Partly allowed

Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Co.Ltd., v. Gundla Madhu , Mycale

Telangana HC2 Sept 2022MACMA/1220/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the insurer's appeal against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's decree, affirming liability despite discrepancies in driver identification. The Court revised the compensation amount to ₹1,09,000 based on medical bills and injuries, citing precedent that courts can award just compensation exceeding the claim amount to ensure equity in accident claims.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed. The petitioner is awarded compensation of Rs. 1,09,000 with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition, to be deposited by the owner and insurer within one month.

Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs Gundla Madhu… — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

132171

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY, THE SECOND^{DAY OF SEPTEI/BER} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENIY^TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶6

MACMA NO: 1220 OF 2011

¶7

Appeal Under Section 173 of^{Motor VehiclesAct againstthe Order andDecreein} M.A.T.O.P.No.BB2 of 2008^{dated 10.09.2009on the file of the Courtof the} chairman, Motor Accident claims^{Tribunal- cum} -^{Family court, AdditionalDistrict} Judge, Khammam, Khammam^District.

¶8

Between:

¶9

IFFCO-TOKIO General lnsurance^Co.Ltd .,, Rep. by its Branch Manager, 4th Floor, Lohiya Towers, Door No. 40-911-12,^{Opp: Nirmala Convent, Vijayawada} - 520 008

¶10

...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT NO.2

¶11

AND

¶12

Gundla Madhu @ IVlycale, S/o.^{Jwanesh Mason workR/o.B.C.Colony,} Konijerla Village and Mandal, Khammam^District.

¶13

....RESpoNDENT/pETrroNER

¶14

B.Ramulu, S/o.Venkulu Owner of^{Auto bearingNo. AP 20X 531 1 R/o.} reesalabanjar, sinsrayapalem^Village, *"r,i::'€.Y33fl3!^H3[IX3[,?lif,^?|

¶15

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI^{T. MAHENDER RAO}

¶16

Counsel for Respondents: SRI V. ATCHUTA^RAM

¶17

The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶18

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI

¶19

M.A.C.M.A.No. 122O of 2O11

¶20

JUDGME NT:

¶21

This appeal has been hled by the second respondent/insurer disputing the liability and rhe quantum of compensation granted in the decree ald judgment dated 10.09.2009 in M.A.T.O.P.No.882 of 2008 passed by M.A.C.T. (Judge, Family Court - cum - Addl. District Judge) at Khammam.

¶22

The case of the claim petitioner in brief is that on 13.04.2008 at about 7:30 P.Nl., '"vhile he was proceeding on his cycle on the way near New Petrol Bunk, Wyra, one auto bearing No.AP2OX53 11 (for short, 'the auto') driven in rash and negligent manner, dashed the cycle. As a result, he fell down and sustained severe injuries a1l or.er the body. After the treatment claiming medical expenditure and disability, filed petition seeking compensation of Rs.75,OOO/-.

¶23

a !) The Tribunal on examining the materials on record held that the accident occurred clue to rash and negligent driving*ofthe

¶24

NTR,J macrna l2l0 20ll

¶25

¶26

<br>

¶27

driveroftheautoandaward'edRs.72,85o/.witharrinterestof 7.5o/o per annum^{against the owner artd insurer of the auto/ l"t} and 2"d respondents.

¶28

In appeal, the^{insurer/2"d respondent(hereinafter' 'the} respondent') contended^{that the Tribunal failed to appositely} appreciate that the^{change of nameof the driver from the FIR to} the hnal report is^{establishing that the petitionerin collusion} with the owner of^{the auto/1strespondent,played fraud and} implicated the auto for^{the sake of compensation'Further,} disputed that, granting^{Rs.26,000/- towardstreatment and} Rs.20,000/- for medicines^{and other expensesrelyingupon the} unproved discharge card,^{medicalbills and CT Scans/Exs'A4to} ,4.6 is untenable. In addition,^{granting Rs'25,000/-for grievous} injury and the interest^{awardedat 7.5o/o is excessive'Thus'} prayed for reconsidering the^{awarded amount'}

¶29

The learned counsel^{for the claim petitioner (hereinafter'} the petitioner') submitted^{that the Tribunal had properly} considered the material on^{record and fixed the liability against} the respondents. Further, the^{change of driver in the record of}

¶30

\TR,J nlacma 1220 l0l^I

¶31

¶32

investigation in no^{wav effects his claim as it is established that} the accident had^{been causedb1' the auto.Hor'r'soever, to prove} false implication,^{exceptthe evidence of Assistant Manager of the} insurer company/RWl,^{no aspect has been elicited much less} any material was^{placed.That apart,the medicalbil1s though} frled at Rs.79,442 l-,^{the Tribuna-1 had awarded only Rs'46,000/-} Thus, prayed for dismissing^{the appeal and by reevaluationto} award^just compensalion.

