Dismissed

Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Mutyala Vijaya Lakshmi

Telangana HC5 Sept 2023MACMA/1043/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Telangana High Court rejected an appeal under the M.V. Act by Reliance General Insurance. The Insured relied on the Supreme Court principle of 'pay and recover' against the vehicle owner for a policy breach. The Court held the Tribunal's decision applying this principle was correct and dismissed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Appeal rejected. No order as to costs.

Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA TA HYDERABAD

¶2

TUESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

¶5

M.A.C.M.A NO.1043 0F 2023

¶6

Appeal filed under Section 173 of lt/-V. Act, aggrieved by the order and decree dated 20.03.2023 made in O.P..No 399 OF 2022 (OLD MVOP NO.401 OF 2020), on the file of the Court of the Chairman, [.4otor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- I Additional District Judge, Hanumakonda.

¶7

Between:

¶8

Reliance General lnsurance Company Ltd Represented by its Branch Manager Branch Office at SSS Plaza MG Road Warangal District

AppellanU3d

Respondent

AND

Mutyala Vijaya Lakshmi

¶13

W/o Late Venkateshwar Rao Aged 46 years Occ House

¶14

hold R/o Flat no 207 Gayathri Vihar Apartment SBI

¶15

Colony Nagole Road Kothapet Saroor Nagar Ranga Reddy District 500 035 2. Mutyala Sairam

¶16

S/o Late Venkateshwar Rao Aged 32 years Occ Private Employee Rl/o Fiat no 207 Gayathri Vihar Apartment SBI Colony Nagole Road Kothapet Saroor Nagar Ranga Reddy District 500 035 3. Mutyala Saikiran S/o Late Venkateshwar Rao Aged 28 years Occ Student Rl/o Flal no 207 Gayathri Vihar Apartment SBI Colony Nagole Road Kothapet Saroor Nagar Ranga Reddy District 500 035 4. Munnuru Shailaja Wio Santhosh Kumar D/o Late Venkateshwar Rao Aged 30 years Occ House hold R/o Flat no 207 Gayathri Vihar Apartment SBI Colony Nagole Road Kothapet Saroor Nagar Ranga Reddy District 500 035

¶17

P Dilip Yadav

¶18

.. Respondents/Petitioners

¶19

S/o Rama Raju Aged lvlajor Occ Driver of Crime Vehicle

¶20

i I II:

¶21

I I i i i i I I I

¶22

R/o H No 11151195/1 Road no 3 Venakataramana Colony Saroor Nagar Ranga Reddy District 500 035 6. P Rajitha

¶23

Wo Rama Raju Aged Major Occ Owner of Crime Vehicle RJo H No 1113/1 1/1 Road no 7 Venakataramana Colony Saroor Nagar Ranga Reddy District 500 035

¶24

Respondents/1st & 2nd Respondents

¶25

lA No.3 of 2023

¶26

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of operation of decree and judgment dated 20.03_2023 in MVOp No. 399 of 2O22 on the file of Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- | Additional District Judge, Hanumakonda, pending disposal of the main MACMA herein.

¶27

Counsel for the Appellant: Mr Harinath Reddy Soma, Advocate

¶28

Counsel for the Respondents : None appeared

¶29

The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

¶30

THE IION'IJT,}]SITI ,'TISI'I('Ii P.SAM KOSHY

¶31

ANT)

¶32

'l-ttE HON'Bl-E SRt JLiS'l'tCI.l LAXIII Nr\l{,\YANA AI-ISHETTY i{.A.C.II.A. No. I0.t-3 of 2023

¶33

J tIDGM ENT.t1t1't ll, n hiL, .\ri .trt,tt-t P.S.t.tt KO.St ,

¶34

Heard tVlr.l.larinath llcddr Sonra. Iearncd counsei lirr the appellant and perused the ntater-ial on recorcl

¶35

I'hc instant irlrpcal has beerr Iiled challcng irre rhe. arvard dateri 10.03.2023 passccl in M.V.().i).No. lt)() ot'r()ll by thc ( lrairman VIotor Accidents fllairris^{-['r'ibunal-cr.rrr;-l} Acldirional District Judee. I lanurnakonda [) isl ricr

