Dismissed

United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Nizamabad Dist. v. Kothamandi Kishan Rao, Nizamabad Dist., and 2 Ano.

Telangana HC1 Sept 2022MACMA/2523/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Telangana High Court dismissed an appeal preferred by United India Insurance Company Ltd. against the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal's award of Rs. 3,05,800. The Court held the insurer liable for a crash caused by a tractor-trailer combination despite the trailer lacking separate insurance and the driver holding an invalid licence.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; original award confirming compensation of Rs. 3,05,800 upheld.

United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Nizamabad Dist. Vs… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH^{COURT FOR THESTATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD}

¶3

THURSDAY,THE^{FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER} TWO THOUSAND AND^{TWENTY TWO}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{DR.JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN}

¶6

MOTOR ACCIDENT^{CIVIL MISCELLANEOUSAPPEALNO: 2523 OF 2009}

¶7

Appeal filed under section^{173of M.V.Act, against the judgment and decreedated} r o.oo.zooa, in o.P.No.256 of^{2006,passedby the chairman,Motor Accidents} Claims Tribunal^{(district Judge) at Nizamabad.}

¶8

Between:

¶9

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE^{COMPANY LTD.,Rep. by its BranchManager,} Branch Office, H.No.1-1^1-'12111 ,1st^{Floor, Station Road,Kamareddy(V & fU )'} Nizamabad District.

¶10

...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT NO.2

¶11

AND

¶12

Kothamandi Kishan Rao, S/o.^{Veeranna Rl/o.Nagloor(V) of Gandhari} I

¶13

Mandal, Nizamabad District.

¶14

Kothamandi Balam Bai, W/o.^{Kishan Rao R/o. Nagloor (V) of Gandhari} RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS

¶15

Mandal, Nizamabad District.

¶16

S.Raia Goud, S/o. Bhooma^{Goud, Owner of TractorbearingNo. AP-25T-9420} R/o. H.No. 1-33, Medipally(V),^{of Gandhari (M),NizamabadDistrict.}

¶17

...RESPONDENT/RESPONDNT^NO.1

¶18

Gounsel for the Appellant

¶19

:SRI. E VENUGOPAL REDDY

¶20

Counsel for the ResPondent^{Nos 1 & 2} : SRl CH. JANARDHAN REDDY

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent^No.3 : SRI G. RAJESHWAR RAO The Court made the following : JUDGMENT

¶22

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN

¶23

M.A.C.M.A. No.2523 of 2OO9

¶24

JUDGMENT:

¶25

This appeal is preferred by United India Insurance Company Linited ngain st the respondents/ claimants aggrieved by^t he arvard petssed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District .ludge) at Nizamabad^{(for short,} "the Tribunal") dated 1O.06.2008 in O.P.No.256 of 2006 awarding compensation nnder Section 166(1)(c) of^the Motor Vehicles Act to the^r,une of Rs.3,05,800/- as against the claim of Rs.5 lakhs

¶26

2- The facts in brief are as under:

¶27

On 02.03.20O6, the deceased - Kothamandi Sanga Rao rvas driving his .yeep bearing No. AP 25U 1272 was driven near Mo<legaon village shivar at about 7.15 p.m., Tractor bearing No.AP 25T 9420 along with trailer bearing No.AP 25T 2319 from opposite side driven in high speed, negligent manner by its driver dashed the^jeep being driven by the deceasecl on which tl-re deceased fell down from the jeep and the u'hcel of the trailer ran over the deceased on

¶28

¶29

¶30

account of which the deceased having received multiple fracture injuries died ou the spot. The said deceased was aged about 20 years and was ea-rning Rs. 10,000/- per month and has left respondent Nos, 1 and 2 as dependants/lega1 heirs. Respondent No. 1 is the father, respondent No.2 is the mother of the deceased have filed claim petition in O.P.No.256 of 2006 seeking compensation of Rs.5 lakhs against the appellant being the insurer and respondent No.3 herein being the owner of the tractor trailer bearing Nos.AP 25T 9420 and Ap 25T 23lg respectively.

¶31

During the course of enquiry, respondent Nos.l and 2, til-e claimants, being examined two witnesses i.e., claimant No. I was exarnined as PW. I and one G. Dattu Rao, an eye witness, was exarnined as PW.2. One M.v. Krishna Rao was examined as RW. 1 on behalf of the appellant/insurance company. Exs.Al to Al l were marked on behalf of the claimants and Exs.Bl to 83 were marked on behalf of the appellalt.