¶33

In this position, the^{points that arise for determinationare} as follows:

¶34

a) Whether the^{respondent is able to establish false} implication of the auto^{to exonerateits liability?}

¶35

b) Whether the contpensation^{awarded tothe} petitioner by Tribunal is^just and^proper?

¶36

7 . The respondent^{assertedthat the First InformationReport} (FIR)/Ex.Al referred to Ramu/driver^{as he was not having valid} driving licence, in the^{later course, at the stage of charge} sheet/Ex.A2 some other^{name i.e., Katla Peeraiahhad been} shown as driver and this aspect is establishing that^false implication of the vehicle.

¶37

NTR,J rnacma 1220^20ll

¶38

¶39

It^{is pertinent to mention that this contention edacie} explicating^{that the respondent is not disputingthe involvement} of the^{auto,except the point of supplantingthe name of the} driver

¶40

g. A careful perusal^{of record is disclosing that one Ch'} Benerji,^{brother-in-law of the petitioner'was the first informant} and lodged^{the report bearingF'I'R' No'48of 2OOB/Ex' A1' In} that statement,^{it has beenmentionedthat he came to know the} name^{of the driver of the auto is Ramu' However' in the charge} sheet/Ex'A2^{the name of Katla Peeraiah' S/o' Sangaiahis shown} as the^{driver/ accused'To note' the statement of first informant} was based^{on hearsayand the entries in the charge sheet are} after the^{due investigation.Therefore,merely basing on the} varialce^{of name in the statement of FIR and the chargesheet'} concluding^{the substitutionof the driver is not justified' In} absence^{of arly legally acceptable materiaf it shall be held that} the discordance^{raised by the respondent is falling shortto} establish^{any fact to exonerateits liability'}

¶41

In^{regardto the compensation'the petitioner had placed} Ex.A3i^{w-ouii'1 certificateai-'d 'lisci-'arge ca'-di Ex'A4 to prove ti-re}

¶42

.TR,J mccrna l2lll 201 L

¶43

¶44

injuries and Ex.AS/medical bills to show the medical expenditure.

¶45

1 1. The trial Court has discarded the medical bi11s on^the ground that the concerned person was not examined.^{As per} the record, the bills/ Ex.A5 were filed in original. The^petitioneras PW1 had asserted that he spent the anounts in the bills/Ex.A5 towards treatment. In cross-examination, except for^omnibus suggestion nothing has been elicited. Further, the^{genuinity of} the bills in Ex. A5 are not specihcally disputed.^{In this position,} having regard to the injuries and the treatment undergone^by the injured and in these kind of claim petitions, relaxation^of strict proof is agreeable as it would be difficult to examine^the authors of the bi1ls or concerned authority of the hospital,^basing on the positive evidence and the probabilities,^granting Rs.79,44O1- by rounding off to Rs.79,5OO/- towards^medicai bills is found appropriate. To this extent, the amount^granted towards medical expenditure is modified.

¶46

Further, though the amounts were awarded by mentioning the gravity of the injuries, as the arrangement of granting --co-^{lnpensation for the injuriescioes not specify such} heaciiine, the

¶47

NTR.J rnac )a I lfo 201I

¶48

¶49

injury specific amount^{shallbe considered as the award towards} pain and sufferings.^{Considering the injuriesand pleaded} treatment awarding^{Rs.26,5OO/-towards the injuries i'e'' pain} and sufferings is found^{reasonable.Further granting Rs'3'00O/-} towards loss of earnings^{during the period of treatmentis found} appropriate.

¶50

l3.Itiswellsettledpropositionthattheinteresttobeawarded on the compensation^{shall be based on the bank rate' Thus'} though there is oscillation^{in the bank rate, setting uponthe} average, awarding interest^{at Rs.7.5% per arnum is found} appropriate.

¶51

t4. Therefore, the petitioner^{is eligiblefor the compensationas}

¶52

follows:

¶53

Medicalex enditure	Rs.79,500
Painand sufferin	Rs.26,500
Lossofearnin	Rs J 000
Total	Rs.1,O9,OOO

¶54

At this^juncture, the^{other point thatarisesfor}

¶55

determination is:

¶56

Whether this Court can^{award more compensationthen} claimed without there^{being cross appeal/ objection?}

¶57

N ll{..1 rnrcnra Ill0 l0l I

) '!

The three judge bench of the Hon'lcle Apex Court in Surekha and others Vs. Santosh and othersl held that even rvithout there being an,. cross appeal/ objection, the petitioners are entitled for just and proper compensation.

