Dismissed

M/S.United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sri Ravula Laxmaiah and Anr.

Telangana HC6 Nov 2023MACMA/1562/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This motor accident civil miscellaneous appeal challenges the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's award of Rs. 1.56 lakh. The High Court held the appeal was liable to be dismissed as the Tribunal's findings on liability and quantum were well-reasoned and based on examined evidence.

What did the court decide?

The Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was dismissed confirming the award and decree of the Lower Court.

M/S.United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sri Ravula… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁰⁰ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

MONDAY THE SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

¶6

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1562 OF 2007

¶7

Appeal Under Section'|73 of Motor Vehicles Act against the Order and Decree made in M.V.O.P.No. 265 ot 2005, dated on the file of the Court of the Chairman Motor

¶8

Accident Claims Tribunal -cum- VAdditional District Judge, Nalagonda at Miryalaguda.

¶9

Between:

¶10

M/s. United lndia lnsurance Co., Ltd, rep by its Branch Manager Olo.2lA, Vengalarao Nagar, Hyderabad.

¶11

...PETITIONER/APPELLANT

¶12

AND

¶13

Sri Ravula Laxmaiah, S/o.Sri Maliaiah, Occ: Govt Servant, R/o.Haliya Village, AnumulaMandal,NalgondaDistrict. ...RESPONDENT/PETITIONERS

¶14

Sri Khaja Faheemuddin, S/o.Badruddin, Aged Major, Occ: Business R/o.H.No.1 9- 1-358, Kishan Bagh, Hyderabad.

¶15

...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT No.¹

¶16

(R2-Dismissed for default vide Court Order dated 08.07.2016)

¶17

Counsel for the Appellant : SRl. K. S. N. MURTHY

¶18

Counsel for the Respondents :SRl K. RAJITHA

¶19

The Court made the following:

¶20

¶21

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAI(A

¶22

M.A.C.M.A.No.1562 OF 2OO7

¶23

JUDGMENT:

¶24

This appeal is hled under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act by the respondent No.2/M/s. United India Insurance Company Limited, aggrieved by the award and decree, dated 04.04.2007 passed in O.P.No.265 of 2005 on the frle of tlle Motor Accident Claim Tribulal-cum- V Additional District Judge, Nalgonda at Miryalguda (for short "the Tribunal").

¶25

For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.

¶26

Brief facts of the case are that the on 24.11.2004 at about O4:00 PM, the petitioner was going toward s A.P.S.R.T.C bus depot at Nalgonda and when he about to cross the road in front of the said bus depot, a car bearing No.AEX 0606 came from Government Hospital side in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the petitioner from his behind, as a result the petitioner sustained fracture of left side neck of the femur and grievous injuries all over the body. Immediately, aJter the accident the petitioner was shifted to the

¶27

¶28

NBK. J MACMA 1562 2007

¶29

Government Headquarters hospital, Nalgonda for treatment and he was treated as in-patient in the said^hospitalfrom 24.11.2OO4 to 13.01.2005. The Police, Nalgonda II Town P.s. had registered a case it Cr.No.227 of 2OO4 under Secti,on 337 of IPC against the driver of the car of the respondent No.1. Prior to the accident the petitioner was hale and healthy and he was earning Rs.6,OOO/- per month on salary. On account of the accident, the petitioner sustained^grievous injuries and he has became partially disabled. The^{petitioner was treated} as in-patient in District Headquarters Hospital,^{Nalgonda and} incurred huge amounts. The respondent Nos.l and 2 being the owner and insurer of the crime vehicle/car^{are jointlyand} severally liable to pay a compensation Rs.1,OO,O0O/-.

¶30

Before the Tribunal, the 1"t- respondent remained exparte. The 2"d respondent frled counter and^{denied t}re} manner of accident narrated by the^{petitioner and stated that} tJle respondent No.2/insurer is not liable to^{pay the} compensation and prayed to dismiss^{the petition.}

¶31

Basing on the above^pleadings, the^{Tribunal framedthe} following issues:

¶32

NBK, J MACMA 1562 2007

¶33

¶34

Whether the claimant sustained any injuries due to rash and negligent driving of car bearing No.AEX 0606?

¶35

Whether the claimant is entitled for any compensation from whom?

¶36

To what relieP

¶37

During trial, on behalf of the petitioners, PW- I to PW-3 are examined and marked Ex.A-l to Ex.A-7, Bx.C-l and Ex.C-2. On behalf of the respondents, no oral evidence adduced, except marking of Ex.B- I Copy of Insurance Policy.

¶38

After considering the oral and documenta4r evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the driver of the car/crime vehicle was responsible for the accident and accordingly awarded an amount of Rs. I,56,000/- \Mith interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization with costs. Aggrieved by the said award and decree, the respondent No.2 has frled the present appeal.

¶39

Heard both sides and perused the record.

