Partly allowed

M/s. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited v. P.Bichupalli

Telangana HC8 Aug 2023MACMA/1025/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the insurance company's appeal against an accident compensation award but allowed the claimant's cross objections, enhancing the awarded amount to Rs. 13,09,328/- and correcting the interest rate to 7.5% per annum.

What did the court decide?

The claimant was entitled to Rs. 13,09,328/- with 7.5% interest; the Insurance Company's appeal dismissed; cross objections allowed.

M/s. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Vs… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32s8 ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY ,THE EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU

¶6

MOToR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1025 2017 AND

¶7

CROSS OBJECTION No. 5OF 2017

¶8

M.A.C.M.A.N 25 of 2O17

¶9

Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act and N,lemorandum of Cross Objectrons under Order XLI Rule 22 of C.P.C' against the Order and Decree in IV.V.O.P.No. 647 o( 2011 daled 07.02.2017 on the file of the Court of the Chairman, Nlotor Accident Claims Tribunal - cum - Vlll Additional Diskict Judge, Family Court - cum - VIll Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar.

¶10

Between

¶11

trrl/s. Reliance General lnsurance Company Limited, rep. by its Authorized Officer, Deccan Chambers, 4th floor, D.No.6-3-666/8, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. (Policy Cover Note No.1 1 10000789429 valid from 04-12-2010 lo 03-12-2011

¶12

...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT No.2

¶13

AND

¶14

P.Bichupalli, S/o. Ram Chandraih, aged 57 years Occ Controller, APSRTC Gadwal, Depot, Rl/o Moosapet Village of Addakal Mandal, Mahabubnagar District.

¶15

Mahesh Golla, S/o.Krishnaiah, aged not known but major, Occ Owner of the Auto bearing No.AP22Y-1129, R/o H.No.4-70, Moosapet Village of Addakal Mandal, Mahabubnagar Distrct,

¶16

...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS

¶17

CROSS OBJECTI ON No. 5 of 2017

¶18

Between:

¶19

P.Bichupalli, S/o. Ram Chandraih, aged 57^years, Occ Controller, APSRTC Gadwal, Depot, Ryo l/oosapet Village of Addakal Mandal, Mahabubnagar District.

¶20

...CROSS OBJECTORIRESPONDENT No.1/CLAIMANT

¶21

AND

¶22

M/s. Reliar ce General lnsurance Company Lim ted, r,:p [y ts Authorized Offrcer, D:ccan Chambers 4th floor, D.I.lo.6-3- 366/8, Somaliguda, Hyderabad (Policy Cover Note No.f i100007894.29 rralil lrom r)4-12-201O lo 03-12-2011

¶23

.. RESPONDENT/APPEL LANT/ RI-SP ONDE NT No.2

¶24

lVlahesh Go la S/o Krishnarah aged not known bu: major,^(.)cc 3wner of the Auto beafln I No.AP22Y-1 129. R/o H.No.4-70, lr..4o0sapet Vi lagr: of Addakal ft4andal, lr,,la rabubnagar Distrct.

¶25

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT No.2/ Rt:SPCNDENT No.1

¶26

l.A. NO: 1 OF 201 '(MACMAMP. NO: 2073 OF 2017

¶27

Petition unc er Section 151 ol CPC praying that in the circuml;tances stated in the affidavit file I rn support of the petition, the High^()ourt rray bo pleased stay of execution of tl e decree and all further proceedinirs in^().f).No.647 of 2011 daled 07 .02.201 7 irr the court ol the Judge, Family lourt cr m '/ ll Additional District Judge at fu ahabubnagar.

