Partly allowed

Smt. Goda Rajamani , Rajamma v. P.Ravinder and Another

Telangana HC21 Jul 2023MACMA/1652/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal in part against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award. It held the insurance company liable as the driver held a valid light motorcycle license and modified the award to include the insurance respondent alongside the vehicle owner with costs and interest.

What did the court decide?

Respondents made jointly liable to pay compensation awarded by the Tribunal, with costs and 7.5% interest from the date of the petition.

Smt. Goda Rajamani , Rajamma Vs P.Ravinder and Another — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32s8 ]

¶2

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

¶3

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY^{FIRSTOAYOF JULY} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW^THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICESAMBASIVARAONAIDU}

¶6

MOTOR ACCIDENT^{CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1652 OF 2012}

¶7

Aooeal filed Under Section 173 of^{MotorVehicles Act against the Awardand} Oecree'ifi O.p.No 463 of^{2OO7 dated.28-11-2011 on the file of the Courtof the Motor} A".iJ"nt Ctaims Tribunat-cum-^{lV Additional District Judge, Ranga ReddyDistrict} (Fast Track Court).

¶8

Between:

¶9

smt Goda raiamani @ Raiamma, Wo.^{llaiah, Occ Worker in lClClknowledge} pJri. nio H^(o 2-11lTur(apally village,^{ShamirpetMandal, R.R District}

¶10

...AppellanUPetitioner

¶11

AND

¶12

1, P.Ravinder S/o.Narsa^{Reddy, aged Major, Occ Business,Ryo. 16-2-5lA'} Saifabad, Hyderabad

¶13

M/s New^{lndta Assurance Company Limited, rep by its Branch Manager, Opp} Santa Plagia Building,^{I Floor, Opp KhalapMansion' Vasco- IJa -gama' uoa}

¶14

..'ResPondents/ResPondents

¶15

Counsel for the Appellant:^{SRl. P DURGA PRASAD}

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent^{No.2 : SRl. P SATYA MANJULA}

¶17

The Court delivered the^{following:JUDGMENT}

¶18

(

¶19

HON'BI,E SRI^{JUSTICE SAMBASTVARAO NAIDU} M A.C.M.A. No.1652^{OF 2Ol2}

¶20

WDGMENT:

¶21

Being aggrieved by^{the award passedby Motor Accidents} Claims Tribunal-Cum-lV^{AdditionalDistrictJudge, Ranga} Reddy District in O.P.^{No.463of 2OO7, dated 28'11'2oll'} wherein the Tribunal^{passed an award grantinga sum of} Rs.24,O00/ - together^{with interest} @,^{7 -5o/o per annum and} frxing the tiability^{againstthe owner of the vehicle which} involved in the accident,^{the appellant herein lrled this petition} under Section 173^{of the Motor VehiclesAct, 1988 (hereinafter} referred as 'the Act').

¶22

As could be seen from^{the impugnedorder and as per the} grounds urged by the appellant,^{itseems that the appellant} herein filed O.P. No.463^{of 2OO7before the abovesaid Tribunal} under Section 166 of^{the Act and soughtfor compensation of} Rs. 1,00,OO0/- on^{accounlof injuries causccl to her in a motor} vehicle accident that took^{place on 07 11.2OO5.The appellant} has claimed that on the^{above saicl date while she was} proceeding to her house on a^{water tanker on which she was} working, there was an accident^{rn'hcn the driver of one D.C.M.} Val bearing No.A.P.^{I i.V. 1254 rvhich camein opposite direction,}

¶23

¶24

MACMA No.1652^{oJ 2012}

¶25

dashed the^water tanker.^{The appellant, who sufferedgrievous} injuries in the accident,^{filed the saidpetitionagainst the owner} of the vehicle and^{also Insurance Company from which an} insurance^{policy was obtained by its owner'The Tribunal} having recorded^{the evidenceof both partiesand considering} the oral and^{documentary evidenceallowedthe petition in part} and granted^{a sum of Rs 24,OOO/- towards compensationunder} various heads and^{fixed liabilityagainst the owner of the vehicle} only and dismissed^{the pctitionagainstthe 2"d respondent/} Insurance ComPanY.

¶26

The appellant^{has filed this petitioncontendingthat the} order of the^{Tribunalis opposed to the very spirit and object of} the provisions^{of thc Act.The Tribunal committed a grave error} by not taking^{into consideration the oral anddocumentary} evidencc and^{au'ardcdmcager amountof compensation'She} has also^{claimed that the Tribunal committedan error by} dismissing thc^{petition againstthe 2nd respondent without} assigning^{any valid and convincingreasons'She has disputed} the rate of^{interestau arcledby the Tribunal and sought for set} aside the^{an'ardand alsosoughtfor enhancementofthe} compensation^{and to makethe other respondentsliable to pay} the comPensatioll^{amounl '}

¶27

¶28

MACMA No.7652 ol2012

¶29

4. . Heard both parties.

