Dismissed

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

Telangana HC1 Sept 2022MACMA/181/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this motor accident appeal, the insurer challenged the Tribunal's award to the heirs of the deceased, claiming the policy was not in force as the accident occurred before the cover note was issued. The Court examined timestamps and evidence regarding the time of the accident versus the policy issuance.

What did the court decide?

The appeal filed by the insurer was dismissed; the Tribunal's decree dated 26.05.2006 remains in force.

M/S United India Insurance Company Limited… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

13217 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

THURSDAY ,THE FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT.

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶6

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEO US APPEAL NO: 181 OF 201l

¶7

Appeal Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act against the Decree in O.P. No. 434 of 2003 dated: 26.05.2006 on the file of the Court of The Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-Cum-UV Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Ranga Reddy Diskict At L.B. Nagar.

¶8

Between:

¶9

M/S United lndia lnsurance Company Limited, Hyderabad., Malakpet Branch , Hyderabad.

¶10

...APPELLANT

¶11

AND

¶12

SMT. Jakia Begum, Wo late Babu Bai @Mohd.Ali House Wife Fl/o H.No.181 -389 Tallakunta Chandrayanagutta,

¶13

Mohd. Parvez, S/o Late Babu Bai @ MoM. Ali minor, Student R/o H.No.18-1389 Tallakunta Chandrayanagutta,

¶14

Muneera Begum, D/o Lale Babu Bai @ Mohd. Ali minor,student R/o H.No.181 -389 Tallakunta Chandrayanagutta,

¶15

Mohd. Nawaz, S/o Late Babu Bai @ Mohd. Ali minor, student R/o H.No.18-1389 Tallakunta Chandrayanagutta,

¶16

Mohd. lmran, S/o Late Babu Bai @ Mohd. Ali minor, studentPet. 2& 5 are rep.by their mother -Res.NO.1 Rl/o H.No-1&1-389 Tallakunta Chandrayanagutta,

¶17

D. Sudarshan Reddy, S/o Sree Ram Reddy, age: major Owner of Vehicle no. AP 7 T 5513 No 17115, Dilshuknagar, Hyderabad.

¶18

:..RESPONDENTS

¶19

MACMAMP NO. I50 PF 2OO8

¶20

Petition under Section 151 of CPC Praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to Stay the execution of the decree and judgment dt: 26.05.2006 passed in O.P.NO. 434 of 2003 on the

¶21

file of lV Addition rl I)istrict and Sessions Judge, FTC R.R District, Pending disposal of the a1 peal

¶22

Counsel for the / ppellant: SRl. RAMACHANDRAREDDY Gr\Cl

¶23

Counsel for the I espondent No.^'l to 5: MISS. P. NITHYA

¶24

Counsel for the I espondent No.6: SRl. D.V. SRINIVAS RA()

¶25

The Court made he following: JUDGMENT

¶26

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI

¶27

MACMA.No.181 of 2O11

¶28

JUDGMENT:

¶29

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/2nd respondent/insurer, respondents/petitioners and perused the material on record.

¶30

This appeal is directed against the decree and award dated 26.05.2006 in O.P.No.434 of 2003 on the file of the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Ranga Reddy District.

¶31

The appellant is the 2nd respondent/insurer and the claim petition is filed by the wife and children of one Babbu Bhai @ Mohd.Ali who died in motor accident dated 2L.O3.2002.

¶32

The petitioners' case in brief is that on 21.03.2002 at about 3 p.m. while the Babbu Bhai @ Mohd.Ali/deceased was crossing the road, one water tanker bearing registration No. APTT-5513 (for short 'the

¶33

2 NTR,J 1,1, cma I18l 2011

¶34

tanker') driv ln by its driver in rash and negligrlrrt nranner dashed her nd caused severe injuries and wh le shifUng to the hospi al for treatment, he succumbed tr: injuries. Thus, the p :titioners claiming loss of depenc (3nc)/, filed the petition or compensation of Rs.3 lakhs.

¶35

The Tr ounal on considering the materiai ltla:ed on record by tl' : petitioners and respondents concltded that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent Jriving of the water tanker and awarded Rs.3 lakhs ,\ith interest at 7.5o/o per annum against the owner and in:;r_rer of the water tanke /1.'t and 2nd respondents.

¶36

In app:al, the insurerf2nd respondent tlrere,inafter respondent) contested that the tribunal has, failed to consider tt- rt the 1't respondent has obtain()d the tnsurance p )l,cy by suppressing material fa:t il-rat the vehicle met with the accident at 2 p.m.. Thu j the policy is not live a relevant time, consequenUy, the r.,::spondent cannot be reld liable to indemnify the insured/6th respondent.