¶28

Counsel for the A rpellant in MACMA & Respondent No 1 in Cross Objections Sri N. MOHAN KrllSllNA

¶29

Counsel for Respondent No.1 in MACMA & Cross Objector in Cross Objections

¶30

STi BAJRANG SINGI THAKUR

¶31

Counsel for Respondent No.2 in MACMA & Respondent No 2 in Cross Objections : Sri G. R/\JESI-IWAR RAO

¶32

The Court delivere d the following: COMMON JUDGMENT

¶33

*ffi'7

¶34

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU

¶35

M.A.C.M.A.No. 1025 OF 2Ot7 AND CROSS OBJECTIONS No.S of 2Ol7

¶36

COMMON JUDGMENT:

¶37

Being aggrieved by the award in M.V.O.P.No.647 of 2011 on the file of Family Court-cum-Vll Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar, the 2"d respondent lnsurance Company preferred M.A.C.M.A.No.l025 of 2017 assailing the arvard dated 07 .02.20 17 whereunder the Tribunal ar,r,arded a sum of Rs.1 1,16,9I2/- with interest @ 9o/o per annum. The claimant in the above said O.P and ovvner of the auto which involved in the accident are shown as respondents in this appeal. Whereas the 1"t respondent/claimant being aggrieved by the award filed cross objections and sought for enhancement of compensation amount.

¶38

The appellant/ respondent No.2 filed the appeal on the following grounds:

\ \

t--Lr-

:t-" / .^...j

that thc^{.rc<:id:r- t r:ccurr-ed} The^{'Iril;unalfaileclto see} 1'' respotlderlt/^{cl'dn a -rt and (1ld} due to^{neg iS,encc of the} not consid^{lrthe evidenceu'hich shorr'r; the :tllt() \rhich} \ lls ovcrloadcci^{rT'itl tPa:rs;engcrs} involvcd^{rn the acciclcnl} nnd drtve^{r of I he r'<'hicltclid rlot} morc^t hall^{sitting r'31111r'ilr} possess^{v rliddrivir-rg iict'trseThe :lppe 1z'r'rt furtl-rcr} claimed thlt^{the clrtvt:r ol tlle allto did rrot h 1'e trilnspor[} endorsement-^{on thc ltct:t.tsc to clrive tlre in;t:rerl vehicle} urhich^{u'ar. usecl 1br carrr itrg p:Issenge rs fo rcornmercial} purpose.^{t he appellarllplaccde r iclence'refort: the Oourt to} show that^{the drlver is not having vali:l lict n;ee to drive} the Tritrunal^{rvitlrt>ut anY} ,n. ir'rsur,:d^{vchiclc and that} of the^{clair nitnt as 507o} basis^{consideredttre clisabilitv} which is^{:rr higher side and applied itlcorre<:trnultiplier} while^{grarrtingcxcess compens'1tion'Fir-ratly t)-re appellant} sought^{to explain thtrt thc intercsttll'21'1ec[by thc 'lribunal} is not in^{accordatlccsitllfir-rdir-rgsof the r\pex (lottrtin} Sarala^{Varma vs Dell-rr Tt'rttrsportCorpo atior t'f IIr'iiacase'} thereby^s rught^{for sctting :Lsidethe as'ard'}

€

Whereas the claimants liled cross objections on the follon'ing grounds:

¶49

According to the record placed before the Court including certified copy of FIR and charge sheet vide Ex.A1 and A2, the accident occurred on 02.lO.2Ol i. By that time the claimant s,as u,orking as Controller in APSRTC at Gadu,ala Depot. The claimant has filed salary slip which is marked as trx.A13. Since he was in service as on the date of accident and as the retirement age of the employees of APSRTC was 58, the Tribunal could have considered the age of the claimant between 55 to 60. But the Tribunal considered the age as 61-65 and applied wrong multiplier. The claimant lurther pleaded that in view of the specific evidence available belore the Court, relevant multiplier would be "8", but not "7" as considered by the Court below. He has also claimed that though he fi1ed Ex.Al2/Medical bills (106 in number) to prove that he spent Rs.4, 18,570/the Tribunal n,ithout any reason considered only a sum of Rs.3,10,00O/ Therefore, the claimant sought for enhancement of compensation.

¶50

<br>

¶51

'------:ffi :-' 1 '.. ,.,i:^r{

¶52

¶53

H,rard both partir:s 5 Nolr the poir-rt for consider-ation s:

¶54

1 . Whether the Tibunal conrr^,)tle'd anu turong in at'nrding Rs. 1 I, I 6,9¹ 2/ ?