¶62

The contemplation of Section 168 of the M.V. Act and by the authority of Hon'ble Apex Court in Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal, it shall be held that the claimants are entitled to just compensation, even if the quantum of amount goes beyond the claimed amount in the petition. In effect, the just compensation arrived in the preceding discussion shall be granted to the respondent/ claim petitioner

¶63

Consequently, the appeal is disposed of in the follou.ing terms:

¶64

a. The appeal filed by the respondent is dismissed;

¶65

b. However, the petitioner is awarded compensation of Rs.

¶66

1,O9,OOO/- (Rupees one lakh nine thousand only) lr.ith interest at 7 .5o1, per anlrum from the date of petition till realization;

¶67

'^{2o2oacl 2tse,,}

¶68

NTR.J macna ll20 201 I

¶69

¶70

c. The 1"t ald 2'd respondents/owner^{ald insurerof the auto} are liable to^{pay the compensationand they are directedto} deposit the awarded^{amount with interestwithin one}

¶71

month from the^{date of receipt of copy of the order;}

¶72

d. On deposit^{of enhanced amount with interestthe petitioner} is permitted to withdraw^{entire amount'}

¶73

As a sequel,^{miscellaleous petitions, if any pending, shall} stand closed.

¶74

sd/- MoHD. Snniur-r-*r^ANSARI ASSISTAIFREGISTRAR (JC2 //TRUE cgpy// SECTION OFFICER

¶75

To,'1 . The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Judge' Family Court - cum - Additional District Judge) Khammam.

¶76

z. ond cCtosiiT^{MahenderRaoAdvocate-[oPUC]}

¶77

il aa to sri V Atchuta^RamAdvocate IOPUC]

¶78

Two CD^CoPies

MBC

HIGH COURT

DATED: 0210912022

'51ATi: 6
(
2
\s $
1 ,.) )
\g
J< L-, t-j S r
::..-
JUDGMENT

¶84

MACMA.N0.1220 of 2011

DISMISSING THE MACMA

L
,)
\q
(bb(

13217 |

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶89

FRIDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTWO

¶90

PRESENT

¶91

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶92

MACMA NO: 1220 OF 2011

¶93

Between:

¶94

IFFCO-TOKIO General lnsurance Co.Ltd.,, Rep. by its Branch^{Manager, 4th} Floor, Lohiya Towers, Door No. 40-911-12, Opp: Nirnlala Convent,^Viiayawada - 520 008

¶95

...A',ELLANT/RES'.NDENT No.2

¶96

AND

¶97

1 Gundla Madhu @ Mycale, S/o. Jwanesh Mason work Fi/o.B.C.Colony, Konijerla Village and Mandal' Khammam District'

¶98

....REspoNDENT/'ET',,NER

¶99

2 B.Ramulu, S/o.Venkulu Owner of Auto bearing No. AP 20X 531 1 R/o. Teesalabanjar, Sinsrayapalem villase, Konilerlajr'landB!^HR!$B["?hYlr%

¶100

Appeal Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the Order and Decree in M.A.T.O.P.No.882 of 2008 dated 10.09.2009 on the file of the^{Court of the} Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal^- cum - Family Court,^{AdditionalDistrict} Judge, Khammam, Khammam District.

¶101

This Appeal Coming on for hearing and upon^perusing the Memorandum of Appeal, the order of the Lower Court and the material^papers in the case, and upon hearing the arguments of SRI T.MAHENDER RAO, Advocate for the Appellant and SRI V.ATCHUTA RAM, Advocate for the Respondent.

¶102

DECREE: This Court Doth order and Decree that the Decree of the Lower Court be and hereby is confirmed and this Appeal is Dismissed and this Court doth Further order and Decree that there be no order as to costs in this Appeal.

¶103

Sd/. MOHD. SANAULLAH ANSARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII AD

¶104

SECTION OFFICER

¶105

To, 1 The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Judge, Family Court - cum - Additional District Judge) Khammam. 2 Two CD Copies MBC

6,4-

HIGH COURT

DATED: 0210912022

DECREE

MACMA.N o.1220 of 2011

¶111

DISMISSING THE MACMA

¶112

rnl
t'
t^<br>@u

Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Co.Ltd., v. Gundla Madhu , Mycale

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Co.Ltd., v. Gundla Madhu , Mycale

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

The National Insurance Company Limited Vs Korutla Krishna Veni and 3 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

Smt B. Shanta Bai and 4 Others Vs M/S. Andhra Cement Carriers and Another

M/S Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., Vijayawada. Vs Velpula Nirmala and 5 Others

Jinnareddy Kantha Reddy Vs M/S Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., and Another