Dismissed

United India Insurance Compnay Limited v. Mr. Garipally Jagadishwar And Another

Telangana HC10 Aug 2023MACMA/120/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an appeal filed by United India Insurance Company challenging a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award of Rs. 1,34,382. The Court rejected arguments regarding delay in filing an FIR and lack of proof regarding the rider's driving license.

What did the court decide?

The Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 120 of 2020 was dismissed and there shall be no order as to costs.

United India Insurance Compnay Limited Vs Mr… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32s8 ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

, PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU

¶6

MOTO CIDENT CIVIL MIS LLANEOUS APPEAL NO:120 OF 20fr

¶7

Appeal filed under section 173 of MV Act aggrieved by the Judgement and decree dated^{1410812019passed} in OP No 477 ot 2015 on the file of the Chairman Motor^Accident Claims Tribunal (Vlll Additional District Jude) at Niza mabad

¶8

Between:

¶9

United lndia lnsurance Compnay Limited, Rep by its - Divisional Manager Nizamabad Division at Godown Road Nizamabaij

¶10

...APPELLANT/RESpONDENT No.2

¶11

AND

¶12

1 Mr. Garipally Jagadishwar S/o. Gangaram, Aged about 55 years, Occ. Business and^Agric_ulture Permanent Rl/o. Sangem Village of Bodhan Mandal Dist Nizamabad Presently residing At Mahan Apartment Vinayaknagar Nizamabad

¶13

2 Mr. M. Ramakrishna, S/o. lqgfavulu, Aged major, Occ. Owner of Motorcycle bearing No. AP 25 AF 6185 R/o. H.No. S - 7114 Nehrunagar of Vami Man'dal, Dist Nizamabad

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

IA NO:1 OF 2O2O

¶16

Petition under Section^'15'1 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to Stay all further^proceedings including execution of the Decree an order dated 1410812019^passed in OP No 477 ot 2015 by the Hon'ble Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Vlll Additional District Jude) at Nizamabad pending disposal of the Appeal

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶18

Between:

¶19

Garipally Jagadishwar S/o. Gangaram, Aged about 62 years, Occ. Business and Agriculture . Permanent R/b. sangem Viilage of Bodhan^-nlli"Jar, Nizamabad District,^presenfly residing At Mahan ipartment-Vin.di;;g;, Nizamabad

¶20

...PETtTtONER/RESpONDENT No. 1

¶21

ANO

¶22

'1 . United lndia lnsurance compnay Limited, Rep by its Divisional Manaoer Nizamabad Division at Godown R6ad Nizamabaii

¶23

...RESPONDENT/ APPELLANT

¶24

Z. J,rt. l),,|. Ramakrishna, S/o. Raghavulu, Aged major, Occ. Owner of Motorcvcle lggql.g^{No..AP 25 AF 6185 fuo. H.No.-s-zrl4'Nehrunagar} oi Vrrni-Urin',ill, Dist Nizamabad

¶25

(R2 not necessary)

¶26

... RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT

¶27

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 pleased to vacate the interim order dated 0610212020 granted in LA. No. ,l of 2O2O in M.A.C.M.A. No.^'120 of 2O2O

¶28

Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. M. SATISH REDDY

¶29

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: AZAR SRAVAN KUMAR

¶30

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: NONE APPEARED

¶31

The Court made the fotlowing: JUDGMENT

¶32

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASTVA RAO NAIDU

¶33

M.A.C.M.A.NO.12() 0F 2020

¶34

JUDGMENT:

¶35

United India Insurance Company Limited,

¶36

through its Divisional Manager, has preferred this Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Section lT3 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, assailing the Order dated 74.O4.2019 passed in O.P.No.477 of 2Ol5 by the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-VIII Additional District Judge, Nizamabad (hereinafter referred as to 'the deceased'), whereunder the Tribunal has allowed-in-part the petition filed by respondent No.l/claimant and awarded compensation of Rs. 1,34,382/- with interest at the rate of 7.5o/o per annum.

