Allowed

Baddam Jangamma , Gangamma v. P. Gopal Reddy and Another

Telangana HC20 Sept 2023MACMA/1374/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, enhancing the compensation from Rs. 61,000 to Rs. 84,000. It directed the insurer to pay first and recover later from the owner, distinguishing previous precedents on recovery jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs. 84,000 with interest at 7.5% p.a.; Insurer directed to pay and recover from owner.

Baddam Jangamma , Gangamma Vs P. Gopal Reddy and… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁰⁴ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RA'ESHWAR RAO

¶6

M.AC.M.A.Noi 1374 of 2011

¶7

Appeal Under Sectionl T3 of Motor Vehicles Act against the order and decree in O.P.No.379 of 2008 dated 01-04-2011 on the file of the Court of the Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-DistrictJudge, Nalgonda.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Baddam Jangamma @ Gangamma, W/o. Pitchaiah, aged 48 years, Occ Agriculture Ryo. Thipparthy Village & Mandal, Nalgonda District.

¶10

...AppellanUClaimant

¶11

AND

¶12

1 P. Gopal Reddy, S/o. Malla Reddy, aged major, R/o. H.No.1-65, Yellanki Village, Ramannapet Mandal, Nalgonda District.

¶13

2 The lClCl Lombard General lnsurance Company Limited, lV Floor, Osman Plaza, Road No.1, Opp: HSBC Ban, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, Rt/P by its Manager.

¶14

..,Respondents/Respondents

¶15

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI P.S.P. SURESH KUMAR

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI G. ARUN KUMAR

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI KONDADI AJAY KUMAR

¶18

The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

¶19

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶20

M.A.C.M.A No.1374 of 2O11

¶21

JUDGMENT:

¶22

Being not satisfied with the quantirm of compensation awarded and the exoneration of the 2nd respondent from the liability of paying the compensation vide order and decree dated 01.04.2011 passed in O.P.No.379 of 2008 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Nalgonda, (for short "the Tribunal"), the appellant/ petitioner^preferred the^present appeaL

¶23

2 For convenience, the parties hereinafter will be

¶24

referred to as they are a.rrayed before the Tribunal.

¶25

3 Brief facts of the case are as follows :

¶26

On 19.02.2008 at about 5.00 p.m., the petitioner, after completing her agricultural operations in her lield while crossing Addanki Narketpally High Way Thippa-lammagudem, a lorry bearing No.AP-16-V-1416 came from Nalgonda side in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed against

¶27

¶28

R RNJ MACN.I-{ No.l37l ot 20ll

¶29

the petitioner, as a resurt of which, the petitioner sustained fractures a,d grie'ous injuries. After the accident, the petitioner was shifted to Jayaram Orthopedic Hospital Miryalaguda for treatment. The police Thipparthy registered a case in Cr.N-o.26 of 200g against the lorry driver. Before the accident, the petitioner was earning Rs.4,O0O7- per month from her agriculture due to the accident, she cannot do any work. Therefore, the petitioner filed the O.P. seeking compensation of Rs.75,000/_.

¶30

4 The 1"t respondent remained ex-parte.

¶31

The 2"a respondent frlecl a counter denying the allegations made in the claim petition, including the manner in which the accident took place and the income of the petitioner. It is further contended that the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the claim aga-rnst the 2,d respo.dent as the driver of the offending vehicle, at the time of the accident, did not have a valid driving iicence to drive the offending vehicle and therefore, the 2"d respondent is not liable to indemnify the liability of the first respondent. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the appeal.

.ts

RRN"' MACit{A N-o.137{ of 20t I

¶36

PWs.l and 2 were examined and marked Exs.Al to A8 and Exs.X-l and X-2 to prove the petitioner,s case. RWs. 1 and 2 were examined and marked Exs.B_l to B:4 to prove the respondents' case.

¶37

7 . After considering the oral arld documentar3r evidence available on record, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.61,000/- with interest @Z.S% per annum from t-he date of petition till the date of realisation payable by the l"t respondent alone and the claim against the 2"a respondent is dismissed. Challenging the award, the petitioner has filed the present appeal seeking enhalcement.

¶38

8 Heard both sides. perused the record. 9. l,earned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the Tribunal ought to have considered the injuries sustained by the petitioner. The evidence of RWs. 1 and 2 is not useful to the Insurance Company since no substantive proof was l-rled to show that the vehicle driver does not have valid driving licence. The allegation that the licence is not in force as on the date of the accident cannot be believed since there is no positive evidence to show that the licence was not

¶39

¶40

RRNJ iUACi[A No.l371 of^20ll

¶41

extended from 03.12.2007. The Tribunal has not awalded just compensation ur-rder other heads, thet'efore, the ainount a{'a-rded by the Tribuna-l is very meager and unjustifiable

¶42

10 On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has contended that after considering the nature of injuries sustairred by the petitioner and based on the evidence, the Tribunal has rightly arvarded compensation and the same needs no interfer-ence bv this Court.

¶43

The hnding of the Court belou, with regard to the manner in which the accident took place has become final, as the respondents do not ctrallenge the same.