¶40

The learned counsel for the respondent/appellant strongly contended that the Court below did not explain

¶41

¶42

NAK. J MACMA 1562 2007

¶43

proper reasons how the claimant/injured entitled^for compensation more than^{his claim amounts.}

¶44

A perusal of the impugned award^{would show that the} Tribunal has framed Issue No.^{1 as} to^{whetherthe accident} has occurred due to rash^{and negligent act of driving of the} driver of the car.^{Therefore, I see no reason to interfere with} the frnding of the Tribunal with^{regard to the involvement of} the said crime vehicle f care it the^{alleged accidentand that} the accident occurred due^{to the rash and negligentdriving of} the driver of above said^{crime vehicle/car.}

¶45

Insofar as the^{quantum of compensationis concerned,} the learned standing counsel^{forinsurance company} contended that the^{learned tribunal failed to explainproper} reasons for awarding^{compensation mbre than claimed by the} injured. The learned^{standing counsel forappellant} contended that^{the court failedto observe that the PW-2 who} deposed on the disability^{certificate has not treatedthe} injured but, it is to be^{observed that thoughPW-2 has not} treated t6e injured but,^{he being the Member of tlle District} Medical Board, Nalgonda for^{physicallyhandicapped,is}

¶46

NBK, J ITACMA 1562 2007

¶47

I I

¶48

¶49

competent to depose on the disability certificate arrd moreover his evidence revea-ls that he issued said disabiliq.' certificate upon examining the injured. In this scenario, the learned counsel for the appellant contending that the learned tribunal erred in considering the disability certificate in the absence of examination of treating doctor and granted compensation beyond the claim of the injured, does not hold good. On a perusal of the impugned award it is seen that the learned tribunal had passed a well reasoned order by taking into consideration all the aspects such as occurrence of accident, treatment undergone by the injured, issuance of disability certificate and examination of its author, losses incurred out of the said accident etc. Therefore, Respondents/appellants are liable to pay the compensation as directed. Hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the findings arrived at by the Tribunal and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

¶50

L2. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed, confirming the award and decree d,ated, O4.O4.2O07 passed in O.P.No.265 of 2O05 on the file of the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal-cumV Additional District Judge, Nalgonda at Miryalguda. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶51

¶52

NBK, J MACMA_1562_2007

¶53

Miscellaneous petitions, if any,^{pendingshall stand}

¶54

closed.

¶55

Sd/- K. VENKAIAH ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

t. TheChairman fvlotor Accident Claims Tribunal -cum- VAdditional District Judge, Nalagonda at Miryalaguda

¶61

One CC to SRl. K. S. N. MURTHY, Advocate [OPUC]

¶62

One CC to SRl. K RAJITHA Advocate [OPUC]

¶63

Two CD Copies

¶64

Snj/dl

¶65

¶66

HIGH COURT DATED:06/1112023

¶67

JUDGMENT MACMA.No.1562 of 2OO7

¶68

l ttE $i.q; .i
k
'2
,)
I
1 s 0rr 2n2t
t.-)

¶69

M.A.C.M.A. IS DISMISSED

¶70

0I
n)/4

¶71

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR^{THESTATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶72

MONDAY THE SIXTH^{DAY OF NOVEMBER} TWO THOUSAND AND^{TWENTY THREE}

¶73

PRESENT

¶74

THE HONOURABLE SRI^{JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA}

¶75

MOTOR ACCID^{ENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOU S APPEAL NO:1562OF 2007}

¶76

Between:

¶77

M/s. United lndia^{lnsuranceCo., Ltd, rep} bv rts Branch Manager^{Olo 2lA.} - .--PETITIONER/APPELLANT Vengalarao Nagar, Hyderabad.

¶78

AND

¶79

1 Sri Ravula Laxmaiah, S/o.Sri^{Mallaiah,Occ.Govt Servant'} &o lql'yg^YilLlSq, Anumutatr/landal,NaigondaDistrict.^{.-.RESPONDENT/PETITIONERS}

¶80

2 Sri Khaja Faheemuddin,^{Sio.Badruddin, Aged Major, Occ. Business} R/o.H.No.'19-1-358, Kishan^{Bagh, Hyderabad}

¶81

...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT^{NO. 1}

¶82

(R2-Dismissed for default vide^{Court Orderdated08'07'2016)}

¶83

Appeal Under Section^l T3 of^{Motor VehiclesAct againstthe order and Decree} madeinM.V.O.P.No.265of2005,datedonthefileoftheCourtofthe chairman Motor Accident claims^{Tribunal -cum- V Additional District Judge,} Nalagonda at Miryalaguda.

¶84

oRDER.Thisappealcomingonforhearinganduponperusingthegroundsof appeal, the Judgment and^{Decree of the Lowercourt and the material papersin} the MVOP and upon^{hearingthe arguments of sRl K S. N. IVIURTHY,Advocate for} the Appellant and of SRI^{K. RAJITH,Advocate for the Respondent} That the Doth Order and^{Decreeas Follows:}

¶85

'1 . That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is dismissed confirming the^{award and decreeof the LowerCourt:}

¶86

Ihatthere shall be no Order^{as to costs in this appeal}

¶87

Sd/. K. VENKAIAH ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

TheChairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -cum- VAdditional District Judge, Nalagonda at t\Iiryalaguda

¶92

Two CD Copies

¶93

Sny'dl $-

¶94

HIGH COURT DATED:06/1'l12023

¶95

DECREE MACMA.No.1562^{ot 2007}

¶96

M.A,C.M.A. IS DISMISSED

¶97

M/S.United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sri Ravula Laxmaiah and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sri Ravula Laxmaiah and Anr.

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

Devender Goud, S/o Narsaiah Goud Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

Ishak Khan, Vs The State of Telangana

Merugu Ramesh and Anr. Vs Mohd. Hyder and 3 Ors.

M. Bal Singh Died per Lr Vs Apsrtc, Hyderabad and Another

Rapani Ramulamma Vs Shaik Mahaboob (Age Major)

Jadhav Sitharam Vs The Project officer, Itda Utnoor