¶32

¶33

t.)n completion of enquiry, while dealing with issue No. 1, t.he learncd Tribunal has held that the accident has taken place on accrount of rash ald negligent driving of the driver of the tractor bearing No.AP 25T 9420 along with trailer bearing No.AP 23T 2319.

¶34

IrL respect of compensation to be awarded, the Tribunal after discussing extensively has concluded that the clzrimants are entitled to Rs.3,05,8O0/- under all heads. Aggrieved tr-v the same, the insurance^{company has} preferred this appeal mainly on the following grounds:

¶35

7 . As per the dr:cision reported in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Hindupur vs. Lakshmanna^{(died) per} LRs and anotherr ald Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., vs. J. Kotiratnamma and another2 the trailer being motor vehicle, even thougl.r it is not a self-propelled vehicle, insurance is required separately. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal that the trailer does not require insurance separately cannot be accepted.

¶36

I 2004 (5) Al.T 398 \ , 1999 (6) At:l 745

¶37

¶38

It is also mentioned further^{in the grounds of appeal} that as on the date of^{accident, the driver of the crime} vehicle was not having valid^{licenceand that taking the} income of the deceased at^{Rs.3,000/ - per month is also} excessive. He also submitted that as the^deceasedwas unmarried, contribution of his^income to the^{family would} be one-third after deducting two-thirds for his^personal expenses and that the amount of Rs.5O,O00/-^awarded towards loss of estate and affection is also excessive.

¶39

9 . Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent/ claimants.

¶40

Now, the point for determination is^{whether the order} passed by the learned Tribunal can be set aside?

¶41

1 1. One of the grounds on which the appellant^has submitted arguments vehemently is that the trailer^though not self-propelled vehicle requires insurance and^thereby, since accident has occurred on account of the trailer,^the insurance company is not^liable.

/.7

It is tc be noted ; Itat the traiier cannot itself travel without therl: being anv :rtrachment of other motor vehicle. It is the case of the insurrrnce company that^{on account of} rash and negligent driving ol the driver of the^{tractor, the} trailer, which was attache:d to it hit the^jeep, as a^result, the deceased fell down and the trailer, which^{was attached} to the tractor. has ran ovt'r the deceased and^{the deceased} died on the spot.

¶46

learned Tribunal ri4rile dea-ling with this^{issue has} observed that as per the ratio laid^{down in GuntiDevaiah} and others v. Vaka Reddy and others3^{even though the} trailer was not lsured, still the insuralce^{company will} have to comperlsate.

¶47

Considering the same, event though the Tribunal^has properly appreciated and concluded that even though^the trailer was not having an^y insurance separately, still^the insurer of the tractor is litrble to compensate the family^of the deceased.

¶48

3 (2OO4) ACC 443

¶49

¶50

The other ground on which the appellants wanted the order of the Tribunal to be set aside is that the driver of the crime vehicle rvas not having valid licence. The trial Court has discusscd extensively on this point and ultimately concluded that the driver of the crime vehicle was not ha'ring valid licence at the time of accident. Therefore, the question arises whether the crime vehicle was being driven by a driver, who was not having valid licence, whether the family of the deceased can be compensated. The law is well settled that even though the driver of the crime vehicle was not having valid licence to drive the vehicle, still the insurance company has to pay the compensation awarded. by the Tribunal and can recover the same later from the owner of the crime vehicle.

¶51

The appellants have also raised objection in respect of taking the income of the deceased @ Rs.3,000/_ per month. The deceased was admittedly a driver, which is not in dispute in aIl the documents, including the charge sheet etc. The profession of the deceased was shown as driver. Therefore, when the deceased was driving the vehicle as a

¶52

¶53

driver, the Tribunal has concluded that he has to get at least Rs.10O7- per day thcrebv calculated Rs.3,OOO/- per month

¶54

This Cor.rrt is of the opinion that the Tribunal view is totally conservative ald should have actually taken more income as a driver. Hovvever, the claimants have not preferred any appeal aggrieved by the orders of the award of the Tribunal fixing the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month, the contention of the appellants that the Tribun aI was generous in taking the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month cannot be appreciated

¶55

The other ground on which the appellant has contested the arvard passed by the Tribunal is with regard to the contribution of the deceased. The Tribunal has considered the rncome of the deceased as Rs.3,OOO/- per month and out of the annual income of Rs.36,0OO/-, an amount of Rs.B,OOO/- was deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased and Rs.24,000/- was shown as contribution to the family . -/' ...