¶44

Insofar as the querntum of compensation 1S concerned, the Tr-ibunal awarded an arnount of Rs.30,0O0/- for two grievous injuries and Rs.6,000/- for three simple injuries, which is very meager.^'Ihis Court in general, awards an amount of Rs.2O,OOO/- for grievous injunes. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to an amount of Rs.4O,OOO/- for two grievous iniuries. The petitioner is entitled to an amount of Rs.15,000/- for three simple injuries. The Tribunal has rightly granted arr amount of Rs.2O,00O/- towards medical expenses,

¶45

RR.J MACl\lA No.l37{ of 20t I

¶46

¶47

which needs no interference by this Court. The Tribuna-l granted arr amount of Rs.3,OOO/- towards extra nourishment and.other .charges, which is very meager and this Court. is inclined to award an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards extra nourishment and other charges. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.2,OOO/- towards loss of earnings, which is very meager and this Court is inclined to award an amount of Rs.4,000/- towards loss of earnings. In all, the petitioner is entitled to a compensation of Rs.84,OOO/-.

¶48

Upon bare reading of the impugned order, it is observed that the Tribunal found that the 2nd respondent/lnsurance Company is not liable to pay

¶49

compensation as the lorry driver was not holding a valid driving licence. There is no dispute that the policy was in force as of the date of tlle accident. Further, the licence was valid upto 03.12.2007 and the accident was occurred on 19.O2.2OO8 and subsequently, the licence was renewed on 12.05.2008. In

¶50

view of the judgment of the Hontle Supreme Court in NatTonrzl Insurance Compang Llmtted. vs Sutaran Slngh & otherst and the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in

¶51

'^{zoo+1s; scc z9z}

¶52

RRr\J MA(;lrlA No.lS of :.011

¶53

Shamanna V, Dlaisional Mcnager, the Arierttal Insurance

¶54

Co. Ltd..z,^ltlre Hontrle Supreure Conrt in Suaran Singh lsupra) ar.d in a catena of decisions, directed the Insurance Company !o^pay the compensation to the clairnants and liberg was granted to it to recover the paid amount ffom the o\r,,ner of the vehicle, in case of violarion of conciitions of Insr_rance Policy. ln Shamartnc (supra) the Honble Supreme Court helcl as under:

¶55

In the present case, to d.enu tlrc benefit af^,paA and recouer', utlmt seems to ho.ue substantially weighed uith the Hiqh Court is the reference to larqer Bench rnade bu the two-Judqe Bench in National-lnsurance Co. Ltd. u. Paruathneni a.nd another (2009) B SCC 7BS ruhictt doubted the correctn.ess of th-e decisions wltich in exerctse of .jurisdiction^{under Articlei42} of the Constitution of India directinq insurance comparu) to pau tle compensation amou.nt euen thouqh insurarrce companu has no liability to pa14. In ParuatLmeni case, the Supreme Court pointed out that Article 142 of the Constitution of India de,es not couer such tl.lpe qf cases and that 'if the insurance companut has no liabilitu to pau at all, then, it cannot be compelled. bg order of th.e court in exercise of its jurisdiction underLyfole 142 of the Constitution of India to pag the compensation amount and later on recouer it from the owner of tLrc uehicle'. The aboue reference tn Paruathneni case has been disposed of on 17.09.2013 b11 th-e tlweeJudges Bench keeping tLe questtons o.f lau.t open to be decided in aft appropiate case."

¶56

'zota(s)^(sc):zzo

¶57

¶58

RRY{ it{Acif4 No. t.t7{ of 2OtI

¶59

¶60

1 2. Since the reference to th.e larger bench in paruat hne ni case has.. t i. i- aiii"".tr' o.i oi' u o,nn t!3 eue2tions of law open to be decid.ed tn an appropriate .ar", pr.""itg the d.ecis;"ti" soron Singh case folloutid in Loxmi Narain Dhut and other cases hotd thE field.. The awari ;";;;' bs the Tibunal dtrecting the tnsurance compcmA to paA the compensation amount autarded. t" il; ;i;i;;"ts arud thereajter, recouer the same from the oiie, oy tne i?::^_r:^eue2tfn, 1"^{ir'""roraln7''Jlnn} rru Juagment^passed bu thb Court in Sutaran itngn ona Laxmi Narain Dtwt"cases White ;;Zli, tn" High Court ought not to haue n;f.i"i^-,)rrn ,n" :yrd^{yassed bs the rribunat} iirlii,is 7n" ro respondent to pall and recouer from the oitner of the i??i.t" lhe^impusnea iuasiJni .|**Ti,ii ,."n exoneratirug the insuran and dtreffi " ;;' -ffi,ffX:,{'7.:,:J:,:;l compensation from tLte ottno. ^r r^- ..]Ji-il' . restored.""&-^;;; ;:,.;' ; ;,; ;::::^o% ;*,^:?l;,i"," 7!

