Dismissed

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sri Chennaram and 2 Ors.

Telangana HC6 Sept 2023MACMA/2518/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an appeal by an insurance company challenging a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award. The company argued the compensation for a third-party vehicle exceeded the Section 147 statutory limit of Rs. 6,000. The Court held the policy lacked restriction clauses, confirming the Tribunal's order.

What did the court decide?

Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal dismissed; judgment and decree of the Tribunal confirmed; no order as to costs.

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sri Chennaram… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³²¹⁶ ]

¶2

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

¶3

WEDNESOAY ,THE SIXTH DAY OF^SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.LAXMAN

¶6

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCEL EOUS APPEAL NO: 18 0F 2007

¶7

Appeal Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles^{Act against the order and decree in} O.P.No. 41 OF 2005,^{dated 09.04.2007,on the file of the Court of the Chairman} Motor Accident^lClaims Tribunal^{-cum- lll Additional District Judge (FTC),Ranga} Reddy District.

¶8

Between:

¶9

The New lndia Assurance Co. Ltd,^rep by^{itsRegronal Manager,Regional Office} Nagpur, Maharastra State^{- 440 001.}

¶10

...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT No.³

¶11

AND

¶12

1 . Sri Chennaram, S/o.Mallaram, Occ^{Business, R/o.H.No10-323,CE Nagar} Colony, Cherlapally, Ranga Reddy District.^{...RESPONDENT/CLAIMANT}

¶13

Sri Shaik Ouyyam, S/o.S.K.Amir,^{Aged Major, Occ: Business,Ryo.Qazipura,} Gangapur Tq., Aurangabad^District.

¶14

Sri Syed Hasan, S/o.Syed^{lbrahim, Aged Major, Occ: Lorry Driver, R/o.Ward} No.3167, Kasai Mohalli, Gangapur,^{Aurangabad District, MaharastraState - 431 .}

¶15

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONoENT^{No. 1 & 2}

¶16

MACMAMP. NO: 6161 OF 2007

¶17

Petition under Section 151 CPC^{praying that in thecircumstancesstatedin the} affidavit filed in support of^{the petition,the High Court may be pleasedstay of all} further^proceedings in OP^No.41 of^{2005 dated og.04-2007 on the file of the Motor} Accident Claims Tribunal cum lll^{Addl. District Judge} [FTC],^{Ranga Reddy District at} LB Nagar.

¶18

Counsel for the Appellant

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent No.¹

¶20

: SRl. T. RAMULU

¶21

: SRI A. G. SEETHARAM

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent No.^{2 & 3} : None appeared

¶23

The Court made the following:

¶24

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. LAXMAN

¶25

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2518 OF 2OO7

¶26

JUDGMENT:

¶27

l. The present Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed challenging the judgmcnt ancl dccree, dated 09.04.2007 IN O.P.No.41 of 2005 on l.hc file ol the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-lll Additional District Jr,r.lge (F.1'.C), R.R. District at L.B.Nagar, (hereinafter rcfcrred to zrs "l'i-ibunal'), which was partly allorved by way of common jr-rdgment. by thc Tribunal granting an zlmount of Rs. 1 ,59,375/ - to 1hc claimant thcrcin toqrards damages. Aggrievcd by thc same, the present appeal is at the instance of the insur:ancc company.

¶28

The only ground r-rndcr challcrr;, - in the present appcal is that the Tribunal has lixed comp, :rsnLion oI Rs. I,59,3751towards damages of vchicle, u,hich is third party vchicle by ma.king thc appeilant-i ns u rance compa r/ liable ignoring statutory limit of payment o[ compensation in^.espect of damages to third party vehicle, which is only Rs.6,000/-. Therefore, the Tribunal was wrong in granting said damages

¶29

Heard

¶30

¶31

4 . [n tlris; regard, it is I <:ler.ant 1tt r(,fer [o Secticn l4Z of Lbe

¶32

Molor Ve.hicle t\ct, 1988, r',.h ich re;rd:i as ur.rdt:r.

¶33

"Qe_ction 147:: Requiremer{s-of pq!!-c1q9 4B_rIIilS1ls 9f linbility.