¶37

This appeal has been filed on the following grounds, namely, the Tribunal ought not to have awarded such compensation with costs and interest at

¶38

¶39

)

¶40

the rate of^{7 -5o/o per annum as the Tribunal failedto} foltow the^{fairlyestablished norms inassesslng} compensation.^{The appellant has claimed thatthe} Tribunal^{failed to appreciate as per Ex'B'2 charge sheet} and that^{thecharge sheet was filed against the} motorcyclist^{under Section 181 of the MotorVehicles} Act,1988'TheTribunalfailedtoappreciatethedelayin lodging FIR^{and the averments inEx'A'4 discharge} summar)r^{by which it transpires that at the hrst instance} while admitting^{the injured atKIMS Hospital'the} hospital authorities^{were informedthat the accidentwas} occurred^{due to the skid of motorcyclebut subsequently'} a false case^{has been registered against the rider of the} motorcycle^{bearing No'AP-25AF-6185forclaiming} compensation-^{The appellant furthercontended that the} Tribunal faited^{to consider the evidenceof RWs' land 2'} if their evidence^{was properly appreciated' the petition} hled by respondent^{No'l/ctaimant could have been}

¶41

;i r- 4tt ';iifi

¶42

¶43

dismissed. Thereby, the appellant sought for setting aside the impugned Order.

¶44

As could be seen from the impugned Order and other material available on record, it reflects that respondent No. 1/claimant frled O.p.No.477 of 20l5 under Section i66(1) (a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 19gg claiming a sum of Rs.3,OO,OOO/- towards compensation for the injuries caused to him in a road traffic accident that occurred on 01.10.20 13. According to his petition filed before the Tribunal, it was his claim that on 01.10.2013 while he was proceeding on Moped to his Kirana Shop, the rider of the motorcycle bearing No. Ap25AF-6185 came in high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed respondent No. 1/claimant, as a result thereof, respondent No. I /claimant sustained fracture injury on his head and other multiple injuries. Then, respondent No. l/claimant was shifted to Bodhan Hospital, whereat first-aid was provided to him and later, he was taken to KIMS Hospital, Secunderabad, for better

¶45

¶46

treatment wherein he was treated as^{in-patientfor ten} (10) days and that he spent Rs.2,OO,0OO/-^{towards his} treatment. Thereby, respondent^No. 1/claimant^sought for a sum of Rs.3,O0,O00/-.

¶47

Before the Tribunal, the owner of^the offending motorcycle remained^{ex parte. The appellant} disputed the claim of respondent^No. I^{and filed written} statement. The Tribunal has framed the^{followingissues} for enquiry:

¶48

" 1) Whether the^{pleaded accidentoccurred} resulting in injuries sustained by the^petitioner, Mr.Garipallg Jagdishwar, due to rash^and negligent driuing of motorcgcle bearing^No.AP- 25AF-6185 bg its driuer ?

¶49

Whether the petitioner is entitled^{to claim ang} compensation, if so, to^quantum and^{what is the} liabilitg of the respondents ?

¶50

To uhat relief ?"

¶51

'I'

¶52

¶53

During the^{enquiry,respondentNo' t himself} got examined^{as PW' 1 and one Dr'A'Krishna Reddy} was examined^{as PW'2' RWs' 1 and 2 are examined on} behalf of^{the appellant' Exs'A'1to A'8 and Exs'B'1 to} B.4 were^{markedby the parties' The Tribunal having} appreciated^{the oral and documentaryevidence and} having considered^{their respective contentions'allowed} the petition^{in-part,awarding anamountof} Rs.1,34,382/-^{with costs and inte rest'}

¶54

Heard learned^{counsel for the appellant-} insurance^{company as well as learnedcounsel for} respondent^{No.l-claimantand perused the entire} material^{placed before this Court'}

¶55

Now^{the points that would emerge for}

¶56

determination^are:

¶57

Whether^{the Tribunal failed to appreciate the} delay in^{lodgingthe complaintbefore the police} and failed^{toconsider the contest of} the appellant-insurance^companyabout the

¶58

¶59

¶60

information furnished to the hospital authorities at the time of admission of respondent No. 1 /claimant ?

