Partly allowed

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Smt. B.Ramanamma

Telangana HC22 Feb 2023MACMA/2553/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment appeals against a motor accident compensation award. The High Court dismissed the insurance company's appeal due to lack of evidence denying negligence. It enhanced the compensation for the claimants from Rs. 3,32,000 to Rs. 9,55,000 based on revised income assessment and loss calculations.

What did the court decide?

Insurance company's appeal dismissed; claimants' appeal allowed with enhanced compensation of Rs. 9,55,000 plus interest at 7.5% p.a.

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Smt. B.Ramanamma — Insurance | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³²³⁰ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶6

M.A.C.M.A. NOS: 2553 OF 2013 AND 4067 OF 2014

¶7

M.A.C.M.A NO: 2553 OF 2013

¶8

Appeal Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the^{order and} decree in O.P NO. 1462 OF 2009 Dated 1210212013 on the file of the^Court of the^Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -Cum -XXll Additional Chief Judge,^City Civil^Court at Hyderabad.

¶9

Between:

¶10

Bajaj Allianz General lnsurance Co. Ltd.,, Rep. by its^Manager, Ground^Fllor, Opp: Kalamandir, Chaitanyapuri, Hyderabad.

¶11

...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT NO.2

¶12

AND

¶13

Smt. B.Ramanamma, W/o. Late B.Rama Rao, Aged^{45 years,} Occ: Housewife,

¶14

B.Venkateshwarlu, S/o. Late B.Rama Rao, age 26^{years, Occ:Nill}

¶15

B.Chandrasekhar, S/o. Late B.Rama Rao, age^{19 years,} Occ:^Nill

¶16

(All Ryo. 5-264,Sainagar Colony, Jelelguda, Hyderabad.)

¶17

... RESPONDENTS/PETITONERS

¶18

Smt. K.Sheela Rani, W/o. L.Ram Mohan Reddy, Age^{Major, Occ: Business,} R/o. 17-1-386/Ry88, F.No.301, Sriven Residency, RTC Colony,^Champapet, Hyderabad.

¶19

(R2 and 3 not necessary party)

¶20

..,RESPONDENTS/R-1

¶21

Counsel for the Appellant: M/S. A. MALATHI

¶22

Counsel for the tt, st)ondents: M/S. B. ROJA RAMANI

¶23

M.A.C.M.A NO: 40;7 OF 2014

¶24

Appeal Und, r^:iection 173 of N/otor Vehicles Act against^{lr:: Order and} DecreeinO.:'. f'l() 1162OF 2009 Dated:^1210212013 onthefi^{€ :'th(: Courtof The} Chairman Motor ltr cirient Claims Tribunal -Cum XXll^{Additiona ::lief Judge, City} Criminal Courts al lyCerabad.

¶25

Between:

¶26

Smt. [].R:r r rnamma, W/o. Late B.Rama^Rao, Aged^{45 y€i:rs,} Occ: [] ouse vif e,

¶27

B.Venkat-.s warlu, S/o. Late B.Rama Rao,^{age 26 years} i)cc:l'lill

¶28

B.Chandras -'krar, S/o. Late B.Rama Rao, age^{19 years,(),;c: I'lill}

¶29

(All R/rr. {;2 i4,Sainagar Colony, Jelelguda, Hyderabad )

¶30

..,APEL T.,I\NTS/CLAIMANTS

¶31

AND

¶32

Smt. Kl.Sne la Rani, W/o. L.Ram Mohan Reddy, Age lr,4air;r, Occ: Business, Rlo.17-1-1 i6r Rl/88, F.No. 301, Sriven Residency, RTC t): ony, Champapet, Hyde.abilr)

¶33

Bajaj r\lliar'(ieneral lnsurance Co. Ltd.,, Rep. by its M:rrage r, Ground Fllor, Opp: l(alar ardir, Chaitanyapuri, Hyderabad.

¶34

...RESPONDE^.ITS/R ESPONDENTS

¶35

Counsel for th,: I ppellant: M/S. B. ROJA RAMANI,

¶36

Counsel for th,-' I er;pondents: SMT. A. MALATHI

¶37

The Court Delive erl the following:. COMMON JUDGMENT

¶38

HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITTIA I{ANNEGANTI

¶39

M.A.C.M.A.NOS.2553 0F 2()13 AND 4067 0F 2014

¶40

COMMON JUDGMENT:

¶41

The M.A.C.M.A. No.4067 of 2074 is preferred by the appellants/claimants and M.A.C.M.A. No. 2553 of 2Ol4 is filed by the appellant/respondent No.2 aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the XXII Additional Chief Judge - cum - before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, City Criminal Court, at Hyderabad, in O.P.No.1462 of 2OO9 on 72.02.2073

¶42

Heard Smt. B.Roja Ramani, learned counsel appearing for the claimants and Smt. A.Malathi, learned Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company.

