Allowed

The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Vemula Pedda Chinnaiah and Anr.

Telangana HC28 Feb 2023MACMA/2222/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Motor Accident Miscellaneous Appeal examined the insurer's liability regarding a driver's invalid licence and the adequacy of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal. The High Court held the insurer liable despite the invalid licence, affirmed the revised compensation amount of Rs. 1,59,000, and allowed the cross objections.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; Cross Objections allowed; Compensation enhanced to Rs. 1,59,000 with interest; Insurance company directed to deposit the amount.

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

[³²³⁰ ]

I I I .I !

I l tl I ,l tl ilI 1

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

¶5

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH^{DAYOF FEBRUARY} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶8

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISC ELLANEOUS APPEAL^{NO:2222OF2007}

¶9

Appeal Under Section 173 of M.V.Act and Memorandum of Cross^Objections under Order XLI Rule 22 of C.P.C against the order and decree in M.V.O.P.NO.⁴¹² of 2005 daled 24.11 2006 on the file of the Court of the Chairman^{lvlotor Accident} Claims Tribunal -cum- V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nalgonda^at fvliryalaguda.

¶10

M.A.C.M.A.NO.2222 OF 2OO7 AND CROSS OBJECTION:

¶11

Between:

¶12

The United lndia lnsurance Co Ltd, IViryalaguda

¶13

rep by. United lndia lnsurance Co. Ltd., D-O-VI, Gunfoundry, Abids, Hyderabad -^{500 001}

¶14

APPELLANT/PETITIONER lN M.A.C.M.A and AppellanURespondent^No.1in Cross Objection

¶15

AND

¶16

Vemula Pedda Chinnaiah, S/o.Chandraiah, aged about^{48 years, Occ:Labour} R/o. Nethapuram Village, Nidamanoor^N/'landal, Naglonda^District.

¶17

RESPONDENT No.1/petitioner in M.A.C.M.A and^{Respondent-1l} Cross Objector in Cross Objection

¶18

K.Venkateswarlu, S/o.lVuthaiah, Aged:Major^{Owner of the Auto No.24 U 8202} R/o.Regulagadda Village, Nidamanoor Mandal,^{Naglonda District.}

¶19

RESPONDENT No.2/Respondent No.1^{in M.A.C.M.Aand Respondent-2} /Respondent-2 in Cross Objection

¶20

United lndia lnsurance Co. Ltd., I\iliryalaguda

¶21

...RESPONDENT-3/RESPONDENT-3 in Cross^Objection

¶22

Counsel for the Appellant in M.A.C.M.A and Respondent No.1 and 3 in Cross Objection :SRl. SOMANCHI VENKATESWARLU

¶23

Counsel for Respondent No.1 in M.A.C.M.A and Cross Objector in Cross Objection: Sri. M. KIRAN REDDY

¶24

Counsel for Respondent No.2 in M.A.C.M.A and Respondent No.2 in Cross Ojection : None Appeared

¶25

The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

¶26

THE I{ONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶27

M.A.C.M.A.No.2222 of 2OO7

¶28

JUDGMENT:

¶29

This appeal is preferred by thc insurancc company questioning their liability in the award passed by tl're Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-V Addl. Distrrct and Scssions Judgc, Nalgonda at Miryalaguda in O.P.No.4l2 ot 2005 on 24.t1.2006.

¶30

The claimant has filed cross objections for c nl'ranc('rr)e n t o[ thc compensation.

¶31

Heard Mr. Somanchi Venkateswarlu, leantcd counscl for the appc lla nt/ insurance company and Mr. M. I(iran llcclclv, lcarnecl cor-rn sel lor the rcspondent/claimant.

¶32

The case of the claimant in the claim pctrtion is that on 05.03.2OO5, while the claimant along with others u,as travclling in ar-r zruto bearing No.AP-24-U-82O2 from thcir ',,ill:rge to go to Min'alaguda, near the outskirts of Tripuraram Villarge, the drivcr ol the allto drove it in a rash and nbgligent manner u'itl'r high spr:ed, as ir rcsult of rr,hich, he lost control over the stccring:urci tltercb,r'thc irllto I r.rrned turtle and all the inmates havc sustaii.rt'cl injurrcs. It is tl'rc c:rse oI the claimant that he has reccivcd fr-:tcttrr-t ril airrglc ol right m..urrliblc, fracturc of surgical neck of right [.rumer-rrs, fl'2611111, 11f f,tt

¶33

LK, J MACMA 2222 2007

¶34

¶35

and 3rd right met2rcarpal altd lrrr.r'r'ltted u,ound ovcr the rigl-rt hand on dorsal aspect i.e. tlrrec fracturcs irncl or.rc sirnple ir-rj ury..