¶61

Whether the Tribunal awarded the excess amount, thereby, the award is liable to be set aside ?

¶62

The maln ground on which the present

¶63

appeal is filed about the delay in lodging the complaint with the police. It is true as per the First Information Report registered by the police concerned on 13.10.2013, it was specilically stated by the de facto complainant therein that the above referred accident was occurred on 01.1O.2O13 and soon after the accident the injured was shifted to the nearby hospital from where he was taken to KIMS Hospital at Secr.rnderabad. In the report itself, the de facto complainant categorically stated that soon after the occurrence of the said accident, the family members of the injured rushed to the hospital along with the injured and since the injured received grievous injuries

¶64

¶65

including the head injury and till the injured was discharged from the hospital, they were not in a position to file any report before the police.

¶66

As per the material documents placed before this Court including the copy of the complaint, it is crystal clear that in view of the above referred accident, respondent No. 1/claimant suffered head injury and he was taken to KIMS Hospital, Secunderabad and he was treated as in-patient till 10. 10.2013. Respondent No. 1/claimant was aged about 55 years and due to the accident, he was in serious condition and for better treatment, he was taken to KIMS Hospital, Secunderabad. Therefore, it is nothing but natural for the family members of such an injured person to concentrate on the treatment rather than to present a report before the police. Simply because there was a delay in lodging the report, they cannot be held that a vehicle was wrongly involved for claiming compensation

¶67

¶68

It is true as per the discharge summary dated 1O. 10.20 13 there is a mention that the patient with no comorbidity presented with the alleged history of RTA was admitted in the hospital and the hospital authorities were informed that the accident was occurred when the motorcycle wheel of the injured skidded at Sangam Village. As per the report lodged before the police by the son of the injured, though he was not an eye witness to the accident, having came to know about the accident through one Nallanagula Rajaram, immediately, he had shifted his father to a private hospital at Bodhan and on the medical advise, they shifted the injured to the KIMS Hospital, Secunderabad. Therefore, the information furnished to the hospital authorities was not by the injured but by a third person. As against the said information, there is sufficient record before this Court to believe that based on the complaint lodged by the son of the injured, police concerned conducted investigation and

¶69

¶70

laid the charge sheet against^{the rider ofthe} motorcycle referred above.

¶71

It is true that as^{per the evidence of RW.2} the rider of the motorcycle^{was charged for the offence} under Section 338 of the^{IPC and Section 181 of the} Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It^{is axiomatic from the} evidence of RW.2 that the^{investigation was conducted} by some other police ofhcer^{and thatRW.2} categorically stated that^{he was not worked in Bodhan} police station at the time of registering^{the case or at} the time of hling of the^{chargesheet and that he has} no personal knowledge^{about the case and he deposed} the contents of Ex.B.2^{charge sheet, whichis available} on record. Therefore,^{the evidenceof RW.2 cannot help} the appellant to show^{that the rider of the motorcycle} was not having valid^{driving license.}

¶72

The another^{witness examinedbythe} appellant-insurance^{company insupport ofits}

¶73

¶74

¶75

contention is RW. 1. However, in his crossexamination, RW. t has admitted that on the date of the accident, the policy against the offending motorcycle was in force and the claimant is a third party to the accident but there was no reference with regard to the driving license either it was verified or it was not produced. RW. I did not file any acknowledgment about Ex.B.3 legal notice copy issued by the appellant-insurance comp€rny.

