Dismissed

The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mukum Shanker and Ano

Telangana HC26 Jul 2023MACMA/1527/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Muslim Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal challenging an award of Rs. 13.4 Lakhs by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The appellant contended falsely involving the auto, collusion, abnormal delay in filing police complaint, and excessive compensation without evidence.

What did the court decide?

Appellant's appeal dismissed, confirming the Tribunal's award dated 23.02.2012.

The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Mukum Shanker… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32s8 ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENW SIXTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVARAO^NAIDU

¶6

MOTOR ACC]DENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS AP^{PEAL NO: 1527 OF 2015}

¶7

Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V.Act aggrieved^{by the decreeand} judgment dated 23-02-2012 passed in O.P.No. 345 ol 2OO7 on the file of the V Additional District Judge-Cum-lrilotor Accident^{Claims Tribunalat Karimnagar}

¶8

Between:

¶9

The United lndia lnsurance Co. Ltd., Jyothinagar^{Branch, NTPC,Rep. by its} Branch Manager, Godavarikhani, Karimnagar^District.

¶10

...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT No. 2

¶11

AND

¶12

Mukum Shanker S/o Odelu,^{Age. 47 years, Occ: SCCL Employee (General} Mazdoor) Rl/o Q.No. 5T212230, 8-lncline^{Colony,Godavarikhaniproper,} Karimnagar.

¶13

...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER

¶14

Boini Yadagiri S/o. Rajagattu, Aged 35^{years, Occ: Driver and Owner of Auto} bearing No. AP 15 W 3118, R/o 7-LEP Colony,^{Godavarikani, Karimnagar} District - 505001^.

¶15

...RESPONDENT/RESPONDNET NO.¹

¶16

MACM AMP. NO: 5512OF 2012

¶17

Petition under Section 151 CPC^{prayingthat in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support^{of the petition, the High Court may be pleased} grant stay of all further proceedings including execution^{of the decree dated23rd} day of February 2012^{passed in oP No.345of 2OO7 on the file of the V Additional} District Judge-cum-Motor Accident^{Claims Tribunal,at Karimnagar}

¶18

counsel for the Appellant: sRl. E. VENUGOPAL^REDDY

¶19

Counsel for the Respondents: SRl. RAMACHANDAR^{RAO VEMUGANTI}

¶20

The Court made the following: JUDGMENT

¶21

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU

¶22

M.A.C.M.A No.1527 OF 20LS

¶23

JUDGMEI{T:

¶24

Being aggdeved by the judgment and decree dated 23.O2.2OI2 passed in M.V.O.P.No.345 of 2OOZ by the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge at Karimnagar (for short 'the TribunalJ, where under the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.13,40,OOO/ towards compensation with interest @^{7 .5o/o p.a, the 2.a respondent} therein i.e., United India Insurance Company, preferred this appeal challenging the Award.

¶25

As per the grounds, the appellant has claimed that the Respondent/claimant implicated Auto bearing Number Ap 15 W 311g, though there was no such accident by the said auto. The appellant has also claimed that a false claim has been filed due to the collusion between owner of the auto and Respondent No.l who belonged to the same village. The appellant has a[eged that there was abnormal delay in lrling complaint to police, that accident took place on 14.12.2006, whereas complaint was lodged by the wife of injured on 26.12.2006. The other ground is with regard to quantum of compensation. It is contended that the Tribunal *,ithout there being any evidence and without any proof with regard to disability of the injured assessed the

¶26

¶27

sarne as 7 Ooh and awarded exorbitant amount and sought for setting aside the Award.

¶28

As can be seen from the petition in M.V.O.P.No.345 of 2OO7 filed before the Tribunal, it was the case of the respondent/claimant that on 14.12.2006, when he was returning from Asnala Village of Adilabad District on his motor bike, an accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the auto bearing No.AP 15 W 3118. It seems a complaint .,as lodged with the police of Ramagundam Police Station and Crime No.1OO of 2006 was registered against the owner-cum-driver of the auto and charge sheet was a_Iso frled against him.

¶29

The l.t respondent-owner of the auto remained exparte and the 2nd respondent i.e., the appellant herein contested the petition disputing the material averments including involvement of the auto. However, the Tribunal having considered the oral and documentar5r evidence i.e., the evidence of Pws. I to 5 and Exs.A. I to A. 14 accepted the claim of the respondent/claimant and awarded the amount as indicated above.

¶30

Heard both the parties.

¶31

Now, the point for consideration in the present appeal is whether the Tribunal committed error in accepting the claim of the

¶32

respondent/claimant and whether the^{Tribunal awarded excess} amount towards compensation^?

