Remanded

National Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Janagam Ashok Rao and Another

Telangana HC9 Mar 2023MACMA/1032/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court was aggrieved by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal as the award federal award appearing and modification. The court found the claimant urged to explain the delay in FIR and complaint communications. The bench found no issue framed and evidence let in regarding delay. Accordingly, the award is set aside and the matter remanded to consider the same afresh within three months to examine d

What did the court decide?

Award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dated 06.12.2004 set aside and matter remanded to consider delay and disability evidence afresh within three months.

National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Janagam Ashok Rao… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³²³⁰¹

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF^TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

THURSDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶6

M.A.C.M.A.NOs:1032 OF 2005 AND 552 0F²⁰²³

¶7

[,.A.C.M.A.NO.552 0F 2023

¶8

Appeal filed under section 173 of M.V.Act of CPC^{aggrievedby jydgment} ;,rd decree dated 06.12.2004^passed in M.V.O.P.No. 21 of 2000^{by the} .- hairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-First Additional Chief Judge, City '^,vil Court Secunderabad

¶9

t: etween:

¶10

JlSragam Ashok Rao, S/o.Rama Rao Aged about 39^{years. Occ.Business,} Rio. Kar rnr Nagar

¶11

...APPELLANT

¶12

AND

¶13

1 National lnsurance Company Limited, Rep.by its branch manager, Ammerpet Branch Office, 77816, Panjagutta, Hyderabad.

¶14

Smt D Vijaya Laxmi. Wo D.SeshagiriNo.l46-2E, Owner^{of the Steering Auto} bearing No.AP'13 U 9947 BHEL Hyderabad.

¶15

,..RESPONDENTS

¶16

I ACMAMP. NO:4873 OF 2006

¶17

Petition under Sectron 151 CPC^praying that^{in the circumstances statedin} tire affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the^{High Court may be pleased} i spense with the filling of certified copy of the^{judgment andaward dated 6-12-} r'104 in MVOP NO 2l12000

¶18

',:ACMAMP.^{NO: 4872 OF 2006}

¶19

Petition under Section 151 CPC^{praying that in the circumstances statedin} e affidavrt filed in support of the^{petition, the High Court may be pleased} ,ndone the delay of 532 days in^{filrngthe MACMA}

¶20

( ounsel for the Appellant: SRl. P GOPALA KRISHNA

¶21

Counsel for the Respondents: G RAJKUMAR

¶22

IVOTOR ACCIDENT^(] IVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO : 1032 OF 2005

¶23

Appeal filed under Section 17 3(1) ot M.v.Act, against the Judgment and cecree dated06.122()04 passed in a p No.21t2000 on the file of the court of the chairman Motor Accidenrs clarms Tribunal-cum-l Additional chief Judge at city civil ('ourt, Secunderabad.

¶24

Eetween:

¶25

National lnsurance: co Lld., Rep by its Branch Manager, Ameerpet Branch Office 77816, Panjagutta Hyderabad^'

¶26

.APPELLANT/RESPONDENT

¶27

AND

¶28

Janagam Ashok Rao, S/o Rama Rao Saresman in Khanderwar ceramics pvt. Ltd., R/o Plot Nc^'1 B, Vasavinagar Old Kharkana

¶29

RESPONDENT/PETITIONER

¶30

2 !.ll p-_Vijayala<shmi ^Wo_D_Seshagiri, Fi/o 146-28, Ownerof the steering auto beanng No Ap 13 U 9;4 BHEL. Hyderabad

¶31

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT

¶32

NTACMAMP. NO:6341 OF 2014

¶33

Petition under Siection i 5r cpc praying that in the circumstances stated ri the affidavit filed in support of the petirion, lne uign court may be pleased to i-^{3rmit me} to wrthdraw the balance amount lying FDR

¶34

Counsel for the Appeltant: SRl. G RAJKUMAR

¶35

Counsel for the Respondents: p GOPALA KRISHNA

¶36

l'he Court made the fo[owing: COMMON JUDGMENT

¶37

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶38

M.A.C.M.A.Nos.1O32 of 2OO5 and 552 of 2o23

¶39

COMMON JUDGMENT:

¶40

Aggrieved by the award dated 06.12.2004 in O.P.No.21 of 20O0 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, the insurance company has filed MACMA No. I O32 of 2OO5 and the claimant has filed MACMA No.552 of 2023.

¶41

Having heard Mr. G. Raj Kumar, learned counsel for the insurance company and Mr. P. Gopala Krishna, learned counsel for the claimant and perused the entire material on record.

¶42

The case of the claimant is that he filed the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.5,0O,0O0/-. It is stated that he was working as a salesman-cum-Commission Agent in Khandelwal Ceramics Pvt. Ltd. and drawing monthly salary of Rs.7,50O/- per month. On 23.02.1999, while he was going on his motorcycle from Secunderabad to Patancheruvu, a steering auto came in a rash and negligent manner in high speed and hit the claimant on the backside, due to which, the claimant fell down and received fracture to his left leg and immediately, he was shifted to Kavya Nursing Home and thereafter he was admitted as an in-patient for some time. Then, later, he was shifted to Apollo Hospital and took treatment from 24.02.1999 to 03.03.1999 and he was operated upon for the said

¶43

LK, J MACMA_1O32_20O5 and 5s2 2023

¶44

¶45

fractures. The claimar-rt has spcnt heavy amounts for the surgery undcrgone b1, I-rirn

¶46

The c(,urt bclou, has granted the compensation of Rs.2,66,8261 Dissatisfied u ith the said award, the insurance company has filcd MACMA No. 1032 of 2OO5 and thc claimant has hled MACMA SR No.35197 o1 200(r.