¶36

Learned counscl lor thc r.larintant sr-rbntits that when it is the case of the claimant tl-rat I.rc \'its ('rr-nlltg :tn irnloLlnt of Rs.3,O00/- per month, the court belou, u,itltou r r onsiclcr.ing the same has taken the income as Rs.1,500/- pcr monrlr.

¶37

Learned counscl appr,ruinq fcrr thc insurance company submits that lhr: driver r.rl- llrr' ;rrrto \.rs not I.ravir-rg vzrlid driving licence and in sltch a cas(.. Lht rrrsur:rltr.t' cornl)zutY is trot liable to pay the compensation and it is stiltcd thtlt thc rcspondeut No.2 is owner-cum-driver of the vc'lt ir: [c.

¶38

7 - Coming 1o thc :rp1tc:rL ol llrt' insrrrarlcc ('()mpany, u,here they are questioning the liabilitr'. ,lrc clucstiort u ht'thcr the insurance company is liabkr to pay tl)e r onrlrensa(ion u,hcn thc driver is not having valid licence is no nlorl rcs intcgrlr as tht' Hon,ble Apex Corut in National Insurd.nce Cornpang Limited u. Suoran Singh and. otherSr held that the Instrri tr.(' corrl]).ll)' rs tiablc to pay the compensation, hou,ctcr, tlrcv clrn r.('(.o.cr lrrrn lhc ouncr [{ence, as far as the insurancc collll)ilnv lil)l)(,itl is r.orrcer 6ccl, Lhe1, 1.2111 pay and rccover from the or,r,rrer ol Llr,-' r,. r,.1,'.

¶39

'^{(2004) 3} scc 297

¶40

LK, J MACMA 2222 2(J07

¶41

¶42

Then, coming to the enhancemcnt of the compensation, it is the case of the claimant that he was vvorking as a labourer and earning an amount of Rs.3,0O0/- per month. Horvever, there was no material placed on record to shou,that lte rr.as earning an amount of Rs.3,00O/- per month. Hou,ever, in the light o[ thc law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Ramachandrappa Vs. Mandge4 Rogal Sundaram Alliance2, u,herein, Rs.4,5O0/- is taken as income without any evidence, this cor.rrt is ir-rclinccl to consider the monthly income of the claimant at Rs.3,000/

¶43

There is no disputc that thc clirirnant has sustained three fractures and one simplc injun., for- ivhich, he is entitled for Rs.1,2O,OOO/- (Rs.aO,00OX3) and Rs.5,O00/ respccrively.

¶44

For medical bills, thc court ltt.lou hits already granted an amount of Rs.7,O0O/-, for rr'l-rich, this courr is not inclined to interfere.

¶45

Admittedly, the claimant lost his carnings for a period of two months due to treatmcnt an<l hrrthcr rcco/cr. becausc of the injuries sustained by him. Ilence, undcr thc heir<l of loss ol' earnings, the claimant is entitlcd Rs.6,OOUi (Rs.3,O0OX2).

¶46

Under the othet-ltcircls, the coltrl lx,lori, has grzrnted meager amounts. Becaust: ol thc lractrrrcs that zrrc srrffcrecl l;r. the claimant, 2 lzot r1 ta scc 236

¶47

LK. J MACMA-22 22 2007

¶48

¶49

tl.ris r:ourt is ol-the l,ieu llrl iln amount of Rs.20,OO0/-^u'ouldbe sufficicnt anrollr)t lor tlrr' prrrn and suffcring undcrgone by^her. Further, nrrdcl thc lrcircls ol rrtLendant benefits, transport,^extra nourishmcrtt r.rn.1 lcg:rl L'xl)( ns( s. this court is inclined to^grantan amount of tts. I t),Ol)O/ Lut<llt t rtt:lt counL.

¶50

In thc lieht of thc rtl-xr c discussiot-t, the claimant^{is entitled} for thc follou'ing⁽ orrJrcnsilIr,,tt^{tItr(lerdifferent heads:}

¶51

Head Co	mPensationawarded
(1)3frirc(tu t's rtncl1srnrplcittjut-v	Rs.1,25,O00
(21Mcdi<:rlcxpcnscs	Rs.7,000
(3)Lossoltat-uingslirti'.'.omonths	Rs.6,000
(4)Attcrrrlrritl)cr('lris	Rs.10,000
(5)Pairtirrtrlsul'lcr-ing	Rs.2O,00O
(6)Lxlritr'rr)Lrrishln(nI	Rs.10,000
17)^{Triursl)()rtch:trgt's}	Rs.10,00O
(8)Legaicxpe'nscs	Rs.10,000
Totalcompensationawarded	Rs.1,98,OOO/-