¶36

J Ihe learned counscl lirr LIrc eppcilarrt r.rlrilc courcsring the appeal subrnir.tcd that thc Ii:arncri '1 r'iburill ha:; lrcarrl in as rnuch has not properly' aplrreciau:rl iitc lhr;t rhui tlrc drivcr-,rr the rii'lLnoing t.e,ticie was not having a valir'l dlivirrg liccrrse at- lhe Lirne ol- accidenr. Thus, tilcre is a clcar hlc:lclr ol prrlic_r, corrtiirions,ino rn thc given lactual backClop. the [ei.trn,.-il^'l'riburul lra:; *'r-ongly passed the liability on the Insr..,rancc Companr'. Rathcr'. it tlrrqht Lr> har c bren passed uporr the o$ ner oltlrt, of'fcndin:l Vclr,clc

¶37

4 Pcrr.rsal ol'the ;-.1.:irclirlrs arr,l thc ..r,rclcnc.: vllrich havc come on reoorci, particr-rlarlv taking noic .)l' []ie lacr thar thc ileccased in r,he

¶38

instant case^\ as retuming^{honre from office on 03.02.2t)10 on iris} [{onda Activa Scooter^{hcaring Iicgistlation No.'lS i)7 (jN ()-10J, u hcrr} it r.r'as hit bv Lhe oflcnding^{vchicle i.e. a car bcaringI{cgistration} No.'fS 07 GY ll92^{uhichw'as driven b1'thclcsporrdcntNo.5 and} ovvned by resl.Irndent^{No.(r. Thc responclcntNo.5 did uot ltllr e a Valicl} license at thc tinrc ol' accident. As^{a result ol' theace iderrt.thc} cleceasccl suslaincd^{grievousinjurics to rvhichhc Iater strccullrbcd.-fhe} deceascd was u'orking as a Scuior^{Assistatrt irl thc olllcc ol' tlte} YC Ti TS Cornmissioncr of Policc.^{I{ydcrabad,and tt as agcd arotrrlci55} After considering the entile^{evidence rvhichha"'c been lcd befbrcthe} Tribunal ar-rd tal<ing into account^{the agc andsalar'1 pat'lictrlats ol'the} deceased, thc Tlibunal has^{quantilied thc comptnsatiotlet} Rs.75.78,0001. While lrassing the liability',^{thc Tribunal hasapplicd} tnsurance the principle ol' pay atid recover^{against thc appellant} company holding that thc liability^{of paynrcntof courpcnsation shallbe} discharged b1' the lnsurance^{Companyfirst and thereafter the} Insurance Company wor-rld be at^{liberty to [ecovcr the sattle fromthe} rcspondcnt No.6 i.e., tltc owner olthe^{vehicle on accoulltol the alleged} breach of policv conditions. It is this^passing of^{liabitity o1' payment of} compcnsation lirst uport the lnsurance^{Compan;'which is under} challengc in thc^{present appeal.I)crusal olthe recolcis ancl thc cvidetlce}

¶39

¶40

rvould clearly give an indication thlt it has be'cn adnritted that the vchicle was duly insulcd rvith thc appcllant hcrcin and thc polio rvas "alici^{fiom 16.09.20I9 to 25.09.2020 that is corcrir.rg tlrt'pcriodo1'the} acc ident as u,ell.

¶41

Considering the lact that thc o11'ending r chicle involvcd in the accident u,'as duly insured rvith the appellant hcrein. the learned Tribunal relying upon the decision ol'thc llun'ble Suprc-nic Court in 1he case of United lndia lnsurirnce^('ompanr l.imited vs. S.lvyapanr has applicd the principlc of pav and rcco\ cr'' agair.st the appellant herein. The^'l-ribunal has orrlcred that thc liabilir. c['par mcnt ol compensation shall be first upon the [nsurrnce Conrpan-v and the right of the Insurance Company stands reselrcd fbr rccovcring rhe same from the respondent No.6 i.c., the ou'ner ol-the saicl vehicle. I'he said decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of the S.lyvapan subsequently, has also beeu rcitcriited in thc case of Divisional Manager, Nerv India Assurancc^(.ompanr, I-imited vs. Acchigari Prasad and others2 which has lultlrcr also bccn reiterated on rnany occasions subsequentll,'.

¶42

'^{2ot I} 1r'1 569^1,2.