¶55

Wltether the Tiburn tL)Lts utr(nt! tti applying m iltiplier "7" tulrtle cort.>^i'?enttg the .firranc.tal loss to thz claimant?

¶56

Vlhether the amount att,trrtl ea btl tt1€. canlpensation ls on higlrc:r sirle? lJ so, ruhellrcr i s ,i'tblez to be reduced as prayed for bg lhe pre.et,l cp,cel ont?

¶57

6. P(IINTS:

¶58

Even thorLgh lhe appella n t / lr-tsurilr cc Company claimed that there ^iils ovcr load in t he eutc altd the accidenl occurred duc [o the rash a^'rd nt:gligt nce of the injured claimarrt, the said colrtcntiolt ,vas not substan,iated by any acceptable evidcncc.^A s corr.d be seen from the order impugned in the prcse lt appcal, tt appears that thr claimant u,as exarnined as PW I and deposed about tl e accident. Ex.A2 Crime Det:.il Fc,rrn rit:picts the scene of offence. PW I $ as cross exaff in,:d bV t re couttsei

, .-,'/i:, rie. ,/

i I ! i !

I I I ii ll

Ii I I I I i

for the insurarce company, but nothing could be elicited to show that there was rashness and negligence on his part or to establish the accident was occurred due to the alleged over load in the said auto Therefore, the said contention of the appellant cannot be considered for reducing compensation

¶65

7 . The other contention with regard to the validity of the driving license ol auto rlriver, the Insurance Company has examined RWl and RW2 and made an attempt to show that the driver of the auto was having license to drive the auto ard there is no endorsement for driving the transport vehicle. However, the Court below while placing reliance on judgment betrveen Nqtional Insurance Compang Limited. as Annappa Irappa Nesq.ria alias Nesargi and Others reportedl opined that since the drive is having license to drive light motor vehicle which includes goods transport vehicle and a person authorized to drive a light motor vehicle is deemed to have been authorized to drive light transport vehicle. The appellant Insurance Company

I 2008 3 SCC 464

\ \

could not place any oLher material to slrrrri tltat thc accicient rccurred onllr bs6r.,.. of th is parti :r rlar )apse on the part c the driver of ar-rt o

¶71

B. Whr n the appellant disputed tlrr' (.lt-lar tLtm of compense tirrn awarded b_v the Tribunerl rtn Ll. r: groLtnd that it is on eiqher side, zrs could bc sr: n lr.l ir lrc cross objections frled b,v the clairnant, he has subnrilteri that the Tribunal .ailed to appreciate the oral and r: oc rmentan. evidence r.nd applied wrong multiplier z nci fr il :d r r accept the medic il bills. It is a lact thar accorriing t r thi naterial placed be"ore the Tribtrnal bv the tinre of z: cciclcnt the claimant veLs working as Controller, A PSR]'Ct ar (iadw-al Depot. The Insurance Companv cannot den. ttc clatm about the retirement age of emplo,vees ol' RT(), thrrrr:b1, the claimant rrust havc been belorv 58 vear... F)vc n thturgh the Tribunal verihed the other rccorrl bas,r.d on Ex.44/discharge summan' u,herein l.ht: a le of the petitioner is show,n as 57 years and d sabilit-r, c:-tificate rvherein th: age of the claimant is shon r as 59 an I having perused E x.A1/final report, which slron's Lhe age of

¶72

¶73

claimant as 55, rvrongly considered tl,re claimant is in between the age group of 61-65. Since the claimant was in service as on the date of accident, obviously he must be considered as below 5g years and Tribunal could have adopted multiplier "8" instead ol^,,7,,.

¶74

The other contention of the claimanr is with regard to his claim on medical bills. Even as per the evidence placed before the Tribunal including Exs.A l2 and A14 the totat was shown as Rs.4,00,000/-. But, the Tribunal without assigning any reason ari,arded a sum of Rs.3,1O,0001_ towards medical expenses. Therefore, the claimant is entitled to Rs.4,O0,0OO/-.

