Dismissed

The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt.M.Mangamma and Anr.

Telangana HC6 Mar 2023MACMA/2274/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismisses two appeals filed by an insurance company against Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awards. The Court held that labourers in tractor accidents are entitled to compensation notwithstanding the policy conditions, relying on precedent. Appeals were dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Appeals against Tribal awards granting compensation were dismissed; no order as to costs.

The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt.M.Mangamma and Anr. — Telangana HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

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

¶2

AT HYDERABAD

¶3

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

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{SMT JUSTICELALITHAKANNEGANTI}

¶6

M.A.C.^{M.A.NO: Z'iS7 AND2274OF2008}

¶7

M.A.C.^{M.A.21 97/2008}

¶8

Appeal^{Under Section173 M'V'Act against the Order dated04/03/2008} in O.P.No.^{5g7t2OO2 on the file of the DistrictJudge cum Motor} Accidents^{claims Tribunal at Mahabubnagar'}

¶9

Between:

¶10

INSURANCE^{CO LTD' rep by its Divisional Manager} ^n* '*rlA O/o.Divisional^{Office: RailwayStation Road' Kurnool'} ...APPELLANT/ResPondent^No'2

¶11

AND

¶12

M.BALAIAH i@^{snlVn NAIK} '^{S/o'Punya Coolie R/o'Marlu} Thanda,^Mahabubnagar -l

¶13

-l

¶14

Z. M.tvtangamnia,^{Wo'Balaiah @ Balya NaikCoolie R:/o'Marlu} Thanda,^{Mahabubnagar'}

¶15

.....ResPondents/Petitioners

¶16

J.Kamalakar^{Rao,S/o'J'GopalRao' Major Oyvnerof Tractor&} TrolleyNo.AP23D374&375R/o.BurgupalliVillage,Siddiepet Mandal,^{MedakDistrict'}

¶17

...RESPONDENT/ResPondent

¶18

M.A.C.M.A. 2274tZtto 8

¶19

Appeal Under S;er tirtn^'1 73 N4.V.Act against the Order dateC O4l03/200g in O.P.No. sg\lit)02 on the file of the Distr-ict Jr,lge cum A/otor Accidents claims riltunal at firlahabubnagar.

¶20

Between:

¶21

UNITED INDIA l[TSJRANCE CO LfD, rep by ts Divi siorral l\rlanager Oio.Divisional Orfir e: Railway Station Road, Kurnool.

¶22

...APPELLANT/F e spondent No.2

¶23

AND

¶24

M.Mangamm r, Wo.Balaiah @ Balya Naik Ccolie R,o.lr4arlu Thanda, Mah rbubnagar.

¶25

. ....R'lspor d :nts/petitioner.

¶26

J.Kamalakar l,lao,S/o.J.Gopal Rao, lVajor Orn,ner cf lraotor & Trolley No.AP 23 D 374 & 375 R/o.Burgupalti Vi[a1yer, S ddiepet Mandal, Med; l< District.

¶27

... RESPO NDEI{ir/Respondent

¶28

Counsel for the Ap rerllant :SRl. SRINIVASA RACI VUTLA

¶29

SR\

¶30

Counsel for the Re: ;pondents: CH KOTESWARA RAO

¶31

The Court made the f,cllowing: COMMON JUDGMENT

¶32

I I

¶33

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶34

MA CMA Nos.2't 97 and 2274 of 2008

¶35

COMMON JUDGMENT

¶36

Since both these appeals arise out of the same accident, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

¶37

¶38

MA CMA No.2197 of 2008 is preferred by the appettant. lnsurance Company aggrieved by the award and decree dated 04-03-2008 in O.P.No.597 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Mahabubnagar, wherein the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.1,60,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum for the death of the deceased in the accident that occurred on 15-01 -2002.

¶39

MA CMA No.2274 of 2008 is prefened by the appetlantlnsurance Company aggrieved by the award and decree dated 04-03-2008 in O.P.No.596 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Mahabubnagar, wherein the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.30,0001 with interest at 7.5"/o per annum for the injuries sustained by the ctaimant in the that accident occurred on 15-01-2002.

¶40

Learned Standing Counsel for the appellanllnsurance Company Mr. V Srinivasa Rao submits that as it is an Act policy, the labourers are not covered as per the policy conditions, as such the Tribunal ought

¶41

not to have fastened the liability on the insurance company.

i(.J

I.lAi)Nl/^{r,), )'(l ',,r)2;: ol 20Ca}

¶46

The I orrourable^{r\pex Coutl in ShriRarn Ger etallnsurance} Company t.^{rnitedvs. Smt'Khomin Bai and Olhersl'arhe'reintt was} held that thr-. labourers^{in a tractor and trailer or the c\ir€rr of the goods} are entitled^rlr compensation^{evenif the policy rs ltr;t p rlicl', it covers} the labourer^r rlso.^{ln the light of the same, bolh lh") allpeals are} dismissed. lr^rt trder as^{to costs}

¶47

6 l/ iscr.. a reous^{pelitions, if anypending irl thes'; lppeals,shall}

¶48

stand ciisnris^,,e I

¶49

::id/'N. SRIHARI ASSIST,\h,IT^REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

r,' t1

St:(:TI')N OFFIQER

To,

The Distric^{Judgel Cum lt/otor Accidetttscatms} Tribunal at Mahabubna lerr^{(with records if any)}