¶47

Learned counsel for t]re insurance company strbmits that the accident has hal.lpened on 2:.O2.1999 and the complaint was given on 13.1 1.1999. He submits that thc court below .whilc considering the issue No.1 faited to considcr the delay in giving the complaint and the contra stands taken by the claimant in the claim petition in his evidence and the FIR. Accorcling to the evidence of the claimant, initially one polir:e constable lrom BHtrL police statiorr has come to the hospital and recordcd his statement and thereafter, as he was undergoing treatrnent and rorrming around the hospital, he could not complain to thc police irnme<liatcly and later police have registered the complaint anrl filcd chargc sheet.

¶48

Learne<l counsel for the rnsurance company further subrnits that the court below r,",ithotrt there being any evidence sinlply recorded that th<: accidcnt otcurred due'to the rash and ncgligent driving of thc stc:ring ar:to. It is submitted that delay. in giving the complaint and rcgistration ot- F lll shows that it wers only an after

¶49

LK, J MACMA_l032_2OO5 and ss2 2023

I I

t I

)

c..

thought, the complaint was given to claim compensation and the court below has lost sight of the said aspect.

¶55

In response to that, learned counsel for the claimant submits that just because there was delay in giving the complaint and registration of FIR, that itself cannot be a reason to dismiss the claim petition. When the claimant was suffering with disability, the court below has failed to consider the same. Hence, he has fired disabilit5z certificate before this court by way of additional evidence and the claimant is entitled for enhancement of the compensation.

¶56

When the claimant has filed the claim petition, prima facie, the burden lies on him to prove that the accident has happened and it is because of the rash and negrigent driving of the offending vehicle. The stands that are taken by the claimant in the claim petition, in the evidence and in the complaint run contrary. It is submitted that the police have to conduct investigation as they have hled charge sheet and the learned counsel appearing before the trial court could not mark the said document. It is stated that as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the insurance company, the court below faired to consider the delay in giving the complaint and registration of FIR and straightaway, it has come to the conclusion that the accident has happened due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the steering auto.

¶57

LK, J MACMA_1O32_2OO5 and s52 2023

¶58

¶59

¶60

No doubt, me re delar in giving the complaint :rnd registration of FIR cannot trc a reason to dismiss the claim petition. Hora.cvcr, therc should be sufficient expl:rnation for the said delay. As no issue was lramcd and no cvidcnct.u-as let in before thc triztl court in that regard, this cour'[ deems it a])l)ropriate to set aside the avvard passed by the court below daterl 06.I'2.2004 remanding the matter to the court below to ,:onsider thc same afresh within a period of three months from the date of recci;tt ol'copy of the order.

¶61

Registry is dirccted ro return the files to the court below along with the petition to receive the document i.e. MACMA M.P.No.35202 of 2O06

¶62

1 1. In the rersult, thc Molor Accident Miscellaneous Appeat of the insurance company as u,cll as thr: claimant are disposed of.

¶63

Pending rniscellaneous pctitions, if any, shall stand qlosed.

¶64

Sd/-MOHD.SANAULLAH ANSARI ASSISTANT REGIS,TRAR //TRUE COPY// /

¶65

To,

¶66

The chairman, Motor Accident clarms Tribunal-cum-l Additional chief Judge, city civil court, f;ecunderabad (with Records if any, to return the files to ihe court below alonl; with the petit on to receive the document i.e.. MACMA M.P No 35202 of 2006)

¶67

2 The section officer. VR sectron to return the fires to the court berow arong with the petition t,r receive the document i.e., MACMA M.p No.35202 of 2506

¶68

3 One CC to SRt F, cOpALA KRtSHNA, Advocate tOpUCl 4 One CC to SRt C; RAJKUIMAR Advocate tOpUCi Two CD Copies

Plt

HIGH COURT

DATED: 0910312023

COMMON JUDMGENT iltlACMA. N o.1 032 OF 2005 AND 552 of 2023

¶73

1tr E STA r\c c
(
q
z
C)
(.d, 1s $t ?utl i
oi
i
rl)
f-Ir6.. p1.r r:t
-.*--.-

¶74

DISPOSING OF THE MACMA'S

National Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Janagam Ashok Rao and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

National Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Janagam Ashok Rao and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt.M.Mangamma and Anr.

United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Secunderabad. Vs Sri Bagamathi Carriers, Nandyal and 6 Others

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Secunderabad. Vs G. Sathyawwa , Satyamma and Another

V.Thirupathi Vs Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Limited

Smt. Humeera Fathima Vs Mrs. B.Janardhan Reddy

Mohd. Khaleel Vs Syed Azizuddin and Another