¶75

As rightly contended by Insurance Company the rate of interest awa_rded by the Tribunal being 9% is on higher side and against the observations of the Apex Court in Sarala Varma case, thereby it shall be reduced to T.SVo per annum.

¶76

In view of the above discussion the appeal filed by Insurance Company must fail and liable to be dismissed.

\ \

,ir4

The ciarnrant is t:ntitled to enhancecl⁽ ornl)'^-,sation According tc salan' slip vidc tix.Al3. the grosr; r;:rl;rr-',- of tlrc ciarmant ,virs Rs.24,443/ and ai'ter :lerlur:Liorr; iL rr':ts Rs.17,1.22/ The Tribunal having ccnsidt rr:d tronthlr income o- the claimart as Rs. 18,7-]6/ i:in(i l-rar inq considerec^r he disabilitY be ing 50(Zo a:)c('l)t l(: r sum of IIS Rs.9,368/ per month and auarded Rs. 1 t 2.^r lr'/annu:r1 inr orne. Houever, in vieri' ol the alror e fir-i^r r-rg tlrc claimant i:r r:ntitled to a sLttn of Rs.8,99.328/- 19..lr)8 x l2 x 8). He i; also entitled to an amounl oi F:s.4.r)il.OOO/ torvards m:dical expenses. The Tribunal arvarC<:cl L sum ol Rs.10,000, - towards transport charges,. Trt rclole, the claimant is entitled to sum of Rs. 13,O9,3 2t37' rr rtlr ntercst @1^{7 .S'Yo frr rn the dal.e of pctition till the cr-rti:e ;r rounlis} reafized. 12. The I rsurancc Company is liable to pa.r' brrlarr,re zrftcr deducing t le amounts paid by thc insu-ance⁽ on pal1,, ii anv within 8 weeks

¶81

ffi-Z

¶82

¶83

In the result, the^{appeal is dismissed.TheCross}

¶84

objections is allowed

¶85

As a sequel, pending Miscellaneous^{Applications,} if

¶86

any, shall stand closed.

¶87

¶88

//TRUE COPY//

¶89

Sd/. K. SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR k1/./-,/

¶90

SECTION*trFFICER

¶91

To,

¶92

The Chairman Motor Accidents Claims^Tribunal -^cum -^{Judge,FamilyCourt} -^{cum - Vlll Additional District Judge, Family Court} -^{cum - Vlll Additional}

¶93

District Judge, Mahabubnagar^{(with records,if any)}

¶94

One CC to Sri N MOHAN^{KRISHNA, Advocate} [OPUC]

¶95

One CC to Sri.^{BAJRANG SINGH THAKUR, Advocate} [OPUC]

¶96

One CC to Sri. G. RAJESHWAR^RAO,Advocate [OPUC]

¶97

Two CD Copies

Njb

HIGH COURT

SSRN,J

DATED:0810812023

COMMON .IUDGMENT⁺ COMMON I)ECREE

¶104

i:,r''rr t-n
/ ...
I (i(
t: a 2l\ [tr ?m
)
.:'.

¶105

MACMA.Nc,.1025 of 2017

¶106

& CROSS OBJECTIONS No. 5 of 2017

¶107

ALLOWING THE CROSS OE'ECTIONS

¶108

AND

¶109

DISMISSIN(| THE MACMA

¶110

WITHOUT COSTS

¶111

tA \r,)
(
14

¶112

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶113

TUESDAY ,THE EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶114

PRESENT

¶115

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU

¶116

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL N O: 1025 OF 2017 AND

¶117

CROSS OBJECTION No. 5 OF 2017

¶118

M.A.C.M.A.No. 1025 ol 2017

¶119

Between:

¶120

M/s. Reliance General lnsurance Company Limited, rep. by its Authorized Officer, Deccan Chambers, 4th Rbor,- O. No.O-S-OOOlfi, Soma;igudl, Hyderabad. (Policy Cover Note No.11^'10000189429 vatid from O4-12-2OiO f; o3-12-2011

¶121

...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT No.2

¶122

ANO

¶123

1 P.Bichupalli, S/o. Ram Chandraih, aged 57 years, Occ Controller, APSRTC 9e9yrt,^{Depot, Ryo Moosapet Viltage of Addakat Mandat, Mahabubnagar} District.

