhc saicl vehicle movecr thc vehicrc in a rasI.r ;rnd ncgligcnt rrt:utner, which rcsulted tl_re rear u,hecl of the 'ehiclc^{rr:nr-ring ovcr tl-re bodyof the creceascd} dur: to r'hrch he sL-rstai.ccl qr-ic'vous injurics all oi,cr his boclv and imrne diate1.r,. he r'r,irs shil'tcd to GovernmenL Hospital, Nanclecl, ancl u.hile lurdclr-ioing Lrc.ltmcr.rt I-re succumbecl to thc injr-rries. The lamilr,

¶28

¶29

memb€rs of the^{deceased filed the applicationfor grant of} compensation^{of Rs.5,00,000/-After adducing evidenceand} marking exhibits,^{the learned Commissionergranted an amount} of Rs.2,51,929/-^{towardscompensationAggrievcdby thc said} order, the appellant^{preferredthis Appeal'}

¶30

Heard both the^{cout-rsel and pcrusedthe record}

¶31

4 Learned coutlsel^{for the appellant ll'ould contclldlhal thc} Commissioner^{failed to considerthe aspect that as per the} Charge Sheet^{Ex.A-2, the driver of the insured lorry involved in} and he drd not Possess^a the accident^{bearingNo.AET 6565} valid driving^{licence at the time} of the accident^{He *'ourld} furthcr aver^{lhattl.ris constitutccl:lbrcacholLhc policv} conciition^{regarding hoiding of a valiclliccnce by thc driver anci} therclore^{lhe appcilant insuratlcc compant u'ortld trot bc liabltr} lo pay compellsation.

¶32

Learned Commissioner^{obsen'ed in his order thirL t\ ('lr il} it is ztssumccl thal^{thc clril'erlrad tlo clril'inq lict'nt} '^{' il rr 'rs tt'rt} the iault ol^{tlle clecearsedand rhe claitnants'lllt: ol-ir-ts lics orr} lhe o$,ner ol^{the vei-ricleto check thc docutnct-tLsancl drir,rrlg} licence of thc^{clrlver beforehar-rding ovcr the vehiclc' Tht:} Commissioncr^{observcdthat as thc death occLtrred duringLhe}

¶33

¶34

( oLtr-su ()l c.rlllo_'rncltt. thc o\.'., r .,1' the ve hiclc ancl thc insurer ri orrid bc jointlv iLnd scvcrallv Iiable for the same .

¶35

From the above facts, it would reveal that the oq.ner ol the vehicle \'as examined. During his examination, he has not statcd that he verified the driving licence belore engaging the drivcr. He simply deposeci that as per the charge_shcet, the r.lr-ivcr ciid not produce his driving licence. He also cienied the sr-rggcstion tl-ra,it thc clri'er had a vaird drlvi,g licencc bur drd not producc it belbre rhe police, thror-tgh this it is seen thar the i.r* r'ie r ol tht 'cl.riclc failed in lullilling his ciut' ancl hcnce lrolzLtcd the tcrms ancl conditions ol' the insur:tnce policr.. Thc ()\ 1tr r iilollc ri.or_rlcl bc liable to pzt' the compcnsatiolt in such .i'r--Lrr,st.rrcL's a.cl rhe ins.rance compan'rionlcr bc absorvccr o1' iLs li.bilitr'. Ir is lirr Ll-rr: applica.ts to prove th.tt rhe drivcr hacl a i;rlicl ciri'ing li.uacc as trre-' lairccr to d, sr, thc insurarnce comprtnl lyolrlcl not bc liable to pay the compcnsation.

¶36

Learned Commissioner did not award interest on the awarded compensation. The applicants are entitled for interest at the rate of r20/o per annum from the date of accident to the date of realisation in accordance with the decision of the Suprcmc Colrrr in the case of SABERABIBI YAKUBBHAI

¶37

¶38

SHAIKH V/s NATIONAL^{INSURANCECOMPANYI. As the} deposit was already made by the^{insurancecompal'ly,thc} applicants are entitled interest at the^rate of^{1.2nk from the daltr} of accident to the date of such deposit.

¶39

In tire intcrest ol^juslicc, the :tpplit ants lrrc^{ilt.tlitlccl1t,} rl.rc lr,ithdrau, tl-re arnour-rt s'hich has bccn^{dcposrrcd lll} Insurance Companv. The applicants^{are also entitlcd lo rcco'cl'} thc interest on the same amoullt^{lrom thc ou'ne:'of tlre vchiclc.} Fu:'thcr, the ir-tsurancc compa]'lv is at lillertv^{Lr) rccovcl' 1hc} amollnt deposited bf it irom^{Lhe o"r'ner ol thi: r'c'hiclc.}

¶40

In the result, the appeal is allowed^{Ho'"vever. theri:} shall be no order as to costs.

¶41

Miscellaneous Petitions, if^{any, pendingin this appcal} shall stand closed in the light^{ol thrs final order.}

¶42

'^{zott lzl scc 298}

¶43

SD/- B.S. CHIRANJEEVI JOINT REGISTRAR

¶44

,TRUE COPY' fltr SECTI drub FFICER

¶45

To, 1 The Commissioner Commissioner^{of Labour-ll, for the Workmen Hvderabad' (wltn s C9m.gensat191 recoro) and} -^{the Assistant} 2 #;'Cdi;^{d;i r.ri."rroain AhriedJeddv"Advocate [oPUc]} 3 Two CD^CoPies 4 One SPare^CoPY s^br

¶46

HIGH COURT

¶47

DATED: 1010312022

¶48

av
(/) scr6
l <br>F.L =
S
.J. G,

¶49

ORDER

¶50

CMA.No.613 of 2005

¶51

ALLOWING THE APPEAL

National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Jada Muthyali and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Jada Muthyali and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Karne Linganna Vs G.Ganga Reddy

Samala Laxminarayana, Karimnagar and 7 Ors. Vs Gundeti Rajeswari, Khammam.

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sri Ramavath Balu

New India Assurance Company Vs Mr. Chinna Narasimha and Anr.

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Mohd Saber Hussain and Anr.

V.Rambabu Naidu Vs Talluri Jailaxmi Rao