Dismissed

The National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Smt. Naazia Khan

Telangana HC5 Dec 2023MACMA/1007/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected an appeal challenging a compensation award of Rs. 60 lakhs with 9% interest. The court held there was no evidence to dispute the claimants' salary evidence and noted the Supreme Court has awarded 12% interest previously. The appeal failed.

What did the court decide?

The Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was rejected. No order as to costs.

The National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Smt. Naazia… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^337e I

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF DECEMAER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶6

MOTOR ACCID NTC VIL MISCELLANE US PEAL NO: '1007 o 202

¶7

Appear fired under section 'r73 0f Motor vehicres Act against the order and decree in M.V.o.p.No. 394 0r 2016 dated 0g.01.2023 passed on the fire of the chairman Motor vehicre Accidents craims Tribunar-cum- Ir Additionar District and Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy.

¶8

Between:

¶9

The National lnsurance Company Ltd., Rep. by its Divisionat Manager, D.0._203. Jay commerciat comptex, potir'am- ni,iii'l.ioli ii#"' <oooo r

¶10

AND

¶11

...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT NO.3

¶12

Smt. Naazia Khan. Wo LateAamer Saifulla Khan Aged about 25 years, Occ: Househotd, R/o H.No..t 0_3_6ati, Hnmavurinjdii,'uv,o""rroro.

¶13

Khubaib Saifullah Khan, S/o Late Aamer Saifulla Khan, Aged 4 years.

¶14

Arhan, D/o Late Aamer Saifulla Khan.Aged about 1, j/2 years, (Minor) Respondent No 2 and s are minoiJuib'ttip-"-r-rr,rbiteii smt Khan Naazia (Respondent No.1).

¶15

Khan, s/o Late Abdut HafEez Khan, Ased about 60 years,

¶16

, 5Hl,gff#j:h

¶17

Smt Hunrera Shireen, Wo Khalid Saiful.lah Khan, Aged about 55 years, Occ. Household,

¶18

R4 and 5 are R/o H.No.10-3$g/1, Humayunnagar, Hyderabad

¶19

RESPONDENTS/CLATMANTS 1 to 5

¶20

Shaik.Saleem, S/o Gulam \a9h3mmed, Aged about 45 years, Occ: Driver, Lorry No. MH-04-E4-3641, Huogi, iq. fuu;niori, b,ori Dstrict, Karnataka State.

¶21

7 Hyderabad Eqqs Centre. reo by_its managar, H.No.462, at post Jamu Vihar. Disriict in"ne, A"-gd o*i,;i oilJii"r" Bearins No

¶22

i;?Sfl,rlAjtwahar,

¶23

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 & 2

¶24

IA NO: 3 oF 2023

¶25

Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, tne Hign court may be preased to staf all further proceedings including execution oi the oroer and decree dated o9'o1 2023 passed in MVOp.No. 3g4 0r 2016 0n the fire of the chairman Motor vehicle Accidents craims Tribunar-cum- fl Additionar District and sessions Judge, Medak at sangareddy pending disposar of the MACMA before this Hon,ble Court.

¶26

Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. I MAAMU VANI

¶27

Counsel for the Respondents: None Appears

¶28

The Court made the following: JUDGMENT

¶29

¶30

¶31

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AI{I) THE HONOURABLE SRJ JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶32

M.A.C.M.A.No. IOOT OF 2023

¶33

JUDGMENT (per Hon'ble Si Justice P.SAM KOSI{Y)

¶34

.The^{challenge in the present appeal under Section173 of the} Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short "the Act") is the award dated 09.OL.2023 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-lll District arrd Sessions Judge, Medak, Sangareddy (for short "the Tribunal") in M.V.O.P.No.394 of 2016.

¶35

Vide the impugned award, the Tribunal, in a death case has awarded a compensation of Rs.60,00,000/- with interest @ 9oh per annum.

¶36

The primary challenge to the impugned award is the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the income assessed by the Tribunal is not justihed as no witnesses from the ernployer^'were examined to prove the Salary Certihcate i.e., the Ex. A7 produced by the claimants. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, in the absence of any evidence of the employer, the assessment of income by the Tribunal is on the higher side and therefore, the same deserves to be interfered with. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the rate of interest awarded at 9/o is also on the higher side and

r-\

tal

on which ground also the impugned award deserves to be interfered with

¶41

From the perusal of the pleadings and the evidence which have come on record, it is apparent that the Insurance Company i.e., the appellant herein has not examined any witnesses in support of their contentions or to substantiate the contentions that have been raised in the instant appeal.

