Partly allowed

United India Insurance Company Limited v. Tangutoori Narender and Anr.

Telangana HC1 Mar 2023MACMA/2305/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the insurance company's appeal regarding liability for an unlicensed driver but allowed the claimant's cross objections. The court enhanced the compensation to Rs. 2,06,000 based on the claimant's insured income and injuries, following precedents on vicarious liability.

What did the court decide?

The Motor Accident Claims Appeal was dismissed; the claimant's cross objections were allowed, enhancing compensation to Rs. 2,06,000 with 7.5% interest.

United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Tangutoori… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³²³⁰ I

¶2

IN THE HIGH GOURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶6

M.AC.M.A NO: 2305 OF 2007 AND

¶7

cRos$ QBJECTTIOUISR) NO. 11147 OF 2007

¶8

Appeal Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act and Memorandum of Cross Objections under Order XLI Rule 22 of C.P.CN against the order and decree in O.P. NO. 409 OF 2005 Dated: 24-11-2O06 on the file of the Court of the Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-Cum-V Additional District Judge, Nalgonda.

¶9

M.AC.M.A NO. 2305 0F 2007

¶10

Between:

¶11

United India lnsurance Company Limited, Miryalaguda

¶12

Rep. by: United lndia lnsuranc,e Company Limited Divisional Office Vl, Gunfoundry, Abids, Hyderabad-500 001 .

¶13

...APPELLANT/PETITIONER

¶14

AND

¶15

Tangutoori Narender, S/o. Veeraiah, Aged about Tailor Fl/o. Miryalaguda Town Naglonda District

¶16

...RESPONDENT No./PETITIONER

¶17

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

¶18

...RESPONOENT No.2RESPONDENT No.1

¶19

CROSS OBJECTION( R) NO. 11147 0F 2007 Between:

¶20

Tangutoori Narender, S/o. Veeraiah, Aged about Tailor Fi/o. Miryalaguda Town Naglonda District

¶21

...RESPONDENT -1ICROSS OBJECTOR.

¶22

AND

¶23

United lndra lnsurance Company_Limited, Miryalaguda Rep_ by: United lndia tnsurance Comoany Limited bivisionat oifice" vr cjnroirnJiv:- il;;, Hyderabad-500 001.

¶24

...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT 1

¶25

K. Verrkateswarlu, S/o.Muthaiah, tvlajor Owner of the Auto No.24lJ g2O2 Rt/o. Regulagadda Vi age of Nidamahoor Mandal, Naglonaa OLtr[t--'-

¶26

...RESPONDENT.2/RESPONDENT.2

¶27

Counsel for the Appellant: SRt. SOMANCHI VENKATESWARLU

¶28

AND RESPONDENT NO.1 IN CROSS OBJECTIONS

¶29

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 in MACMA: SRl. M. KIRAN REDDY

¶30

AND CROSS OBJECTION IN CROSS OBJECTIONS

¶31

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 lN MACMA: NONE APPEARED CROSS OBJECTION

¶32

The Court Delivered the following: COMMON JUDGMENT

¶33

HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITTIA KANNEGANTI

¶34

M-A.C.M.A No.2305 of 2007 & CROSS OBJECTION^(SR)No.11147 of 2007

¶35

COMMON JUDGMENT:

¶36

This appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company questioning their liability in the award passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-V Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Nalgonda at Miryalaguda in O.P.No.409 of 2005 on24.11.2006.

¶37

The claimant has filed cross objections for enhancement of the compensation.

¶38

Heard Mr. Somanchi Venkateswarlu, leamed counsel fot' the appellant/insurance company and Mr. M. Kiran Reddy, leamed counsel for the respondent/claimant.