¶43

'zol5^{(t) At.t-218}

¶44

-.-.--''--Ei \ ' . -r -v-r.ts

¶45

¶46

(r. (iii c. the afbrcs.id rhcts and circuurstarrccs ol thc cuse. r.rorc perticrrlarh. rhe findin!..l'thc.I ribtrnal being strictly in uccordancc * ith Lhc dictLr.r of tlrc [1..'ble SuPrerre cour.t, rrc do ..t Il.d a,r stro.u. casc ,rrtlc oLrt br thc appellarrt, caUing for an inter.rcre.ce illr tlrc irrrpug.cd a'ard. l hus. the appeal is being dcr oid of nrcr.its and is accordinsly rc jected aftilrnir-rg the arvard/order ol- the Tribunal.

¶47

.\s a sequcl, rniscellaneous applications pcnding if iurl in tl.ris

¶48

appeal. sl-rall stand closed. No order as to costs.

¶49

Sd/. MOHD. SANAULLAH ANSARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

C-

SECTION OFFICER

To, 1. The Chairman, Motor Vehicle^{Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- I Additional} District Judge, Hanumakonda..(with^records)

¶54

One CC to Mr Harinath^{Reddy Soma, Advocate[OPUC]} 3 Two CD Copies

kvon N]B

fnrG,

HIGH COURT

DATED:05.09.2023

JUDGMENT^+DECREE

MACMA.No.1043 of 2023

¶61

(Yl E ST4
(
-)
t,\ 0 E t{0v ?sl Ct
h
t'

¶62

REJECTING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS

¶63

?r'rCr, ?6Uo\D^3,

¶64

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE^{OF TELANGANA} TA HYDERABAD

¶65

TUESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF SEPTENIBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶66

PRESENT

¶67

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND

¶68

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA^ALISHETW

¶69

M.AC.M.A NO.1043 0F 2023

¶70

Between:

¶71

Reliance General^{lnsurance Company Ltd} Represented by its Branch Manager Branch^{Office at} SSS Plaza MG Road^{WarangalDistrict} Respondent

¶72

Appellant/3'd

¶73

AND

¶74

Mutyala Vijaya Lakshmi W/o Late Venkateshwar Rao Aged 46^{years Occ House} hold R/o Flat no 207 Gayathri Vihar^ApartmentSBI Colony Nagole Road Kothapet Saroor^NagarRanga Reddy District 500 035

¶75

Mutyala Sairam S/o Late Venkateshwar^{RaoAged32 yearsOcc Private} Employee R/o Flat no 207 Gayathri^{ViharApartment} SBI Colony Nagole Road^{Kothapet Saroor Nagar} Ranga Reddy District 500 035

¶76

Mutyala Saikiran S/o Late Venkateshwar Rao Aged 28^yearsOcc Student R/o Flal no 2Ol^{Gayathri Vihar Apartment SBI} Colony Nagole Road Kothapet Saroor^NagarRanga Reddy District 500 035 4. Munnuru Shailaja Wo Santhosh Kumar D/o^{Late VenkateshwarRao} Aged 30^years Occ House^{hold R/oFlat no 207} Gayathri Vihar Apartment^SBI Colony^NagoleRoad Kothapet Saroor Nagar^Ranga Reddy^{District500035}

¶77

.. Respondents/Petition ers

¶78

P Dilip Yadav S/o Rama Raju Aged Major^{Occ Driverof Crime Vehicle}

¶79

R/o H No 1115119511 Road no 3 Venakataramana Colony Saroor Nagar Ranga RedCy District 500 035 6. P Ralitha W/o Rama Raju Aged Major Occ Owner of Cnme Vehicle Rt/o H No 11/3111tl Road no 7 Venakataramana Colony Saroor Nagar Ranga Reddy District 500 035

¶80

.. Respondents/l.t & 2nd Respondents

¶81

Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V. Act, aggrieved by the order and decree dated 20.O3.2023 made in A/VOP NO.399 OF 2022 (OLD MVOP NO.401 OF 2O2O), on the file of the Court of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- I Additional District Judge, Hanumakonda

¶82

lA No.3 of 2023

¶83

Petition under Section l5'l CpC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of operation of decree and judgment dated 20.03.2023 in MVOp No. 399 of 2022 on the file of Chairman, l,4otor Accidents Claims Tribunal_cum- I Additional District Judge, Hanumakonda, pending disposal of the main MACMA herein.

¶84

This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Order and.Decree of the Court below, the materiat papeis in the Oriqinal peiition and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. Harinath Reddy Soma, Advoiate for the Appellant and Noen appeared for the Respondents .

¶85

This Court doth order and Decree as follows:

¶86