¶30

5. Now the following point arose for consideration

¶31

"Whether the claim of appellant for enhancement^{of the} compensation can k considered on the badis^{of oral} and documentary evidence adduced before^the Tribunal and whether the 2"d respondent/ [nsurance Company can be made liable to pay the compensation as sought for"?

¶32

PIOINT

¶33

As could be seen from the amount awarded, it is^very clear that soon after the above referred accident, a^complaint was lodged with the police, who concluded the investigation^and filed charge sheet against the driver of the D.C.M. Van.^The appellant who was examined as P.W. 1, exhibited certified copies of FIR, charge sheet, scene o[ offence panchanama, medical report and bills in support of her claim. The 2"d respondent i.e. Insurance Company has examined R.W.1 and marked copy of insurance police as Ex.B.1, the driving licensc of ctrivcr of DCM Varr as Ex.B.2. There is no dispute about thc accident and the involvement of the D.C.M. van in the accident. Hos'ever, the 2nd respondent has claimed that the vehiclc is a goods vehicle and the driver, who was on wheel at the timc of accident had no driving license to drive such a transport vchicle . In support of said claim, reliance was placed on Exs.B. I ancl lix. B.2. The

¶34

¶35

MACMA No-^{1 652 of2O 12}

¶36

other contention^{on which the presentpetitionliled is with} regard to less^{amountof compensation awardedby Tribunal} below. In the^{aboveimpugned order,it was observed that the} appellant is entitled^{to a sum of Rs.2,OOO/- towards transport} expenditure, a^{sum ofRs.S,OOO/- was awarded towards} medicines and^{extra-nourishmentand a sumof Rs'5,000/-was} also awarded^{under the headof pain and suffering apart from a} sum of Rs.^{l2,OOO/- towardsloss o[ earnings'}

¶37

The Tribunal^{observedthat inthe saidaccident the} appellant^{mighthave usedsome transportfacility for which she} could have^{spent Rs.2,OOO/-since there is sufficient proof to} believe that the^{appellantspent some more amounts for} medicines. Taking^{into considcrationof the injuries' the Court} below rightly^{awarded anamount ofRs'5,00O/-towards} medicines and^{nourishmentrn zrddition to the above another} amount of Rs.S,OOO/^{was au'ardecl undcr the head of pain and} suffering. The^{appellantdicl not produce any proof of her} employment or^{salary. Accorditrg to hcr oral evidence' she was a} coolie and^{gettinga sum of Rs S'UOO/-per month and at the} time of her evidence^{shc has ad Inittcd beforethe Court below} that she was^{getting a sum o[ Rs 2,OOO/- per month as w€ges} from the employcr-^{ln fact,no such cmployerwas examined'In}

¶38

¶39

I|IACMA No.1652 oJ 2OI2

¶40

¶41

¶42

spite of this, the Court below considered the^request of^the appellant and granted a sum of Rs.12,O0O/- as^loss of earnings for four months @ Rs.3,O00/- per month. In fact the appellant herself admitted before the Court that she was receiving Rs.2,O00/- per month and there was no suflicient proof that she suffered for four months and she has not attended to her duties. However, the Court below did not grant any sum towards the grievous injuries. Taking into the above stated circumstances into consideration a substantial amount of Rs. 12,0OO/ - was awarded which in the opinion of this Court is sulficient to be treated as it is for the injuries and also towards the loss of earnings. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly awarded zrn amount of Rs.24,OO0/- and the appellant could not be placcd any other material for enhancement of the said amount.

¶43

.^{The next aspect that was raisedby the zrppcllzrnt in the} present appeal is about the liability of the 2ud respondent. The petition against the 2"d respondent was dismissecl by the Tribunal below on the ground that the driver of thc vchicle u,as not having license to drive transport vehicle, cann()t bc errgaged to drive D.C.M. Van thereby the Court belor,v exoncratcd the Insurance Company from its liability. In [act, it is sertled position of law that when there is no dispute that thc driver of ir

¶44

¶45

MACI A No.16S2 o! 2012

I I I I i

\ I I I I II

! i I

vehicle is having a license to drive the light motor vehicle he can drive a transport vehicle. As per the evidence placed by the appellant, the vehicle involved in the accident is not a heavy motorrycle, it is only a D.C.M. Van and the respondent did not produce any evidence to show that the same was used for transport purpose. However, since the driver was having a varid license to drive light motorcycle he can be permitted to drivg the DCM Van and on that the 2nd respondent/ Insurance Company cannot escape its liabiliry. But rhe Court below on a wrong presumption dismissed the petition against the 2nd respondent, thereby the award can be set asidc to that extent and the 2nd respondent can be made to pay the compcnsation hxed by the Tribunal below.