¶52

Il] th( r( sult, tll(' i,ll)t(,r' Aci:ident Miscellaneous Appeal of thc irrsLlrancr,'^('()rnl).urv is rlr.-rrr..'ri rl and the cross objections ol tl'rc cl:rinr:rnt il|c itll,,\('(1 Lnlr,rr, l!r:t thc cornpcnsation amount au,ardcd bY tlrc Courl lri lo\ [rOnr lls ., ] .,)()0/ 1o lis.1,59,O00/- as hereunder:

¶53

LK, ] yrAc''{A_2222_2007

¶54

¶55

I t! t, li llii i l ll I !lil il .i

¶56

(a) TIrc e nhanced amount shall carry intere st at 7.5%o p.a. from thc dzrte of pctition till the date of realization.

¶57

(b) The claimant shall pay the court fee on the enhanccd amoul.rt of compcn sation

¶58

(c) Tht: rcspondent/ insurance company shall deposit the amount rvilhin a pcriod of (8) weeks from the date of receipt of copl,, o[ judgmcnt. On such deposit, claimant is permitted to rr'iIlrrlrunv entire:rmount without furnishing the security.

¶59

Pcnclinq nriscellancous petitions, if any, shall stand closed

¶60

Sd/- N. CHANDRA SEKHAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

To,

SECTION OFFICER

1' The chairman, Motor Accident craims Tribunar -cum-V Additionar District and Sessions Judge. Nalgond, ,t fflll.VafaiuO

¶65

One CC to SRt. SOMANCHT VENKATESWARLU, Advocate tOpUCl

¶66

One CC to SRt. tV KTRAN REDDY, Advocate tOpUCI

¶67

Two CD Copies

pr karr.r

Pnq,

HIGH COURT

DATED:28 t02t2023

JUDGMENT

'.1.
,,'\S
\1 i '

MACMA.N o.2222 of 2007

¶75

DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND ALLOWING THE CROSS OBJECTION

¶76

rv\ Lr' 6 \r: )e

¶77

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶78

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶79

PRESENT

¶80

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶81

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO:.2222OF 2007

¶82

M.A.C.M.A.NO.2222 OF 2007 ANp CROSS OBIECTION:

¶83

Between:

¶84

The United lndia lnsurance Co Ltd, tViryalaguda

¶85

rep by: United lndia lnsurance Co. Ltd., D.O-VI, Gunfoundry, Abids, Hyderabad -⁵⁰⁰⁰⁰¹

¶86

APPELLANT/PETITIONER lN M.A.C.M.A and AppellanURespondent No.1 in Cross Objection

¶87

AND

¶88

1 Vemula Pedda Chinnaiah, S/o_Chandraiah, aged about 48 years, Occ:Labour R/o.Nethapuram Village, Nidamanoor Mandal, Naglonda District.

¶89

RESPONDENT No.1/petitioner in M.A.C.M.A and Respondent -1l Cross Objector in Cross Objection

¶90

K.Venkateswarlu, S/o.Muthaiah, Aged:Major Owner of the Auto No.24 U 8202 R/o.Regulagadda Village, Nidamanoor Mandal, Naglonda District.

¶91

RESPONDENT No.2/Respondent No.1 in M.A.C.M.A and Respondent2 /Respondent-2 in Cross Objection

¶92

United lndia lnsurance Co. Ltd., tr/iryalaguda

¶93

...RESPONDENT-3/RESPONDENT-3 in Cross Objection

¶94

Appeal Under Section 173 of l,i'i.V.Act and li/emorandum of Cross Objections under Order XLI Rule 22 of C.P.C against the order and decree in M.V.O.P.NO. 412 of 2005 dated 24.1 1 .2006 on the file of the Court of the Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -cum- V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nalgonda at lvliryalaguda.

¶95

ORDER. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the case and upon hearing the arguments of SRl. SOMANCHI VENKATESWARLU

¶96

for the Appellant in M.A.C.l,4.A and Respondent No.1 and 3 in Cross Objection and of Sri. t,4 KIRAN REDDY, Advocate for the Respondent No.1 in M A.C.lvl.A and cross objector in cross objection and None Appeared for the Respondent No.2 in lV.A.C.N/ A and Respondent No.2 in Cross Objection

¶97

This Court Doth Order and Decree as follows:

¶98

1 That this Appeal be and hereby is dismissed;

¶99

2 That the Cross Objections of the Claimant be and hereby is allowed enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the court below from Rs 51,000/- to Rs 1,59,0001;

¶100