¶43

The brief facts of the case are that on 11.6.2008 at about 7.00 p.m. the deceased was going by walk from Karmanghat towards Jiltelaguda and when he reached near the Chandra Garden one Honda Activa bearing No.AP 11 AX T/R 9793 coming from back^side with high speed in a rash arrd negligent manner hit the^deceased. Resultantly, the deceased sustained multiple^{grievous Injuries.} Immediately he was shifted to Kamineni hospital and there^from referred to Osmania General Hospital. While undergoing^treatment the deceased succumbed to injuiies on^{1.4.6.2008. The police, L'B}

¶44

¶45

¶46

Nagar have rt:grst:r:d a case in FIR.No.551 of 200: under Section 3O4-A of I.P.O. zqq, Lirrst the driver of the Honda .A,ctivir^'rearing No. AP 11AX T/R 97vt3 Io^- r'ash and negligent driving. The 1r ,,adipgs further indicate that at tb: time of accident the deceased war; agr:d about 48 yea,rs and he was c oing mastri and woodcuttirlg w trk :urd earning Rs.7,500/- p.rn.^'f re earnings of the deceased used 1o contributed to the welfare of th : 1 re -itioners. As a resuit, the petitior (rls .Lre deprived of such contribtrli rr. The 1st respondent is the orv- r:r of the crime vehicle ar-rd the 2" Respondent is insurer of the vehir:,, al; such both are jointly arlrl srr,r :r;rlly liable to pay compensation.

¶47

4 . The L st I e:;pondent in her counter alfidr Luit denied the averments mird() . n the petition. Respondent No.I zLiso denied the occupation arrl 1lt, r rnallner of accident stated by peti..tr.ners. She also denied that the e.< cident was result of rash and neglirlent driving of driver of Honcla .Ac iiva. Lastly ple'aded that the comp< n sation claimed is excessive and di ;proportionate to entitlement l)y thr: petrtioners.

¶48

The 2.ed er;pondent in his counter statec theLt that the company denied t he Involvement of Hon$a Ar:tiva lrt:aring No. Ap 1lAX T/R 97',t3. t h,: 2nd respondent further deniec lhe manner of

¶49

accident stated by the petitioners and death of the deceased in the motor vehicle accident occurred on 1 1.06.2008. The company also disputed the Injuries sustained by the deceased. Further pleaded that the compensation claimed is excessive and disproportionate to entitlement by the petitioners.

¶50

The Court below on analyztng the evidence granted compensation of Rs.3,32,OOO/- with interest @ 7 .S% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit.

¶51

Learned counsel for the insurance company submits that the insurance company is aggrieved by the frnding of the Tribunal with regard to the accident where there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle which is insured with the appellant - insurance company. Learned counsel further submits that driver of the motor cycle was driving at a very low speed and all of a sudden, the deceased fell down from the footpath which resulted in the said accident. It is submitted that when there is no rash and negligent driving on the pa-rt of the driver of the vehicle, the insurance company cannot be held liable to pay the compensation.

¶52

8, In response to that the learned counsel appearing for the

¶53

¶54

claimants 1l,ot:ld s rtrmit that as no evidence is forthr): ming from^the insurance con.rpiul ,''-hat due to the rash and negligen:(r orr the^{part of} the deceased, the .rc cident took place and the itrsurzrt:e company^is liable to pay the r:ompensation. She furthcr sl lt.rrits that the deceased u'as wcr <ing as mason and Ex A7 r,r'as als,t roarked^i.e., income certifi,:,ate sr;ued by the Hariom Saw Mi1l an( n s;pite of that the Court below t ar; taken Rs.3,000/- per motrth as in<:ome of the deceased. She lLa; r'elied on the^judgment of the IIorr''.rle Apex Court 1n Syed SaL'ti.iq s Diuisional Manager, United. ir,7ia Insurance Compang, rvhe:rein the accident has happened in tht'^,,ear 2008 and the deceased lva s rvorking AS vegetable vendor ar rl Hcnble Apex Court has consi<1,: e'1 the income as Rs.6,500/- per rrt:nth. She also submitted thaLt on o,her conventional heads the amortrrts granted by the tribunal u,:rr: r o'- just and reasonable.

¶55

Coming t,r the appeal of the insurance coml,il 1y where they are questioning t re award on the ground that zrr:,: dent has not happened du,: tc ra.sh and negligent driving of the <.lrir,er, rvithout there being any e d,lence let in by the insurai-rce⁽ ornpany in this regard, the versic,r t>f the insurance company to evart.: their liability

¶56

¶57

cannot be considered.

