Dismissed

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company v. Poloju Narshimha Chary and Anr.

Telangana HC21 Mar 2022MACMA/2370/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court heard an appeal by an insurance company challenging the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal's award of Rs. 1,18,000 as compensation for injuries sustained in a road accident. The Court found the Tribunal's order well-considered and dismissed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is dismissed and the decree of the Tribunal is confirmed. No order as to costs.

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Vs Poloju… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

<br>

¶2

N THE HIGH COURT^{FORTHE STATEOF'TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD}

¶3

ONDAY,THE rwe ru'rv rtnsr:oAY oF^MARcH TWO THOUSAND AND^{TWENTY TWO}

PRESENT

H G SRI DEVI

al Under Secti 173,.df Motor Vehicle^{Act againstthe} Judgment /Decree^{in O.P.No. 532 of 2007Dated 1310712011on the file of the Court} of the Chairman, Motor^{AccidentsClaims TribunallV Additional District Judge} ll (FTC)at Nalgonda.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Baiai Allianz General^{lnsurance Compa4y, rep by lts Regional} -lvlanager' R;;lb"rl^{-Office,ReqO.Office: Block-ll, 6tn Floor, WhiteHouse,Begumpet'} Hyderabad^- 500^016,

¶10

...APPELLANT/2Nd^NCSPOruOEHT

¶11

ANO

¶12

Po Chary,:S/o.Cha aged 27^{years, Occ: CarPenter} rlo. llage & Mandal,^N algonda District.

¶13

]', .....RESPONDENT/PETITIONER

¶14

?. B ,^{Occ: Business& Owner of Mahindra} B o,2 NIVASA Nagar, SatyanarayanaPuram, Vijayawada-12.

¶15

.,.RESPONDENTS/1 "t^RESPONDENT

¶16

For the Appellanl sMr. A..MA:-.ATHI,^Advocate

¶17

¶18

For the ResPondent^{No.1 :' SRI CHALAKANIVENK'AT YADAV'Advocate}

¶19

The Court delivered^{the following: JUDGMENT}

¶20

¶21

¶22

OSD,J MACMA_2370 2011

¶23

'.1-

¶24

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

¶25

M.A.C.M.A.No.237O of 2O11

¶26

JUDGMENT:

¶27

This appeal is preferred by the appellant-Insurance Company, questioning the order and decree, dated 13.07.2011, passed in O.P.No.532 of 2OO7, on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- IV Additional District Judge (lI Fast Track Court), Nalgonda (for short,^,,the Tribunal").

¶28

For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.

¶29

The facts in issue are as under:

¶30

The claimant had filed a petition under Sections 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rule 455 of Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, against the respondents I and, 2, claiming compensation of Rs.3,OO,000/- along with subsequent interest and costs for the injuries sustained by him in a road accident that occurred on 15.O6.2006. It is stated that on the said date, when the claimant was returning to Gorenkalapally village after attending a marriage function at Thungathurthy village on an LML Scooter with other persons on the left side of the road, at about 6.45 PM, when he reached near Court buiiding at Nakrekal on National Highway No.9 , the driver of the Mahindra Bolloro Van bearing No.AP-16-AD-566 came in a rash and

----:-.F*,-.'4.-

OSD,J MACMA_2370_201I

¶36

negligent manner with high speed from opposite direction and dashed the LML scooter. As a result, the claimant had sustained three injuries which are as follows:-

¶37

i. Gieuous injury on right leg,

¶38

ii. Gieuous injury on face and forehead,

¶39

iii. Grieuous injury on Nasal bone^(both Nostrik) and other simple injuies.

¶40

Immediately after the accident, the claimant was shifted to Community Health Centre, Nakrekal and thereafter, shifted to KIMS Hospital, Hyderabad and also took treatment^at different private hospitals. Thus, the claimant filed^claim- petition against the respondents 1 and 2 claiming compensation for the disability sustained by him.

¶41

Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent remained ex^parte and the 2"d respondgnt filed counter denying the averments made in the claim-petition. It is also stated that the^lst respondent, who is the owner of the vehicle, had not informed^to the 2"d respondent- company about the alleged accident^and had also not cooperated with the respondent companyⁱⁿ contesting the case. As such, the 2trd respondent- company cannot be held responsible for^payment of compensation^as there was no valid subsisting certificate of^{registrationand} permit to the said vehicle on the date of accident. It is further

¶42

¶43

CSD,J MACMA 2370 201I

¶44

stated in the FIR that at the time of accident, three persons were going on the LML scooter and therefore, it is triple driving and they have violated the MV Act and as such, the 2"d respondent company has no liability to pay the compensation. It is also stated that since the petitioner had not impleaded the owner and insurer of the LML scooter, as such his claim petition is not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary parties and hence prays to dismiss the petition.

¶45

The 2"d respondent- company filed additional counter stating that at the time of accident, the driver of the Bolloro Van was not holding valid licence and the 1"t respondent, who is the owner of the vehicle, had wiilfully handed over the vehicle to the said driver. It is further stated that when a letter was addressed to the lst respondent to furnish the driving licence, the lst respondent gave a reply that the vehicle was sold away. Since the owner of the vehicle had not furnished the particulars of the insurance policy, the 2"d respondent- company is not liable to pay compensation to the claimant and hence prayed to dismiss the petition.

¶46

Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were framed before the Tribunal:-

¶47

¶48

OSD,J

¶49

1. Whether the injuries sustained bg petitioner, is due to rash and negligent driuing of Mahindra Bolloro Van beoring No. AP- 1 6-AD- 0 5 66?

¶50

1. Whether the Claimant rs entitled for anA compensation? If so, to uhat amount and from u-thom?

¶51

1. To uhat relieJ?

¶52

During trial, on behalf of the claimant, PWs 1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A72 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, RW 1 was examined and Exs.B 1 to B4 were marked.