¶55

One CC to^{ltll. SRINIVASA RAO VUTLAAdvocette} oPUCI

¶56

One CC^{to liF:|. CH KOTESWARA RAO Aclvocrae [OPUC]}

¶57

Two CD^{Co lies}

¶58

TL ?

kam

'^{2ozt nt;-t 't84.}

HIGH^COURT

DATED:06/031202 'l

COMMON JUDGVIEN T'
i
I
MACMA.No.219: l\ND 2274 of 200 8
I
I

¶66

;rE S 14; ('
4i
(v
Ct
L) 1ll JUL 2m c)
\,
.'l Pri i

¶67

DISMISING^{M'A C'M'As} WITHOUT^COS"S @c'gi8 &'o al\6^la3

¶68

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶69

AT HYDERABAD

¶70

MONDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF IVARCH

¶71

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶72

PRESENT

¶73

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTT

¶74

; I M.A.C.M .Al NO:2197 AND2274 oF 2008 iI

¶75

M.A.C.M.A. 2197t2008 t , t t Between: , I

¶76

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD, rep by its Divisional Manager O/o.Divisional Office: Raillvay Station Road, Kurnool.

¶77

¶78

..AppELLANT/Respondent No.2

¶79

AND

¶80

I I

¶81

M.BALAIAH @'BALYA NAIK, S/o.Punya Cootie R/o.Martu Thanda, Mahabubnagar.

¶82

¶83

M.Mangamma, Wo.Balaiah @ Balya Naik Coolie Rl/o.Marlu ,t Thanda, Mahabubnagar.

¶84

IJ :t .....Respondents/petitioners. I il 3. J.Kamalakar Rad,S/o.J.Gopal Rao, Major Owner of Tractor & Trolley No.AP 23 D 374 & 375 R/o.Burgupalli Village, Siddiepet Mandal,- Medak District.

¶85

...RESPONDENT/Respondent

¶86

Appeal Under Section 173 M.V.Act against the Order dated 04/03/2008 in O.P.No. 59712002 on the file of the District Judge cum Motor Accidents claims Tribunal at Mahabubnagar.

¶87

M.A.C.M.A. 227411!CO8

¶88

Between:

¶89

UNITED INDIA I\ SURANCE CO LTD, rep by its t) visionat lVtanager O/o.Divisional Offr re: Railway Station Road, Kurntol.

¶90

...APPELLT\NT/[lt: sp cndent No.2

¶91

AND

¶92

¶93

1. l\4.[Vlangar trna, Wo.Balaiah @ Balya Naik Coolir: R/o.N/arlu Thanda. lr ahabubnagar.

¶94

..... F esp,o rr.lents/petitioner.

¶95

J.Kamalal rrr Rao,S/o.J.Gopal Rao, tVla.jor Owne of Tractor& Trolley No AP 23 D 374 &375 Rl/o.Burgupaili Village. Siddiepet I

¶96

t/andal, I\4 ::clak District. t.

¶97

..RESPoNDE NT/Flespondent I Appeal Under Secl o,-r 173 tM,V.Act against the O.der <le ted O4lO3lZOOg in O.P.No. 596t21')'.?. ori I the file of the Distri,:t Jud:;e cum N/otor Accidents claims Tr blnaliat Mahabubnagar.

¶98

These appeal corni :g on for hearing and upon perusinr; lhe grounds of appeal, the Judg:rr,nl and Decree of the Lower C)ourl a.rd rhe material papers in the r:a;e and upon hearing the zrrgurrerrts of Sri V. SRINIVASA RAO l\dvocate for the Appellanl ir r(: cf SRI CH KOTESWARA RAO ,t\dvocate for the Respondentr; anc :his Court doth COMMON Judgmer t;rnd COMIVON DECREE as frltowr;:

¶99

1. That the apce als are be and hereby is disntisserJ ty confirming the Order date ) 0410312008 passed by the Trrbuna ,

¶100

That there be no order as to costs in this appeal

¶101

Sd/- N. SRIHARI ASSISTANT REG!STRAR

//TRUE COPYII

i II

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The District Judse Cum Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal at Mahabubnagar. I I

¶107

Two CD Copies

¶108

i I i TL q I $ kam I i I II I

HIGH^COURT

DATED:06/03/2023

ii : I I I t I

COMMON^DECRE::

MACMA.No.2197 '\t'lD

I I I I

2274 ot²⁰⁰⁸

DISMISING^{M.A ( '$ll'As} WITHOUT^COST!i

¶117

@oi'8 &rO ,<sup>6\ai

The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt.M.Mangamma and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt.M.Mangamma and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T. Muthyalu, Hyderabad Vs the Apsrtc, Rep by Its MD and Anr, Hyderabad

Muthyam Pravitha Vs M/s. Ennar Gas Service

The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and Anot Vs T. Muthyalu

United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Secunderabad. Vs Sri Bagamathi Carriers, Nandyal and 6 Others

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Secunderabad. Vs G. Sathyawwa , Satyamma and Another

United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Rachuri Pentaiah and 4 Otehrs