¶50

In tie result, the appeal is allou,cd in part with the above modification. Both the responden ts arc lrable to pay the compensation awarded by the Tribunal n,ith costs and interest at the rate of 7.5o/o per annum from the datc of pctition.

¶51

As a sequel, pending Misccll:ut:ous Applications, if any, shall stand cl

¶52

SD/- MOHD.^ISMAIL, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR.

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION FFICER

To,

1 TheMotorAccidentClaimsTribunal.cum.lVAdditionaIDlstrictJudge,Ranga Reddy District^{(Fast Track Court) (with records,rf any)} .

¶57

2 One CC to SRl.^{P DURGA PRASAD, Advocate [OPUC]} 3 One CC to SRl.^{P SATYAMANJULA Advocate [OPUC]} 4 Two CD Copies

ADK

i{ I I I I

HIGH COURT

DATED:2l tO7tZO23

JUDGMENT

MACMA.No.1652 of 2012

¶65

-.--.-: --:_ ---
,1.. -..1-. -',.1: '..-.
.a"
-_ i<br>2
i trB 2[A ;;
)], 'l
'' '/
,:, ,/,
' -'- a-r.Y': ..'

¶66

PARTLY ALLOWING THE MAMCA

¶67

¶68

II I I l I

¶69

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶70

FRIDAY, THE TWENW FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW THREE

¶71

PRESENT

¶72

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU

¶73

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1652 OF 2012

¶74

Between:

¶75

Smt. Goda rajamani @ Rajamma, Wo. llaiah, Occ Worker in lClCl knowledge park, R/o. H.No. 2-1 1, Turkapally village, Shamirpet Mandal, R.R.District

¶76

...AppellanUPetitioner

¶77

AND

¶78

1 P.Ravinder S/o.Narsa Reddy, aged Major, Occ Business, R/o. 16-2-5/4, Saifabad, Hyderabad

¶79

M/s. New lndia Assurance Company Limited, rep by its Branch Manager,^Opp Santa Plagia Building, I Floor, Opp Khalap Mansion, Vasc! - Da^-gama, Goa

¶80

...Respondents/Respondents

¶81

Appeal filed Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the^{Award and} decree in O.P.No.463 of 2007 dated.28-11-2011on the file of the Court of the^Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- lV Additional District Judge,^{Ranga Reddy District} (Fast Track Court)

¶82

ORDER: This appeal coming on^{for hearing and upon perusing} the^groundsof appeal, the Judgment and Decree^{of the Lower Court and} the^{material papersin the} Case and upon hearing the arguments of SRl.^{P DURGA PRASAD, Advocate for the} Appellant and of SRl. P SATYA MANJULA,^{Advocate for} the^{Respondent No.2 and} none appeared for the respondent no¹

¶83

This Court doth Order and Decree as follows :

¶84

1 That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is allowed in part

¶85

2 That the respondents are liable to pay the Compensation awarded by the Tribunal with costs and interests at the rate of 7.Sok per annum from the date of petition

¶86

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

¶87

SD/- MOHD. ISMAIL. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR:

//TRUE COPY//

To,

SECTION OFFICER

1 d The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- lV Ad itional District Judge, Ranga Reddy Dishict (Fast Track Court) (with records, if any)

¶92

2 Two CD Gopi e

ADK

HIGH COURT

DATED:21 10712023

DECREE

MACMA.No.1652 of 2012

¶98

PARTLY ALLOWING THE MAMCA

¶99

Smt. Goda Rajamani , Rajamma v. P.Ravinder and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Goda Rajamani , Rajamma v. P.Ravinder 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

The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Vs Annarapu Venkata Ramana and 4 Others

The Depot Mgr, Tsrtc, Nizamabad Dist and Anr. Vs Vadde Chennamma, Nizamabad Dist and 5 Others

The New India Assurance Company Limited, Hyderabad. Vs Neeradi Lalitha and Another

Panganti Laxmi Narasimha Vs Kalakonda Srinivasulu

The New India Assurance Company Limited, Kurnool. Vs Kavali Ramulu and 2 Others

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Hyd. Vs Bayamolola Sibash, Nizamabad and Ano