¶34

(1) In order to comply with thc requ;rc;nr:.nts ol this Chzrpter, a poilc.y of insuranc:e nlust be a pclicy^,.', hich- -

¶35

(a) is issued by a persor ,,.r iro is arr aulhLrj-ised insurt:r; and

¶36

(b) insurcs the person ()r classcs oi pcrsons spccrfied in the policy to the extent spccifir:d in sub-seotion (2)__

¶37

(i) against, any liability r,.hich mal bc ir.r:urred try hirn in respect of thc cieath ol or bociil.r 1 [rnjur1, lo a1l_v ut_,rson, including owner. ol lhc goods ol his authrrriz;r:cl t.cprcsr:ntatii,r_,carriecl in thc r,clrt(:l(-'lor d:rmage to an lrrrrpr;1ti, oj :r L[:iici par-tv causr:rl bv oi. ; rrrsirrt out r.,f lhe Use ol ,;.r, vr il( jr il. ;, Pt;hlic plar.,.;

¶38

(ii) against the cleath r,i o; bodjl.! irriLrnr t,t any p:rsscnger of a publit: r;crvicc vetriclc r.;,,,.,t ti bv ,l lrrsir ;;,,ut ,:I tltr, usc ol 1lrt. vchiclc in a public placr.

¶39

l)rovicied that a polic5, shall noi ircr rcclrrirr.rl

¶40

(i) to c;over liability in rcr;1>r;cl ol lirr: rleaih, arising or_rt o[ and rn the coursc of lris e trrpk;.,..rnent, ..;f thr: crtrplo_vci, ol :r pcrson insurcd by thc polir:y or ir-r r-cl;pcc I ol' bor1il.,v injurl sustair-red bv such an emplo-yoe arisirSl out ol' :Ln<l in thc ccursc o{ his cmpioymelt othcr than lr liabilitv ansinq rrncler the Workmcn,s Corrrpcnsation Act, 192?, (8 of l9:.13). in r.cs1_rcct of the cleath of. or bodily irrjury to, any sr rcir clrplor,,r'r.

¶41

(a) engagcd in drivrng tLre vt_.hiclc, or

¶42

(b) if it is a public scrvice r.ehicle engaged as a conductor oI the vehicle or in cxaminine tickcls r>n thc ve hicle, or

¶43

¶44

(ii) to cover any cor-rtractual liabiliry.

¶45

Explanation.-For the rcmoverl of dor.rbts, it i:; here by declared that the death of or bodily injrrrv to .rn5,, pcrsrln ..,. dur.rog" to any properly of a third party shall bc deerhcd lo havc been caused bv or to have ariscn out ol. thc Lrsr: ol zr vr,,l.ri<:lc in a public piace

¶46

I !

¶47

notwithstanding that thc pcrson lvtro is dead or injurcd or the property which is damagcd was not in a public place at the time ol the accident, if the act or omission rvhich led to the accident occurred in a public place.

¶48

(2) Subject to the proviso to sub section (1), a policy of insurance referred to in sub-section (l), shall cover any liabilify incurred in respect of any accident, up to thc follou,in3 limits, namely:-

¶49

(a) save as provided in cla'.rsc (i,), the amount ol liability incurrcd;

¶50

(b) in respect of damage to zrn), pr-ol)crty of a third party, a limit of rupees six thousar.rd:

¶51

Provided that any policy of insurancc issued with any limited liabiliry and in forcc, immecli:rtoly ] :folc the commcnceme nt of this Act, shall conLinue to be cflcctive for a period of four months after such commencement or till the date of expiry of such policy nhichevcr is cariir:r'.

¶52

(3) to (s)..."

¶53

As per Sub-Section 2 of SecLiorr i47 , the liability in respect of third party damages is limircrt Lo iis.6,0O0/-. Whereas, SubSection 1 ol Section 147 shorvs that il..cre may be contractual liability and such liability ra,ill not co, r i:r the way of restriction contained in Sub-Section 2 of Sc.:tiorr I 4 7

¶54

A glalce of details of premium cr.l..cted under Ex.B- I policy sho'vvs that net premium coilLctc(i i',,zrs Rs. 1,857 I - for own damages and third party dan^r..jc.r. ,'i,cre is no restriction of damage to third party limitir l L)r:^:;., bility. Therefore, the contention of the appellan t-insr " 1-l rl ^ ': -- Dany has no merit. The appeal is devoid of merits and tr... r1riri,^i.: liable to be dismissed

¶55

¶56

¶57

[n tlre resr-rlt, t.he zLpl;r:a1 is ciisrrtissecl :r'rd thc judgrnent zrnrl decrce, dated 09.04.2007 tit O.P.No.4I^oi 2005 on the frle cf^ti-re Motor Accidents Claims^{'l'ribunal-curnf} Il Additional District Judge (F.T.C), R.R.District^r:.1 l,.B.Nagar. is cotrfirmed.^{'lher.t:shall} be no order a.s to costs. N.'lisccllaneous^pctiLions pending, if any,

¶58

shall star-rd closed.