¶58

Coming to the case of the claimants, the deceased was earning Rs.7,500/- per month as on the date of accident and salary certificate is filed in support of the same. Hence, this Court is inclined to consider the income as Rs.6,0OO/- per month and as per age of the deceased, if 25% of future prospects are added, it would come to Rs.7,500/- per month. As there are three claimants, if | 13,a of income is deducted towards personal expenditure, the monthly contribution of the deceased would be Rs.5,O0O/-. Considering the age of the deceased, if this is multiplied by relevant multiplier^.13,, the loss of income would come to Rs.7,80,000/- (Rs.5,OOO/- X 12 X l3)

¶59

1 1. Further, the claimants are granted Rs.33,OO0/- towards funeral expenses and loss of gstate, Rs.44,000/- to each of the claimant Nos. 1 to 3 towards consortium and Rs.1O,0OO/- towards legal expenses.

¶60

Therefore, the claimants are eligible for the compensation as mentioned below:

¶61

¶62

Head

¶63

Compensation a srrtrded

¶64

(1) Loss of (leper d,rncy

¶65

Rs.7,80,O00/-

¶66

(2) Funeral exlre rs,es and Loss of lisIat'

¶67

Rs.33,OO0

¶68

(3) Loss of Iilia I r o esortiun

¶69

Rs. 1,32,000 to cl:i mant

¶70

Nos. 1 ro 3

¶71

(4) Legal ex[)er1s ]s

¶72

Rs.10,OO0/-

¶73

Total compr nsation awarded Rs.9,55,OOO/-

¶74

In thc res .rit, the Motor Accident Miscellaleo _rs l.ppenl of the

¶75

insurance colrrl ,an)- fails and the same is dismiss,::,. I{owever, the Motor Accrderr' ll,liscellaneous Appeal of the cleirrrarrts rs partly allou,ed enhanc ing the compensation amount awa:rled by the court belou, from Rs..l,li2,00O/- to Rs.9,55,OOO/- as her,rLrnd:r:

¶76

(a) The r: rhanced ermount shall carry inter.cr;t ;tt Z.5oh p.a. lrom the late of petition till the date of realiz:.,ion.

¶77

(b) The c, ,mpany shall deposit the amount .\r rhi.-r a period of (8) v.,eek s f rom the date of^'receipt of copr, :,i judgment. On sucl-r rl,:: ro sir, claim ant is permitterl to vritlLdrarv entire amouni r^.ithout furnishing the securi[.

¶78

(c) Arnc,u rts shall be apportion.d in t".-" o^- he ratio decided

¶79

¶80

by the Tribunal in the Award.

¶81

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶82

SD/- MOHD ISMAIL ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// L/

¶83

SECTION dFTICCR

¶84

To,

¶85

The MACT- Cum -XXll Additional Chief Judge, City Criminal^{Court, at} Hyderabad.

¶86

One CC to M/s. A. Malathi, Advocate [OPUC]

¶87

One CC to M/s. B. Roja Ramani, Advocate [OPUC]

¶88

Two CD Copies

HIGH COIJIIT

DATED:2i2111212023

4
.) 2[?:r
[, ri '[\
'.\ /.,
t.

¶95

COMMON oRDER

¶96

M.A.C.M./. NOS: 2553 OF 2013 AND 40til^{CrF 2014}

¶97

MACMA fl(r. 2553 OF 20131S DISMISSI:I) AND MAC;I!IA NO. 4067 OF 2014 IS PAR'TLY' , ALLOWEI]I @'pa Ll-ol YO It\^6a3

¶98

[³²³⁰ ]

¶99

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

¶100

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶101

PRESENT

¶102

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶103

M.AC.M.A. NOS: 2553 OF 2013 AND 4067 OF 2014

¶104

M.A.C.M.A. NO: 2553 OF 20'13

¶105

Between:

¶106

Bajaj Allianz General lnsurance Co. Ltd.,, Rep. by its Manager, Ground Fllor, Opp: Kalamandir, Chaitanyapuri, Hyderabad.

¶107

..APPELLANT/RESPONDENT NO.2

¶108

AND

¶109

Smt. B.Ramanamma, Wo. Late B.Rama Rao, Aged 45^years, Occ: Housewife,

¶110

B.Venkateshwarlu, S/o. Late B.Rama Rao, age 26^years, Occ:Nill

¶111

B.Chandrasekhar, S/o. Late B.Rama Rao, age^{19 years,} Occ:^Nill

¶112

(All Ryo. 5-264,Sainagar Colony, Jelelguda, Hyderabad.)

¶113

...RESPONDENTS/PETITONERS

¶114

Smt. K.Sheela Rani, Wo. L.Ram Mohan Reddy, Age Major, Occ: Business, Rl/o. 17-1-386/Rr/88, F.No. 301 , Sriven Residency, RTC Colony, Champapet, Hyderabad.