¶53

After considering the oral ald documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Mahindra Bolloro Van bearing No.AP- 16-AD-0566 and awarded total compensation of Rs. 1,18,0O0/- together with interest @ 7 .5%o per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization against respondents I and 2 jointly and severally. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant-Insurance Company filed the present appeal.

¶54

Heard and perused the record.

¶55

A perusal of the order reveals that the Tribunal passed a well considered order by taking into consideration all the aspects. The Tribunal has framed the Issue No.1 as to whether -.the injuries sustained by the petitioner, were due to rash and

r .,,...*#

CSI),J

negiigent driving of the driver of the Mahindra Bolloro Van bearing No.AP- 16-AD-0566, to which the Tribunal has categorically observed that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Mahindra Bolloro Van and had answered in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.

¶60

With regard to quantum of compensation, after considering the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner and the evidence given by the Medical Officers (pWs2 & 3), the Tribunal has awarded Rs.15,000/- towards grievous injury sustained by him, Rs.2,O00/- each for two simple injuries sustained by him totaling to Rs.40O0/-, Rs.2,000/- towards transportation charges, Rs.10,000/- towards pains and sufferings, Rs.78,O0O towards treatment, medical expenses, extra nourishment and transport charges incurred by him and Rs.9,00O/- towards loss of earnings for three months. Thus, in all, a sum of Rs. 1,18,0O0/- was awarded to the petitioner towards compensation under all counts. Therefore, I see no reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

¶61

Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed confirming the order and decree passed by the Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶62

¶63

CSD.J MACMA 2370_20t I

¶64

¶65

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall stand

¶66

closed.

¶67

SD/.B.SATYAVATHI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRU E COPY// ,i t1+ SECTION OFFICER

¶68

To, l.TheChairman,l,4otorAccidentsClaimsTribunallVAdditionalDistrictJudgell (FTC)at Nalgonda.

¶69

One CC to SRL^{A MALATHI, Advocate.} IOPUC]

¶70

One CC to SRl.^{CHALAKANI VENKAT YADAV,Advocate' [OPUC]}

¶71

Two CD Copies

¶72

One Spare Copy tr{

HIGH COURT

I
]
I

JUDGMENT

MACMA.No.2370 ot 2011

¶78

STAr€ q'
v-
I ()
I o)iJ [ 7 ltlL 2$22 il
t

DISMISSNG THE APPEAL

<br>

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶83

MONDAY ,THE TWENTY FIRST OAY OF^I\4ARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶84

PRESENT

¶85

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G SRI OEVI

¶86

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 2370 OF²⁰¹¹

¶87

Between:

¶88

Bajaj Allianz General lnsurance Company, rep by its Regional Manager, Regional Office, Regd Offlce: Block-ll, 6"' Floor, White House, Begumpet, Hyderabad^: 500 016.

¶89

,.,APPELLANT/2"d RESPONOET.IT

¶90

ANO

¶91

¶92

Poloju Narshimha Ch6ry ,..S/o.Chanddraiah,^{aged27 years,occ: Carpenter} r/o.Choutuppal Yillage & Mandal, Nalgonda District.

¶93

,,,..RESPONDENT/PETITIONER

¶94

B.Kanaka Durga, Wo.Pandu, Aged Major, Occ: Business &^{Owner of Mahindra} Bolero Van Fyo.21-10/04-10-04, Srinivasa Nagar, Satyanarayanapuram, Vijayawada-12.

¶95

...RESPONDENTS/1"I RESPONDENT

¶96

Appeal Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act against^the Judgment /Decree in O.P.No.2370 of²⁰¹ 1^{Dated1310712011on the file of the} Court of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims^{Tribunal-Cum-lv Additional Dlstrict} J ud ge.

¶97

ORDER: This appeal coming on foi hearing and upon^{perusingthegroundsof appeal} the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court^{and the material papers in the petitioner} "^{and upon hearingthearguments of SMT. A MALATHI, Advocate for the appellantand} of SRI CHALAKANI VENKAT YADAV, Advocate^{for the RespondentNo.1} 'tfi.... .,-'/+ru4 ,;..i .-.i1.

¶98

1 ': This Court Doth'Oidei'and Decrdb that the deo'ee of the Lower Court to be and^hereby r^:.'ls conflrmed ariO,tnib appelt.is dibmissed and-this court both further Order and Decree

¶99

¶100

,.^{that there be noorderasto iostsin this appeal.}

¶101

,,l i'j'

¶102

¶103

:.r ::i;:: ' 76pgE6gpy71 ^..,3il,ft"fJlAHXl,**f sEcridt{bFFlcER

¶104

¶105

To, ' 1. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims^{Tribunal lV AdditionalDistrict Judge} . ll^(FTC)at Nalgonda. '. 2, Two CD CopiesTwo CD CopiesCopies

¶106

2, Two CD CopiesTwo CD CopiesCopies

{

HIGH COURT

DATED:2110312022

DECREE

MACMA.No.2370 of 2011

¶112

..' t I d'

¶113

;;

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company v. Poloju Narshimha Chary and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company v. Poloju Narshimha Chary and Anr.

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

Jadav Vanitha Bai , Unni Bai Vs Ghule Naga Rao

Kambhampathy Srinivasa Kumar, Vs the State Thgh Insp. of Police Wco, Team Iii, Rep by Pp Hyd.

United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Yasam Venkatnarsaiah

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Vs Rampalli Omkaram and Anr.

Syed Ahamed Vs Jaidi Pedda Ganga Reddy

The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Smt. a. Chandrakala and 2 Ors.