¶39

The case of the claimant in the claim petition is that on 05.03.2005, while the claimant along with othels was havelling in an auto bearing No.Ap24-U-8202 &om their village to go to Miryalaguda, near the outskirts of Tripuraram Village, the driver of the auto drove it in a rash and negligent manner with high speed, as a result of which, he lost control over the steering and thereby the auto tumed rurtle and all the inmates have sustained injuries. It

¶40

¶41

is the case of the claimant that^{hc has received fiactureof lelt tibiaand fibula,}

¶42

lracture of neck o I right^{scaltular.. fracture of 1" and 2nd M.T. left foot and} lac6rated wound over the^{lclt lbot.}

¶43

Learned counsel for the^{claimant submitsthat when it is thecaseof the} claimant that he^{u,as earningan amountof Rs.3,000/-per month, the court} below without considering^{the samehas taken the incomeas Rs.1,500/-per} month.

¶44

Learned counsel appearing^{fbr the Insurancecompany submits that the} driver of the auto^{was not havingvalid drivinglicence and in sucha case, the} insurance company is^{not liable to pay the compensation and it is statedthat} the respondent No.2^is owner-cum-driver^{of the vehicle'}

¶45

Coming to the appeal^{of the Insurance Company,wheretheyare} questioning the liability, the^{questionwhether the Insurance Companyis liable} to pay the compensation^{when the driver is not having validlicence is no more} res integra^-as thc Hon'ble^{Apex court in National Insurancecompany} Limited v. swarun singh^{and otlrcrst heldthatthe Insurance companyis liable}

¶46

to pay the compensation, however, they can^{recover from the owner.Hence,}

¶47

r (2004) s scc 297

¶48

¶49

as far as the Insurance Company appeal is concemed, they can pay and recover fiom the owner of the vehicle.

¶50

Then, coming to the enhancement of the compensation, it is the case of the claimant that he was working as a labourer and earning an amount of Rs.3,000/- per month. However, there was no material placed on record to show that he was eaming an amount of Rs.3,000/- per month. However, in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Ramachandrappa Ys. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance2, wherein, Rs.4,500/- is.taken as income without any evidence, this Court is inclined to consider the monthly income of the claimant at Rs.3,000/-.

¶51

There is no dispute that the claimant has sustained three fractures and one simple injury, for which, he is entitled-for Rs.1,20,000/- (Rs.a0,000X3) and Rs.5,000/- respectively.

¶52

For medical bills, the court below has already granted an amount of

¶53

Rs. 15,000/-, for which, this Court is not inclined to interfere.

¶54

Admittedly, the claimant lost his earnings for a period of two months

¶55

, (2011) 13 SCC 236

¶56

¶57

due to treatment and further recovery because of the injuries sustained by him. Hence, under the head of loss ol'eamings, the claimant is entitled Rs.6,000/(Rs.3,000X2)

¶58

Under the other heads, thc Tribunal has^granted meager amounts. Because of the frachrres sustaine d by the claimant, this Court^is of^{the view} that an amount of Rs.20,000/-^rvould be sufficient amount^{for the painand} suffering undergone by hirn.^{Furlher, under the heads} of^{attendant benefits,} transport, extra nourishment and^legal expenses,^{this Court is inclinedto grant} an amount of Rs.10,000/- under^eachcount.

¶59

t4. In the light of the above discussion, the claimant is entitled for the following compensation under di f-fcrent heads:

¶60

	Head Co	mpens	ation awarded
(l)	3fracturesandIsimpleiniury	Rs.l	,25 000
(2)	Medicalexpenses	Rs.	15,000
(3)	Lossofearningsfbrtwonronths	Rs	6,000
(4)	Attendant benefits	Rs	10,000
(5)	Painandsuffering	Rs	20,000
(6)	Extra nourishment	Rs	10,000

¶61

¶62

Rs 10,000 (7) TransPort^charges

¶63

(8) Legal^exPenses

¶64

Total^{comPensationawarded}

¶65

Rs 10,000

¶66

Rs.2,06,000/-

¶67

In^{the result, MAMCA of the InsuranceCompany is dismissedand the} cross objections^{of the claimant are allowedenhancingthe compensation} amount^{awarded by the courtbelow from Rs'60'000/-to Rs'2'06'000/-as}

¶68

hereunder:

¶69

(a) The enhanced^{amountshall carry interest at 7 '5yo p'a' from} the date^{ofpetitiontill the date ofrealization'}

¶70

(b) The claimant^{shall pay the court fee on the enhancedamount} of comPensation.