¶59

Sd/. MOHD. SANAU LLAH ANSARI ASSISTAN GI TRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -cum- lll Additional District Judge (FTC), Ranga Reddy District. (With records if anty)

¶64

One CC to SRl. T. RAMULU, Advoc€te [OPUC]

¶65

One CC to SRl. A. G. SEETHARAM, Advocate [OPUC]

¶66

Two CD Copies

¶67

ASR-2/DL

¶68

HIGH COURT DATED:06/09/2023

¶69

JUDGMENT

¶70

MACMA.No.2518 of 2007

¶71

gTATE 6
7
O
loot tI J\ 1[1\ i--
;
+ t:.,:.i:, ;-'

¶72

DISMISSING THE MACMA

¶73

THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶74

WEONESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY^{OF SEPTEMBER} TWO THOUSAND ANO TWENTY THREE

¶75

PRESENT

¶76

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.LAXMAN

¶77

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCEL LAN EoU S^{APPEAL NO:251 a oF 2007}

¶78

Between

¶79

The New lndia Assurance Co. Ltd, rep^{by its Regional Manager, Regional Office} Nagpur, Maharastra State^- 440 001.

¶80

...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT No. 3

¶81

ANO

¶82

Sri Chennaram, S/o.Mallaram, Occ:^{Business,R/o.H.No.10-323, CE Nagar} Colony, Cherlapally, Ranga^Reddy District.^{...RESPONDENT/CLAIMANT}

¶83

Sri Shaik Quyyam, S/o.S.K Amir,^{Agedtvlalor, Occ: Business,R/oQazipura,} Gangapur Tq., Aurangabad District.

¶84

Sri Syed Hasan, S/o Syed^{lbrahim, Aged Major, Occ: Lorry Driver,R/o Ward} No.3/67, Kasai Mohalli, Gangapur,^{Aurangabad District, MaharastraState - 431.}

¶85

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT^{No.1 & 2}

¶86

Appeal Under Section 173 of Motor^{Vehicles Act againsttheorder and decreein} O.P.No. 4l of 2005, dated 09.04.2007,^{on the file of the Court of theChairman} Motor Accident Claims Tribunal^-cum- lll^{Additional District Judge (FTC),Ranga} Reddy Diskict.

¶87

ORDER: This appeal coming on^{forhearing andupon perusing the groundsof appeal,} the Judgment and Decree^{of the Lower Court andthematerial papersin the caseand} upon hearing the arguments of^{SRl. T. RAMULU, Advocate forthe Appellant and of} SRI A. G. SEETHARAM, Advocate^{for theRespondentNo.1 andfor the Respondent} Nos. 2 & 3 not appeared either in^{person or by Advocate.}

¶88

This Court doth Order and Decree as^follows:

¶89

That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous^{Appeal be and herebyis dismissed;} and

¶90

That there shall be no order as to costs^{in this appeal}

¶91

Sd/- MOHO. SANAULLAH ANSARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Chairman Motor^{Accident ClaimsTribunal-cum- lll Additional District} Judge^(FTC), Ranga Reddy^{District. (With recordsif anly)}

¶96

Two CD Copies

¶97

ASR-2/DL

¶98

'{()r-

¶99

HIGH COURT DATED:06/09/2023

¶100

DECREE MACMA.No.2518 of 2007

¶101

DISMISSING THE MACMA

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sri Chennaram and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sri Chennaram and 2 Ors.

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

Mr.R.Mallesh Vs a.Sanjeeva Reddy and Anr.

Vankidi Sujatha and Another Vs a. Samaiah and 3 Others

Syed Muqtadeer Ahmed Vs N.Siddappa and Another

K.Venkata Narayana Vs Smt.N.Saroja

T. Padma Vs T. Nagabhushanam(Died) per Lr Rr 2 to 4

Kadam Gangu Bai Vs Hazi Khan and Another