¶37

NTR,J. lYacma_1181_2011

¶38

¶39

,^i'I

¶40

7.^per contra,^{the learned counselfor the 1tt to 5th} respondents^{(hereinafter the petitioners)and the owner} of the tanker/6th^{respondentin one voice pleadedthat} the insurance^{policy was taken} at^{2.35 p.m.on} 21.03.2002^{and the accident occurred at 3 p.m. and the} documents^{placed on record are establishing this fact.} Thus the tribunal^{has properlyconsideredthe contention} of the respondent^{on merits and concluded that the} insurance^{policy is in force as such no reason is made} out to interfere^{in the aPPeal'}

¶41

In this rival^{stances, the point for} determination is:

¶42

"Whether the insurance^{policy/Ex.A-6/Ex.B-4} was obtained^{after the accident as claimed} by the respondent/insurer,^{ifso what would} be the consequence?

¶43

g. The respondent/insurer pleaded that the accident occurred at^{2p.m. on2L-03.2O02. The 1't} petitioner/PW-1 being^{wife and} the^{eyewitness/PW-2} being interested^{witnessesmade statements that the}

¶44

4 NIR,J l'acm. 11Bl 2011

¶45

accident wa; occurred at 3 p.m. However, the entries made by th -, hospital authority is establishirr,; that the accident occ rrred at2 p.m. on 2I.03.2002. As ther cover note oF tl,: policy was issued at 2.35 p.rn. on 27.03.2002. fhese facts are establishing that the insurance p ricy was not in existence by ilrer time of accident is t einq established. Therefore, the _=,spondent could not be rade liable.

¶46

A peru,, al of record is disclosing that the -..e^ itness as PW-2 ass:rted that the accident occurred .rt : p.m. For the reas( ns best known to the respondent, tlere was no cross e> anrination on this point. The _r:cord of investigating ilgency i.e. Ex.A_1/FIR, Ex.A-.,1/irquest report, Ex.A. l/MVI report and Ex.A_5/charge sher:t are referring thr time of the accident as 3 rt.nr. on 21.03.2002.

¶47

Further .he respondent filed letter/Ex.B_3 :,;SU ed by the Superin endent of Osmania General llos;pital, Hydera bad ()n the request Ietter ,lated

¶48

ftE*

¶49

¶50

NTR,J lvlacma_1181_2011

¶51

¶52

t I

¶53

25.O1.2005/Ex.B-2 of the principal Investigator appointed by the respondent with queries of i) date and time the deadbody was brought to the hospital, ii) date and time of the accident as per the hospital record and iii) the copies of relevant records duly certified. In

¶54

reply/Ex.B-3 it is answered that the deadbody was brought to the casuality at 4.05 p.m. and the time of the accident may be obtained from the police station. Therefore even the material relied on by the respondent is not manifesting the claimed time of accident.

¶55

t2. In absence'.of any legally acceptable material it shall be held that the asservation of the respondent is baseless and by the positive evidence placed by the petitioner on record, it shall be concluded that the time of the accident is at 3 p.m.on 2L.O3.2002 and admittedly as the insurance policy was issued at 2.35 p.m. it shall be held that the insurance policy was live by ..-.. . the time of the accident.

¶56

N TR,J ra( ma l18l 20LL

¶57

¶58

Resulta r:ly, the respondent's clarnr to ,:xonerate the liability rn t.he ground that the policy vr;rs not in

¶59

existence at relevant time fails on merits an i in effect the appeal is dismissed. No costs.

¶60

As a se ;rel, miscellaneous petitions pend ng, f any, shall stand c )sed

¶61

SD/.T. JAYASREE ASSISTA].IT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// i

¶62

r;EcroN brrtceR

¶63

To, 1 . The Chain an, tvlACT-Cum-lV^{Additional District and Ses;:, ion:; Judge(FTC)} Ranga Rer cy District^at L.B.^Nagar.

¶64

One"CC tc, Sri. Ramachandrareddy^{Gadi, Advocate} [Ot't-tC]

¶65

One CC tc Sri.^D V Srinivasa^{Rao, Advocate} IOPUC]

¶66

One CC tc Sri. P Nithya^{Nageswari,Advocate} [OPUC]

¶67

Two CD C^rpies

HIGH COU] IT

DATED:01 I tgl2022

JUDGMEN I

MACMA.N,r.181 of 2011

¶74

t,1 '<br>iI 2 l1All ziin
"

¶75

DIMISSIN( i THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS. @o+i" grO po ^) "

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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.

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

Smt. Mudavath Nanku and 5 Others Vs Shivaji and Another