¶115

(R2 and 3 not necessary party)

¶116

...RESPONDENTS/R.1

¶117

Appeal Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the order and decree in O.P NO. 1462 OF 2009 Dated 1210212013 on the file of the Court of the Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -Cum -XXll Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad.

¶118

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

¶119

and upon hear rg t e arguments of Smt. A. MALATHI, Aclvo t: e for the Appellant and of Sri. E. R,lJ \ IIAMAN|, Advocate for the Respondents.

¶120

M .A.c.M.A N O:4 0 )7 0F 2014

¶121

Between:

¶122

, 3I, f,[?!l;;:,:,,, wo Late B.Rama Rao, Ased 4s y(,a.s,

¶123

B.Venkates I ya.lu, S/o. La u *"'u Rao, age 26 vears, i r:c:N fl

¶124

B.Chanrjrase hirr, s/o ,";t" e B.Rama Rao, age 19 years, C,o.: Nill

¶125

(Alt Ryo s-jt{t, ,sainagar Cotony, Jelelguda, Hyderahad.)

¶126

..APELLT \NTS/CLATMANTS

¶127

AND

¶128

1 ffif ;];lr$iia:y(:!&:r#stfl^S,?1X,if fl,yu:i,;,i%FJfl isi.i

¶129

Baiaj Altianz (l Opp: Kalamzrnr ,iZfl:it',Tilffi ??.!,,.i;,X* by ts Manas,,:r, c;round Fror,

¶130

...RESPONDENTS,II ESf ,ONDENTS

¶131

Appeal Unde. S _.c:ior Decree in o p N() ,,,, o!ffr#;;L]';,,:Tr,,.sr rhe r) der and chairman Moror .rrccirrr '7".1'ii.'..1^{on the rile} of ri t: court of rhe Criminat Courts at frr,i, ", rrO"ll ",r,-.^{.*,,^} Tribunat^{^,} _Cum XXil Addirionat Chi:f Judge, City

¶132

This appeal ccn.tr tg on for haring and upon perusin, the Judgment ano De crr e of Lower court"" ;n";";:'":-'1J-,'ii;,i,lllll and upon hearing the.,. ,r,r.'nu nt" of Smt B' RoJA RAMANI' Advocat') i')r ttre Appellant and of Srnt. ,, ,0.. .ATHl, Advocate for the Respondents.

¶133

This Court Dot _r .der and Decree as follows:

¶134

'1. That the i,4olcr Accir civil Miscellaneous Appeal ot the lr s r. ran re

¶135

companyiM,\ c ,^ :-":l 2553/13) fails and same be and hereby cisrniss;ed

¶136

2 That rhe MACI/A of rhe ctaimants (MACMA No. 4067 of 2014) be and here by alowed enhancing the compensation amount award by the court below from Rs. 3,32,0001 to Rs. 9,55,000/- as here under;

¶137

a) That the enhanced amount be and hereby carry interest at 7.S o/o p.a from the date of petition till the date of realization

¶138

b) That the Company be and hereby deposit the amount within a period of (8) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of Judgment. On such deposit, Claimant be and hereby permitted to withdraw entire amount without furnishing the security.

¶139

c) That the amounts be and hereby apportioned in terms of the ratio decided by the Tribunal in the Award.

¶140

Thal save as aforesaid, the decree of the Lower Court shall stands confirmed in all other respects; and

¶141

That there be no order as to costs in this appeal

¶142

To,

¶143

SD/. MOHD ISMAIL //rRuE COPY//^{ASSISTANTREGIyRAE} SECTION drrtceR

¶144

1 IIE#ir?[.^{cum -XXll Additionatchier Judse, cirycriminar} court, at 2 Two CD Copies TJ

I I

/ I

HIGH COIJRT

DATED:2:2'0212023

COMMOIN DECREE

M.A.C.M A. NOS: 2553 OF 2013 AND 4l$7 OF 2014

¶152

MACMA N0.2553 OF 2013 !S DISMISSHD

¶153

AND MAC T4A NO. 4067 OF 2014 IS PAIrLY ALLOWEI

¶154

@e"

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Smt. B.Ramanamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Smt. B.Ramanamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The New India Assurance Company Limited, Secunderabad. Vs N. Raghavan Nair and 5 Others

Smt. Chelli Adamma, Vs Sri Y.nageswara Rao

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Secbad Vs Sri Ramu Pasumarthy , Rama Murthy P and 6 Others

The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Lingala Yellamma and 2 Others

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt.Puligialla Sakkubai and 3 Ors.

The a.P.S.R.T.C., Muhseerabad, Hyd.,. Vs Smt. Kotra Paravathamma , Chittemma and 2 Others