¶124

2 Mahesh Golla, S/o.Krishnaiah, aged not known but maior, Occ Owner of the Auto bearing No.AP22Y-1 129,. Rl/o H.No.4-70, lr/oosap'et Vilage of Addakal Mandal, Mahabubnagar Distrct,

¶125

... RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS

¶126

CROSS OBJECTI ON No. 5 of 2017

¶127

Between:

¶128

P.Bichupalli, S/o. Ram Chandraih, aged 57 years, Occ Controler, APSRTC 9glyqt,^{Depot, R/o Moosapet Villageof Addakal Mandat, Mahabubnagar} District.

¶129

...CROSS OBJECTOR/RESPONDENT No.1/CLAIMANT

¶130

AND

¶131

1 M/s. Reliance General lnsurance Company Limited, rep. by its Authorized Officer, Deccan Chambers, 4th ftoor, D.No.6-3-666/8, Somajiguda,

¶132

Hyderaba,l (Policy Cover Note No.1 1 1 0000789,129 va id fro r A4_12_2010 to 03-12-2011

¶133

...RESpONDENT/APpE tLAN]TR ES oONDENT No.2

¶134

2 lr,4ahesh G rlla, S/o.Krishnaiah, aged not known but nralc r, )cc: ,lwner of tire Atrto beari rg No AP22y-1129, Rio H.No.a_70, fr.,fi o.rp. ,,ffr,l,iof AOOliri Mandal, lr,4 ahabubnagar Distrct,

¶135

... RESpONDENT/RESpONDENt. No.2/ R iSI,ONDENT No.1

¶136

Appeal under section 123 of [,4otor Vehicres Act zrnd M.nrorarrum of cross Objections under OrCer XLI Rule 22 of C.p.C., agajnst the )r,ler and Decree in Ir.4.V O.P.No 641 )f 2O1t dated 07.02.2017 on the file or the Ctul o, .he Chairman, ["lotor Accident crrrinrs Tribunar - cum - VIr Additionar D strict -ucge, I amiry court _ cum - Vlll Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar

¶137

ORDER: This ap leal and Cross Objections coming on for I earing and upon perusing the grour ds of 6p0"", and cross objections the Judgmr:nt and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the case, an( rrpo.t hearing the arguments of sri rr. r,l'HAN KRTSHNA, Advocate for the, Appe rart i. ri4ACrrrA and Respondent No.1 in Cross Objections and of Sri BA.,RANC I;lN(iH THAKUR, Advocate for R espondent No. 1 in MACMA arrd C os s ()bjector in Cross Objections a rd Sri G. RAJESHWAR RAO, Advocat: for f e lespondent No.2 in MACMA and Respondent No.2 in Cross Objections.

¶138

This Court doth Ord :r and Decree as follows:-

¶139

That the lr4otor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1(,2{; of 2O1l filedby the lnsurance Company be and hereby is dismissed,

¶140

That the Cross Objections filed by the Claimant be and herob,/ ar,: allowed; 3. That the Clai xant be and hereby is entifled to surr o[ F:s 13,05),328/- with interest @ 7 5% from the date of petition till the entire amourt is rr..alized

¶141

That the lnsu-ance Company be and hereby is liable to pa y balance after deducting the amounts paid by the lnsurance Cornpany it ary within (8) weeks.

¶142

That save as aforesaid, the decree of the Lower Court shall stands confirmed in all other respects; and

¶143

That there shall be no order as to costs in this appear and cross objections.

¶144

To,

¶145

//TRUE COPY//

¶146

Sd/- K. SRINIVASA RAO JOTNT REG|TIRAR sEcno#6'FFtcER

¶147

The Chairman lvlotor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum _ Judge, Family Court - cum - Vlll Additional Diskict Judge, Family Court - cum - Vlll Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagai(with recbrds, if any)

¶148