¶71

(c) The^{respondenVlnsuranceCompanyshall deposit the amount} within^{a period of (8) weeksfrom the'date of receipt of copy of} judgment. On^{such deposit,claimantis permitted to withdraw} entire amount^{without furnishingthe security'}

¶72

Miscellaneous^{applications, pending if any' shall stand closed'}

¶73

SD'.^{T. JAY} ASREE ASslsiANIlrEGl STRAR

¶74

//TRUE^COPY// secrLrffi^o FFICER

D s'1r^{c'i and}

" il::'na

; ?ii#^{E".:[$+idft:1fli'ij+:Hilffi:}

",-

HIGH COURT

DATED:01 10312023

COMMOM JUDGMENT

MACMA.No.2305 of 2007

¶85

-': t.!'--- t"\ '..,./.
11 lul l$E
,,.j.

¶86

DISMISSING THE MACMA AND ALLOWING THE CROSS OBJECTION

¶87

{v<br>v')
L\ lo

¶88

[³²³⁰ ]

¶89

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶90

WEDNESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶91

PRESENT

¶92

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶93

M.AC.M.A NO: 2305 OF 2007

¶94

AND cRoss oBJEcIllgN^(SR) NA.II4Z !LzlDZ

¶95

M.A.C.M.A NO.2305 0F 2007

¶96

Between:

¶97

United lndia lnsurance Company Limited, Miryalaguda

¶98

Rep. by: United lndia lnsurance Company Limited Divisional Office Vl, Gunfoundry, Abids, Hyderabad-500 001.

¶99

...APPELLANT/PETITIONER

¶100

AND

¶101

Tangutoori Narender, S/o. Veeraiah, Aged about Tailor R:/o. Miryalaguda Town Naglonda District ...RESPONDENT No./PETITIONER 2. K. Venkateswarlu, S/o.Muthaiah, Major Owner of the Auto No.24 U 8202 Rl/o. Regulagadda Village of Nidamanoor Mandal, Naglonda District ...RESPONDENT No.ZRESPONDENT No.1

¶102

cRoss oBJEcTtoN(sR) No. 11147 0F 2007

¶103

Between:

¶104

Tangutoori Narender, S/o. Veeraiah, Aged about Tailor R/o. Miryalaguda Town Naglonda District

¶105

...RESPONDENT^.1/CROSS OBJECTOR.

¶106

ANO

¶107

United lndia lnsurance Conrpany Limited, Ivliryalaguda Rep. by: United lndia lnsurance Company Limited Divisional Office Vl, Gunfoundry, Abids, Hyderabad-SOO 001^.

¶108

...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT¹

¶109

K. Venkateswarlu, S/o.tvluthaiah, Major Owner of the Auto No.24 U 8202 R/o. Regulagadda Village of Nidamanoor Mandal, Naglonda Diskict

¶110

... RESPONDENT.2/RESPONDENT.2

¶111

Appeal Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act and Memorandum of Cross Objections under Order XLI Rule 22 of C.P.CN against the order and decree^{in O.P.} NO. 409 OF 2005 Dated 24-11-2006 on the file of the Court of the Chairman^Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-Cum-V Additional District Judge,^Nalgonda.

¶112

This appeal coming on for hearing and upon^perusing the^grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Cou( and the material^{papers in} the case and upon hearing the arguments of Sri. SOMANCHI VENKATESWARLU,^Advocate for the Appellant in IvIACMA and Respondent No.1 in Cross Objections,^and of^Sri. M. KIRAN REDDY, Advocate for the Respondent No.1 in MACMA and^Cross Objections in Cross Objections in MACMA and Cross Objection and for^the Respondent for the Respondent No.2 not appeared either in^person or by^Advocate.

¶113

This Court Doth Order and Decree as follows

¶114

That the M.A.C.M.A filed by the lnsurance Company^is dismissed, and the Cross Objections file by the claimant be and hereby is allowed enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the court from Rs. 60,0001 to Rs. 2,06,000/-;

¶115