¶61

So far as th.e recouery of the amount from the ?t:-ner^{of the uehicle, th.e-tnsurance} i))ing recouer as held in the decision tneil.ntilniuro" n att". C:: !td.;? N!"t""p"" ""d "th.* (2004) 1g SCC 224 wtere this Court tetd. thr"t attti, iiiJi"* recouerinq the same from tlte t"Jir.i,tl.ri'rrn"rr.,"t ltatt^{ng.t be requiredi"} trt"^a sii.iiZ.s'-inirio , proceeding before th.e concemed Executing court as if tLe .dispute between th" t;;";;;;t nZ" on", yT tln subject matter oy aetermtnittJn.'iJfor" u Trilu.na! and th.e issue is^{'a.ii"i'"1"i""ti7""} on", and infauour of the insurer."

¶62

Applying the above decisions to the present case, this Court is of the view that the 2.d respondent/ Insurance Company can be directed to pay the compensation amount to the petitioner at the first instance and recover the same from

¶63

¶64

¶65

R&\J MACII-{ No.t374 of 2l}lr

¶66

respondent No. 1 as it is established that the policy issued by tlre 2"4 respondent in favour of the l"r respondent was very much in force as on the date of the accidcnt.

¶67

Though .the claitre<j amount is Rs.75,000/_ invoking the principte of just compensation, and in view of the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Cjourt in Rajesh us. Rajbtr Singhs, and in a catena of decisions, this Court is emporvcred ro grant compensation bevond the claimed amount.

¶68

The Tribuna] has a.lva:.cteo thc rate of interest at

¶69

'7.5o/o per annum, which needs no irtleiferencc by this Court.

¶70

Accordingly, the I\4.A.C.M.A. is allowed by enhalcing the cornpensation au,arcled by the Tribunal from Rs.61,OOO/- to Rs.84,OOO/- (Rr-rpees eighty four thousand only) with costS anci inl:erest at Z .Si,o pet antlum from the date of petition till the ciate of realisation. Rcsp6ndspl No.2 is directed to deposit tire above said arnount along with interest and costs within two months from rcceipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner is permitted to withdrarv the said anount. The 2na respondent/lllsurarlce Company is at liberty

¶71

r MANU/sc/o4so/20 t3

¶72

¶73

RTI,\J MACIIA No.lJ74 of 201I

¶74

¶75

to recover the amount from the l"t respondent/owner of the vehicle in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶76

As a sequel of which, miscellaneous petitions, if any

¶77

pending, shall stand closed.

Sd/. T. JAYASREE

//TRUE COPY//

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

9./

SECTION OFFICER

To,

1 . The Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal+um-Districl Judge, Nalgonda. (with records)

¶85

One CC to SRI p.S.p. SURESH KUMAR, Advocate [OpUC]

¶86

One CC to SRt G. ARUN KUMAR, Advocate [OpUCi

¶87

One CC ro SRt KONDADT AJAY KUMAR, nOvtcate 1beUC1

¶88

Two CD Copies

KP/kam

I+F-

'{t

HIGH COURT DATED:20l0gl2023

¶93

JUDGMENT+DECREE

¶94

MACMA.No.1374 ot²⁰¹¹

¶95

1 HE ST4 16r
q
o
3 0 0EC 2023 Ioz
,+
* i
65 r;41999r)

¶96

ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS

¶97

2.o\ rN <br>

¶98

[³³⁰⁴ ]

¶99

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

¶100

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶101

PRESENT

¶102

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RA"'ESHWAR^RAO

¶103

M.A"C.M.ANo: 1374 ot 2011

¶104

Between:

¶105

Baddam Jangamma @ Gangamma, Wo. Pitchaiah, aged 48^years,Occ:

¶106

Agriculture R/o. Thipparthy Village & Mandal,^Nalgonda District.

¶107

..AppellanUClaimant

¶108

AND

¶109

P. Gopal Reddy, S/o. Malla Reddy, aged major,^{Rl/o.H.No.1-65, Yellanki} Village, Ramannapet Mandal, Nalgonda District.

¶110

The ICICI Lombard General lnsurance Company^Limited, lV^{Floor, Osman} Plaza, Road No.1, Opp: HSBC Ban, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad,^{R/P by its} Manager.

¶111

...Respondents/Respondents

¶112

Appeal Under Sectionl T3 of Motor Vehicles Act against the order^{and decree} in O.P.No.379 of 2008 dated 01-04-2011 on the file of the Court of^theChairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge,^Nalgonda.

¶113

ORDER: This appeal coming on for hearing^{and upon perusing the grounds of} appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the^{Lower Courtand the materialpapers in the} case and upon hearing the argwnents of SRI^{P.S.P. SURESH KUMAR, Advocatefor} the Appellant and of SRI G. ARUN KUMAR,^{Advocate for the Respondent No.1 and} of SRI KONDADI AJAY KUMAR,^{Advocate for the RespondentNo.2-}

¶114

This Court doth Order and Decree^as follows:

¶115

That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal^{be and hereby is allowed} by enhancing the compensation awarded by the^{Tribunal fromRs.61,0O01 to}

¶116

Rs.84,000/- (Rupees eighty Four Thousand only) with costs and interests at

¶117

7.57o per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization;

¶118

That the Respondent No.2 be and hereby is directed to deposit the above said amount along with interesl and costs within two months from receipt of a copy of this Judgment;

¶119