¶42

On the other hand, the stand of the claimants all along right from the stage of filing of the application under section 166 of the Act was that the deceased herein Mr. Aamer Saifulla Khan was Software Engineer and working as a Director of M/ s. Weldon Technologr Consulting Seryices private limited. It was the contention of the claimants that the deceased was paid a saJary around Rs.3O,O0O/_ per month. claimant No. 1 i.e., the wife of the deceased herself has produced Salary Certif-rcate i.e., the Ex.A7 before the Court below. In the rebuttal to controvert, the appellant has not placed alry evidence to disbelieve the Salary Certilicate i.e., the Ex.A7 proved by the claimants before the Tribunal. Keeping in mind, the fact that the provision of Section 166 of the Act is purely a welfare legislation, the contentions raised by the Insurance Company to disbelieve the said finding of the Tribunal assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.30,0oo/- neither seem to be sustainable nor we find any strong ,-.-..-_-".".^{madeout calling for interferenceto the f;nfing mad6} Ty the

¶43

¶44

Tribunal in this regard. As regards the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court itself in the case of tlnited. India Insurance Comltang Limited. v. So:tinder Kaur @ Soitwind.er Kaur and othersl has awarded an interest @ 12%. Thus, we do not frnd the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the interest awarded also being on the higher side to be a strong ground.

¶45

As a consequence, we do not find any case calling for interference to the impugned award. The appeal thus fails and is accordingly rejected. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶46

Consequently, miscellaneous applications, if any pending shall stand closed.

¶47

Sd/- T VIJAY KU R ASSISTANT REGIS R //TRUE COPY//

¶48

SECTION OFFICER

¶49

¶50

The Chairman Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum- lll Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy. (With Records if any)

¶51

One CC to SRI. I MAAMU VANI, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CD Copies

LsrZlpr

HIGH COURT

DATED:0511212023

JUDGMENT MACMA.No.1007 of 2023

¶57

1HE ST4
( o R
6('
)o
0 5 ritAB 2m
.<br>*
t) s T c r-r.| *

¶58

REJECTING THE MACMA

¶59

5 *cto
7o

¶60

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶61

TUESDAY. THE FIFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶62

PRESENT

¶63

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶64

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVI L MISCELLANEOUS AP PEAL NO: 1007 OF 2023

¶65

Between:

¶66

The National lnsu^rance Company Ltd., Rep. by its Divisional Manager, D.O.-203, Jay Commercial Complex, Pokaram Road No.1 Thane -400601.

¶67

...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT NO.3

¶68

AND

¶69

Smt. Naazia Khan, Wo Late Aamer Saifulla Khan Aged about 25 years, Occ: Household, R/o H.No.10-3-68/1, Humayunnagar, Hyterabad.

¶70

Khubaib Saifullah Khan, S/o Late Aamer Saifulla Khan, Aged 4 years.

¶71

Arhan, D/o Late Aamer Saifulla Khan, Aged about'1, 1l2 years, (Minor) Respondent No.2 and 3 are minors U/G ship of Mother S-mt Khah Naa2ia (Respondent No. 1).

¶72

Khalid Saifullah Khan, S/o Late Abdul Haffeez Khan, Aged about 60 years, Occ. Business.

¶73

Smt Humera Shireen, W/o Khalid Saifullah Khan, Aged about 55 years, Occ. Householil,

¶74

R4 and 5 are R/o H.No.10-3-68/1, Humayunnagar, Hyderabad

¶75

RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANTS 1 to 5

¶76

Shaik Saleem, S/o Gulam Mohamrned, Aged about 45 years, Occ: Driver, Lorry No. MH-04-E4-3641, Hudgi, Tq. Humnabad, Bidai District, Karnataka Stat€.

¶77

Hyderabad Eggs Centre, rep by its managar, H.No.462, at Post Jamu Vihar, :tqyqlrl^{fgi.lgwahar,District Thane, Regd Ownerof Vehicte BearingNo.} MH 04-E4-3641

¶78

.,.RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 & 2

¶79

Appeal filed under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the order and decree in M.V.O.P.No. 394 of 2016 dated 09.01.2023 passed on lhe flle of {he

¶80

chairman Motor Vehicre Accidents craims Tribunar-cum-,r Additionar District and Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy.

¶81

ORDER: This appeal coming on for hearing and u pon perusing the grounds of appeal, the judgment and Decree of the Lower Cou rt and the materjal papers in the case and upon hearing the arguments of M/s l. MAAMU VANI, Advocate for the Appe ant.

¶82

This Court doth order and decree as follows:

¶83

1 That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is rejecting; and

¶84

2 That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal

¶85

¶86

//TRUE COPY// ^..iJi;'nY'*t[,[*iFV SECTION OFFICER

¶87

' I[:.?:ffi U$j;;^{j;5l.l".lccidentscraimsrribunarcum-} III AdditionaI 2. TwoCD copies lge' Medak at sangareddy rwitn n""oiar'ii"#"' Asr2/pr

Y+'

HIGH COURT

DATED: OSl12l2O23

DECREE MACMA.No.1007 of 2023

¶92

REJECTING THE MACMA

¶93

qd( K

The National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Smt. Naazia Khan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Smt. Naazia Khan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s. Colors Out door advertising Vs The Assistant commissioner of Central Tax

Kallam Subba Rao Vs The Commissioner of Income Tax (Tds), And Another

Mr. Sathyanarayana Pandula Vs The Income Tax Officer

Sub K Impact Solutions Limited Vs Sub K Impact Solutions Limited

Telangana Girijan Cop-operative Corporation Limited Vs The State of Telangana

Atika Sathyamma Vs The State of Telangana