.-.

lg. Though the learned^{counsel for the appellant has} submitted that the contribution^{of the deceasedto the} family woulcl be only one-third^{and towardshis personal} expenses two-thirds should^{havebeen considered, taking} into account the ratio laid^{down by the Honble Apex Court} in Sarla Varma and others vs. Delhi^{Transport Corporation} and anothey', where the dependants^{of the deceasedare not} having any income, his contribution towards^{family has to be} taken at two-thirds. Therefore, the hnding of^{the Tribunal in} respect of the contribution of the deceased to the^{family cannot} be interfered.

¶60

Finally, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.50,0OO/-^towards. Ioss of love and affection, pain and sufferings etc. According^to the appellant/ insurance company, the amount of Rs.50,000/is excessive. However, it is to be noted that as^per the^decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in National l[surance^{Co. Ltd vs'} Pranay Sethis an amount of Rs.7O,000/- has to be^granted towards funeral expenses, loss of^{estate etc..Sincethe} claimants have not preferred^{any appeal, this Courtnow cannot} award the said amount.

¶61

4 (2OO9l 6 SCC 121 s (20171 16 SCC 680

¶62

¶63

¶64

In view of the disr;r:ssion made abovc, the learned Tribunal has rightly conclucled with regard to thc compensation to be awarded and therefore, this Court cannot interfere rvith

¶65

the same and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

¶66

In the result, MACMA is disnrissed.

¶67

Miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶68

Sd/-,MOHD. SANAULLAH ANSARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

CaD

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

'l . The Chairman,Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge)Nizamabad

¶74

One CC to SRl.^{E VENUGOPALREDDY,Advocate} [OPUC]

¶75

One CC to SRl.CH. JANARDHAN^{REDDY,Advocate} [OPUC]

¶76

One CC to SRl. G. RAJESHWAR^RAO,Advocate [OPUCI

¶77

Two CD Copies

¶78

\ Pcsd ".tr

¶79

I I

¶80

HIGH COURT DATED:01 10912022

¶81

JUDGMENT^{& DECREE}

¶82

MACMA.No.2523^{of 2009}

¶83

.--a1' -l-:=:: _--
i r.(]
^; a
()o j ,l
0 6 JUt 20n :l
ar,,

¶84

DISMISSING^{THE MACMA}

¶85

v
+

¶86

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶87

THURSDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTWO

¶88

PRESENT

¶89

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN

¶90

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 2523 0F 2009

¶91

Between:

¶92

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,Rep. by its Branch Manager, Branch Office, H.No.1-1 1-12111,1st Floor, Station Road, Kamareddy(V& M ), Nizamabad District.

¶93

...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT NO.2

¶94

AND

¶95

Kothamandi Kishan Rao, S/o. Veeranna Rl/o. Nagloor (V) of Gandhari Mandal, Nizamabad District.

¶96

Kothamandi Balam Bai, Wo. Kishan Rao Rl/o. Nagloor (V) of Gandhari Mandal, Nizamabad District. RESPONDENTS/PET|T|ONERS

¶97

S.Raja Goud,^S/o. Bhooma Goud, Owner of Tractor bearing No. Ap-25T-9420 Fl/o. H.No. 1-33, Medipally (V), of candhari (M), Nizamabad District.

¶98

.., RESPONDE NT/RESPON D N T ]iIO. 1

¶99

Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V.Act, against the judgment and decree dated 10.06.2008, in O.P.No.256 of 2006,passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (district Judge) at Nizamabad.

¶100

This Appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of Lower court and the material papers in the case and upon hearing the arguments of Sri E. Venugopal Reddy,. Advocate for the Appellant and Sri Ch. Jdnardhan Reddy, Advocate for Resporrdent Nos.^.l & 2 and Sri G. Rajeswara Rao, Advocate for Respondetnt No.3 and this Court doth Judgment and Decree as follows:

¶101

That the appeal be and^{hr:re by is dismissedconfirming the order dated} 10.06.2008,in O.P. No.^{25L.i of 2006, passed by the Chairman' Motor} Accidents Claims Tribunal^{(D strictJudge), Nizamabad and}

¶102