Dismissed

The National Insurance Company Limited v. Korutla Krishna Veni and 3 Ors.

Telangana HC1 Sept 2022MACMA/1189/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal by an insurer challenges the compensation award in a motor accident case under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act. The High Court observed that under this provision, negligence is not required to be proved and the quantum is determined by the II Schedule. Holding that no apology for negligence is needed, the court dismissed the appeal and the liability. This judgment deals with str

What did the court decide?

Compensation award of Rs. 3,52,000/ with interest against Insurance Company in Section 163A claim is upheld; appeal of insurer dismissed.

The National Insurance Company Limited Vs Korutla… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶2

AT HYDERABAD

¶3

THURSDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF SEFTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶6

M.A.C.M.A. No: 1189 OF 2011

¶7

Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V. Act, aggrieved by the Decree and Judgment dated 10-12-2010, made in OP No. I 97 of 2008, on the file of The M.A.C.T.-cum-ll Additional District Judge, Karimnagar at Jagtial.

¶8

Between:

¶9

The National lnsurance Company Limited, [Policy No.70686/01 Branch or Divn Code No.5551300 Valid from 31.03.2002 to 30.03.2003I

¶10

O/o.Divisional Office: Near Municipal Complex, Karimnagar.

...AppellanU

Respondent No.2

And

Korutla Krishna Veni, Wo. Srinivas Household

¶15

Chandra Shekar @ Vivakavardha, S/o.Srinivas Student, Minor rep by next friend & guardian the mother P-2

¶16

K.G.Gangarao, S/o.Narasaiah Nil

¶17

...Respondents/Claimants

¶18

All Rl/o. Rl/o.Tharakaramanagar M, Jagtial Mandal, Karimmagar District.

¶19

Annamaneni Narayana Rao, S/o.Rajeswar Rao

¶20

Owner of Tractor No.AP 15 V 3195, Trailor No.AAR 2994 Ryo.H.No.1-5-171112, Karimoagar Road, Jagtial Village and Mandal,

¶21

...Respondents/Respondents

¶22

l.A. NO: 1 OF 201S(MACMAMP. NO: 817 OF 201s)

¶23

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to post the above MACMA MP No. 2248 of 201 .1 in MACMA No. 1189 of 2011 dt. 29-6-2011 under the caption "For Being Mentioned" for correction in the operative portion of the order as Respondent No.3 in the place of Respondent No.2, so as to enable the^petitioner to withdraw my share amount.

¶24

l.A. NO: 1OF 2011, U ACMAMP. NO..224A oF 2011)

¶25

Petition unc ;r Section 151 CPC praying that in the ;ilcunrstances stated in the affidavit file( ir support of the petition, the High Cou( rnay lle pleased stay of execution of th€ dr:cree and all further proceedings in pu.:;uan,:e of the award and decree in OP 1o.19712008 on the fite of the Motor Veh ck-, A<;cidents Claims Tribunal cum ll AJditional District Judge, Karimange r at Jagtial dated 10.12.2010.

¶26

For the Appellant I Sri K. Sita Ram, Adyocate

¶27

For the Responder t I'1o.1 to 3: Sri A.V.K.S. prasad, Advoca e

¶28

The Court made th r following: JUDGMENT

¶29

i!I I t

¶30

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI

¶31

M.A.C.M.A.No. 1189 of 2011

¶32

JUDGMENT:

¶33

The insurer/respondent No.2 filed this appeal questioning the liability passed in decree and judgment dated lO.L2.?OLO in O.P.No.197 ot 2O0B on the file of M.A.C.T. - Cum - II Addl. District Judge, Karimnagar at Jagtial.

¶34

The relevant facts in brief are that on 13.06.2002 at about 11:30 P.M., Sri K. Srinvas/deceased while proceeding on scooter at Medipally, the tractor bearing No. AP15v3195 and trailer bearing No.AAR-2994 (for short, 'the tractor') had been parked in middle of the road without indicators as such, the rider failed to notice and rammed his vehicle into the trailer and died on the spot. Thereupon the wife, son and father of the deceased filed a claim petition under Section 163A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the MV Act') seeking compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-.

¶35

Nl^R.J macma I 189 201I

¶36

¶37

The Tribunal on considering the mirt(lrials^awarded Rs.3,52,00 r/ with 7.5olo interest^{per annL,rn against the} owner and n:;urer/ 1tt and 2nd respondents.

¶38

Aggr :ved thereby the insurer/ 2"d^{rtrsp'lndent (for} short, 'the respondent') contended in this appeal that^the Tribunal sh luld have considered that the decea:'ed^{himself had} struck the ;tationed tractor, which is explicat^rrg the rash^and negligent Jriving, as such the decease:^{himself was} responsible f,rr the accident, therefore, not ertitled^{for any} compensat rrr. Further, the Tribunal should^{ir,aveconsidered} that the fi ral report/Ex.A2 wherein it is^corr: uded^{that the} rider of tl e scooter/deceased had rashly and^negligently driven the vt:hicle and dashed the stat onec^{l-rar:tor. Thus,} prayed for e..considering the claim^petition.

¶39

On tl e other hand, the claim^{petrti( Il3rs/respondent} Nos.1, 2 a d 3 (for short,^{'the petitioners') llr:aced that the} claim petiti tn is filed under Section^{1634 of tre M''/ Act where} under the i s[)ect of negligence on the^part of^{tlre driver of the} vehicle net d not be examined. Hence, th(^{petitioners are}

¶40

NTR,J macma I 189 20ll

{ (

\ \

entitled for the compensation under the structured formula. Therefore, the Tribunal had considered the claim in the right perspective and awarded the reasonable compensation as such, there is no ground to interfere with the award.