¶76

It is the case of the appellant that in spite of their notice, owner of the motorcycle did not produce the driving license but in the absence of proof with regard to the service of notice and in the light of the above admissions of RW. 1, the appellant is not able to prove that the rider of the motorcycle had no valid license and the appellant can avoid the liability to pay the compensation.

After careful examination of the^entire

¶81

material placed before this Court and^{be it viewed from} any angle, this Court is of the considered^{view that the}

¶82

Tribuna,l having considered all the^aboveaspects passed an award and no material found to^interfere with the impugned Order. Accordingly,^{this appealis} devoid of merits and liable^{to be dismissed.}

¶83

In view of the foregoing^{discussion,this} appeal is dismissed. There^{shall be no order as to} costs.

¶84

Pending miscellaneous^{petitions, ifany, shall}

¶85

stand closed.

¶86

Sd/. MOHD. ISMAIL ASS]STANT REGISTRAR I

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The chairman Motor^{Accident claimsTribunal (vlll Additional District} Jude) at Nizamabad^{(with records, if any)}

¶92

One CC to SRl.^{M. SATISH REDDY,Advocate} [OPUC]

¶93

One CC to SRl.^{AZAR SRAVAN KUMAR,Advocate IOPUCI}

¶94

Two CD Copies

a,-$r'

HIGH COURT

DATED:1010812023

JUDGMENT

5 rlTE oF
a.
;:Gi):
i<br>\t I\ 1$<br>)tro I
o o
( ,'.)
I
+ t)

MACMA.No.12O ot 2020

DISMISSING THE MACMA

WITHOUT COSTS

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶105

THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶106

PRESENT

¶107

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU

¶108

TO IDEN CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 120 OF 2O2

¶109

Between:

¶110

United lndia lnsurance Compnay Limited, Rep by its Divisional Manager Nizamabad Division at Godown Road Nizamabad

¶111

...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT No.2

¶112

ANO

¶113

Mr. Garipally Jagadishwar S/o. Gangaram, Aged about 55^years, Occ. Business and Agriculture Permanent Fl/o. Sangem Village of Bodhan Mandal Dist Nizamabad Presently residing At Mahan Apartment Vinayaknagar Nizamabad

¶114

Mr. M. Ramakrishna, S/o. Raghavulu, Aged major, Occ. Owner of Motorcycle bearing No. AP 25 AF 6185 Rl/o. H.No. 5 - 7114 Nehrunagar of Vami Mandal, Dist Nizamabad

¶115

...RESPONDENTS

¶116

Appeal filed under section 173 of MV Act aggrieved by the Judgement and decree dated 14lOBl2O19 passed in OP No 477 of 2O15 on the file of the Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Vlll Additional District Jude) at Nizamabad

¶117

ORDER: This appeal coming on for hearing and upon^perusing the^grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the rnaterial^papers in the case and upon hearing the arguments of SRl. M. SATISH REDDY, Advrccate for the Appellant, SRl. AZAR SRAVAN KUMAR, Advocate forthe Respondent No. 1 and none appeared for Respondent No.2

¶118

This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

¶119

That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is

¶120

dismissed; and

¶121

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

¶122

//TRUE COPY//

¶123

Sd/. MOHD. ISMAIL ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ?

¶124

SECTION OFFICER

¶125

To,

¶126

The Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Vlll Additional District Jude) at Nizamabad

¶127

Two CD Copies

t-(

HIGH COURT

DATED: 1010812023

DECREE

MAGMA.No.120 of 2020

DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS

United India Insurance Compnay Limited v. Mr. Garipally Jagadishwar And Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

United India Insurance Compnay Limited v. Mr. Garipally Jagadishwar And Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Mogulaiah (died) Vs Ramchander

D. Sanjeevaiah Vs N. Mogulaiah

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

The Managing Director and Another Vs Ashwin Kumar Kola

Kodipelli Narsaiah Vs Gangam Malla Reddy

K.Rammurthy, Hyderabad Vs Smt.K.Shankaramma (Died) Per L.R.S) Hyd, and 4 Others