¶33

Even though it is argr-red on behalf of the appellant^{that there} was delay in lodging the complaint thereby it^{appears that the auto} was unnecessarily involved, the appellant herein^{did not adduce aly} evidence and nothing was elicited from the^{cross-examinationof the} witnesses to accept the said claim. Simply because^{therewasdelay in} lodging complaint it cannot be contended that the^{auto was} unnecessarily involved. As can be seen from^{the certifiedcopies of} charge sheet and Form No.54 vide Exs.A.2 and^{A.3, the} Traffic^Police, Ramagundam having conducted investigation and examining^the material witnesses frled charge sheet against the driver of the^auto specifically alleging that the accident occurred due to his rash^and negligent driving and the Tribunal rightly accepted the claim of^the respondent.

¶34

¶35

As can be seen from the^judgment impugned, the Tribunal^has considered the oral evidence which clearly shor.r's that^the respondent/claimant lost his job at the age of 47 years.^The appellalt herein did not place any material to show that the claimant^was subsequently employed elsewhere. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly considered the loss as 7 Oo/o and calculated the compensation on that basis. The other amounts awarded by the Tribunal are also not

¶36

¶37

exorbitant as claimed by the appellant. Therefore, there are no merits in the appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶38

Accordingly, the M.A.C.M-A., is dismissed confirming tle Aiu"fd d,ated,23.02.2012 passed in M.V.O.p.No.345 of 2OO7 by the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents claims Tribunal cum-V Additional Di"t i"t Judge at Karimnagar. No costs

¶39

As a sequel, pending Miscellaneous Applications, if aly, shall

¶40

stand closed

¶41

Sd/. K. AMMAJI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

.l . The V Additional District Judge-cum-Motor Accident claims Tribunal at Karimnagar^(with records^{if anY)}

¶46

One CC to SRI. E.^{VENUGOPAL REDDY' Advocate} [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRl. RAMACHANDAR^{RAO VEIVUGANTI,Advocate [OPUC]} 4. Two CD Copies

¶47

¶48

'.x'

¶49

HIGH COURT

¶50

¶51

; II DATED: 2610712023

¶52

JUDGMENT

¶53

gE 5TAT€ 9 >
o
fo nt Ii$ Nl\ r?
t.4,
,+
*

¶54

IMACMA.No.1527 ot 2015

DISMISSING THE MACMA

\ w.c

//:

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA ATHYDERABAD ,

¶59

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶60

PRESENT

¶61

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU

¶62

!ii tI MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISC ELLANEOUS APPEAL^{NO: 1527 OF 2015} I ! I Between: t i The United lndia lnsurance Co. Ltd., Jyothinagar^{Branch, NTPC,Rep. by its} i Branch Manager, Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District.

¶63

...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT No. 2

¶64

AND

¶65

1 Mukum Shanker S/o Odelu, Age: 47^{years, Occ: SCCLEmployee (General} Mazdoor) Rl/o Q.No. ST2|223O, 8-lncline^{Colony,Godavarikhaniproper,} Karimnagar.

¶66

...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER

¶67

Boini Yadagiri S/o. Rajagattu, Aged^{35 years, Occ: Driver and Owner of Auto} bearinQ No. AP 15 W 3118, Rl/o 7-LEP^{Colony, Godavarikani, Karimnagar} District - 505001^.

¶68

...RESPONDENT/RESPONDNET NO.'I

¶69

! I eppeal filed under Section 173 of M.V.Act^{aggrieved by the decreeand} i ijudgment^{daied 23-02-2012 passedin O.P.No. 345 oI 2007 on the file of the V} I lROditional District Judqe-Cum-Motor Accident^{Claims Tribunalat Karimnagar} l- I I

¶70

IOROER:^{This appeal coming on for hearingand upon perusingthe groundsof} : appeal, the^judgment and Decree of the^{LoweCourt and the material papersin} the case and upon hearing'the arguments of^{SRI E. VENU GOPALREDDY'} .Advocate^{for the Appellantand, SRl.RAMACHANDAR RAO VEMUGANTI,} Advocate for Respondents

¶71

This Court doth Order and Decree as^follows:

¶72

1 . That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous^{Appeal be and hereby is} dismissed;

¶73

(

¶74

That the Award dated 231212012 passed in M.V.O.P.No. 345 of 2007 by the , Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-Cum-V Additional District Judge at Karimnagar; and

¶75

;

¶76

I II

¶77

That there be no order as to costs in this appeal It I

¶78

Sd/. K. AMMAJI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The V Additional District Judge-Cum-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Karimnagar

¶84

Two CD Copies

i Ii I

iHIGH COURT

iIDATED: 2610712023 i I i t tt t i IIr I I i t!' I I

¶91

DECREE

¶92

MACMA.N 0,1527 ot 20',5

¶93

i I I I I I I: i

¶94

DISMISSING THE MACMA

¶95

: a : l

The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mukum Shanker and Ano

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mukum Shanker and Ano

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

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Shaik Raheem

P Rajendra Prasad Vs Alka Deshmukh

R Hari Prasad Vs Avula Pedda Obulesu

Puli Mohan Vs Shaik Moinuddin and Another

Ejaz Patel Vs K.Srinivas

The Tsscpdcl Vs Sherali Lalni