¶45

In this context, the point that arises for determination is

¶46

as follows:

¶47

Whether the aspect of negligence can be considered in the petition under Section 1634 of Motor Vehicles Act as claimed by the respondent?

¶48

It is not in dispute that the claim petition had been filed under Section 1634 of Motor Vehicles Act. Under this provision, the claimants are not required to plead or establish that the death or permanent disability in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act or negligent or default of the drivers or owners of the vehicle concerned and the claim has to be determined as indicated in the II Schedule.

¶49

With regard to the objections raised by the respondent and entries in final report/Ex.A2 are indicating that the driver of the tractor and trailer was also charged under Section 122

¶50

\TR..I rnrcma I ls9 20ll

¶51

¶52

r/w Sectior^'.:.77 of Motor Vehicles Act^{for nr q igerntly leaving} the vehicl, in dangerous^{position andtl- e: offenceswas} compound( C by collecting the compound^{itrl-i)re:;t.In this} factual pos tion and as the claim is under^{no 'allt liability,the} petitioners lre not assigned with burden of^{prcrvinqnegligence} thus, the < >rtention raised by the^{responder I, in this appeal,} stands uns ts:ainable, thereby, it shall^{be helr'tha: in absence} of merit, th s appeal is llable to^{be dismissed.}

¶53

B. In the rr:sult, appeal^{is dismissed.}

¶54

As a : e<;uel, miscellaneous^petitions, if^{a r1, p<:nding, shall} stand close l.

¶55

Sd/.K. VENKAIAH ASS STANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SEC TION OFFICER

To,

The M.A.C.T -c.rm-ll Additional District Judge, Karimn, r,l rr at Jagtial

¶60

(\A itit R.cords if any)

¶61

One CC to S ili- sita Ram, Advocate topucl 3. One CC to Sr A.V.K.S.Prasad, Advocaie tOpUCl

¶62

Two CD Copi rs

P .*

HIGH COURT

NTRJ

DATED:0110912t22

/a : iArs
/.. I ; o^
\ti
I
i Ir \i[H ?tt
r.{r,. .,
,,--.,--.'-'l
- - , =... ,, lr* "-'

¶68

JUDGMENT + T EI]REE

¶69

MACMA.No.118) 'cf 2011

¶70

APPEAL IS DIS II]SSED

¶71

a-
,,)
${-<br>

¶72

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶73

THURSDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER

¶74

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶75

PRESENT

¶76

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶77

M.A.C.M.A. No: 1189 OF 2011

¶78

Between:

¶79

The National lnsurance Company Limited, [Policy No.70686/01 Branch or Divn Code No.5551300 Valid from 3'l .O3.2002 to 30.03.20031

¶80

O/o.Divisional Office: Near Municipal Complex, Karimnagar.

...AppellanU

Respondent No.2

And

Korutla Krishna Veni, W/o. Srinivas Household

¶85

Chandra Shekar @ Vivakavardha, S/o.Srinivas Student,

¶86

Minor rep by next friend & guardian the mother P-2

¶87

K.G.Gangarao,S/o.NarasaiahNil ...Respondents/Claimants

¶88

All Rl/o. Rl/o.Tharakaramanagar [V], Jagtial Mandal, Karimmagar District.

¶89

Annamaneni Narayana Rao, S/o.Rajeswar Rao

¶90

Owner of Tractor No.AP^'1 5 V 3'195, Trailor No.AAR 2994

¶91

Ryo.H.No.1-5-171112, Karimnagar Road, Jagtial Village and Mandal,

¶92

...RespondenURespondent

¶93

Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V. Act, aggrieved by the Decree and Judgment daled 10-12-2010, made in OP No.^'197 of 2008, on the file of The M.A.C.T.-cum-ll Additional District Judge, Karimnagar at Jagtial.

¶94

This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the Memorandum of Appeal, the Order and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the case, and upon hearing the arguments of Sri K. Sita Ram, Advocate for the Appellant and Sri A.V.K.S. Prasad, Advocate appeared for the respondent Nos 1 to 3.

¶95

Decree: This Court Doth order and Decree as here under:

¶96

1 . That this Appeal be and is here by Dismissed.

¶97

That there is no order as to costs to this Appeal.

¶98

Sd/. K. VENKAIAH

¶99

To,

¶100

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR @ -= 5er-6o* OGfrr--E8-

¶101

//TRUE COPY//

¶102

1 The M.A.C.T.-cum-ll Additional District Judge, Karimnagar at Jagtial

¶103

Two CD Copies

X-*

HIGH COURT

NTRJ

DATED:01/0912 t22

DECREE

MACMA.No.11Bt at 2011

¶111

APPEAL IS DISM SSED

¶112

q
4r-F

The National Insurance Company Limited v. Korutla Krishna Veni and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The National Insurance Company Limited v. Korutla Krishna Veni and 3 Ors.

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

Y. Harish Chandra Prasad Vs Y. Ashwin

Mahaveer Chand Jain, Hyderabad., Vs the State of Telangana, Rep Pp and Anr.

Garugula Srinivas Vs M.P. Sunil Kumar and Another

Icici Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Ramavath Chandi and 7 Ors.

M/S United India Insurance Company Limited, Hyderabad. Vs Smt. Jakia Begum and 5 Others

Smt. Mudavath Nanku and 5 Others Vs Shivaji and Another