Dismissed

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd, Nizamabad v. Gurudu Gangubai and 4 Others

Telangana HC16 Mar 2023MACMA/2628/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed the insurance company's appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the Tribunal's award of compensation. The Court upheld the finding of negligence by the lorry driver for parking without lights at night.

What did the court decide?

The Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd, Nizamabad Vs Gurudu… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABADI

3230 J

rl i I L I I

fl I

THURSDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF MARCH

¶7

Two rHousAND AND rwervrvlHHtr.

¶8

PRESENT

¶9

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶10

M.A.C.M.A.No.2 628 0F 2008

¶11

Appear Under section - 1 73 0f Motor Vehicres Act against the order and Decree made in o p'No'122 0f 20oodatJ-i6 ;; :rffi on the fire of the court of the f;l]XHXI;^{,"tor Accidentcraims -in,un#_"i} Additionar District Judse,

¶12

-t

¶13

Between:

¶14

frTi,#,ji,:p"*try-::'

¶15

¶16

I -.APPELLANT/
AND tltif z Kespondent
Gurudu 6F ngubai, w/o.Gurudu
Gangaram , aged about 55 years,
BalkondOcc;Hou sehold, r/o. Mendora village of
Gurudu Padmaa Mandal , Nizamabad District.
aged about 2g , w/o.Gurudu Shanker ,(
years, Occ: Ho
r/o. Mendora vill Usehold, .{ ,i
age of Balkonda 1r
tulandal, Niza
mabad District
Gurudu Ga l a;,
Gangaram, ngamaniaged ab , d/o.Gurudu .t l..r'rt
Household out 2Z years, Occ:
, r/o. Men
Balkonda dora village of t,i.
GangaraGurudu rn, Satya GangMandalaged a Nu, tzamabad d/o.GuruDistridu cl -i,t
bout 25 yea rs Occ iI
Househo ld, r/o.Me
ndora villa
Balkonda ge of
Mandal, Nizamaba t!'
d Distrir;l.
: RESPONDENTS/
: . petitioners
It
:
i*,i#;1dntn-:iffii," .tJ
I .t
I .'.;
fl;=il$$3;J:f,iri"'.1;r"' .t I I
f
irr
.. RESPODNENTS/
l't.
I 1'' respondent

¶17

Counset for the Appellant: SMT. l. MAAMU VANI

¶18

Counsel for the Respondents: SRt p. RADHTVE REDDY

¶19

The Court delivered the fo[owinq: JUDGurirr

¶20

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA^KANNEGANTI

¶21

M.A.C.M.A.No.2628 ot 2008

¶22

JUDGMENT:

¶23

This app-.al is preferred by the appellant-lnsurance Company aggrieved by tht> award and decree dated^{16-08-2005in O.P.No.122 of} 2000 on the fik: of the I Additional Motor Accident Claims^Tribunal, Nizamabad, wherein the Tribunal has^{grantedcompensation of} Rs.4,00,0001 for the death of the deceasedⁱⁿ the^{accident occurred on} 01-12-1999

¶24

Heard learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-lnsurance Company Smt I Mamu Vani and learned counsel for respondentsclaimants [\rlr. P. Radhive Reddy

¶25

Leained litanding Counsel for the appellant-lnsurance Company submits that as^per the FIR and the evidence of^{P.W.2, who is an} eyewitness to the accident, the accident has happened^{due to rash and} negligent drivin3 of the deceased while driving^his scooter.^She submits that the Tribunal ought to have held that there^{was contributory} negligence on tle^part of the deceased. She submits that P.W.2^has stated in his chief examination that when the lorry was^parked,due to opposite lights, the scooterist could not see the lorry and^{hit the lorry} from its behind and this aspect was not considered by the^Tribunal. She submits that the accident occurred due to rash^{and negligent} driving of the derceased and as such, lnsurance Company is not liable to pay compensation to the claimants.

¶26

->^,

¶27

2 LK, J It4A CMA.No.2628 of 2008

¶28

Learned counsel for the respondents-claimants submits that the evidence is consistent with regard to parking of the lorry on the middle of the road without parkin! lights and without any precautionary measures and it amounts to negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry and the Tribunal has righfly fastened liability on the lnsurance Company.

¶29

The evidence of P.W.1,^p.W.2 and the FIR reveals that the lorry was parked on the road due to mechanical defects. lt is the case of the claimants that the deceased had hit the lorry, which was stationed on the road in the night time and due to the lights from the opposite vehicles, he could not see the lorry stationed. lt is also their case that the driver of lorry has failed _to take precautionary measures so as to prevent the other vehicles from identifying the location of the lorry stationed. ln cross examination, not even a suggestion was made to P.W.2 as to why the driver of the lorry has put on the lights and signals were on and solely it is the negligence of the deceased. ln the light of the said evidence let in, this Court is of the view that there are no parking lights on and it was the negligence of the driver of the lorry. Though it is their case that it is in the road margin, this Court is not able to appreciate the contention and the Tribunal has righfly held that the accident occurred due to negligent parking of the driver of the lorry. This Court is not inclined to fix the contributory negligence on the part of the deceased as it is humanly not possible to see the vehicle, which was parked on the road without parking lights at night time on the highway.

¶30

LK, J l,4A Ct\4A.No 2628 of 20CB

)

I i

Accordingly, the Appeal^is dismissed.^{No order as to costs}

¶35

l,4 iscellaneous^petitions, if any^pending in this^{appealshall stand}

¶36

¶37

To,

¶38

SD/. MOHD. SANAULLAH^ANSARI ASSISTA}I.T REGISTRAR //TRUE coPY// setPou oFFrcER

¶39

dismissed

¶40

.l . The chairman, [40tor Accident claims Tribunal-cum- | Additional District Judoe. Nizamaba,l.

¶41

1. one"iC to Sri l.^{lVlaamuVani, Advocate} [OPUC]

¶42

J. One CC to Sri P.^{IladhiveReddy,Advocate} [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies

CHR

,;'

H]GH COURT

DATED:1610312023

JUDGMENT

MACMA.N o.2628 of 2008

¶51

1 .1E S r'{r €
1
or)J 2 r] l\It 2$tl J
I
-! rug qP,.r c,!rcl

¶52

DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS

¶53

6
a6/d7,>3
_{
C c.,s

¶54

<br>

¶55

[ 3230 ]
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THURSDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE
PRESENT
, THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
M.A.C.M.A. No.26 28 0F 2008
n
11. The nsurance Company Ltd.,
its Branch Manager,
I I Bran ch Nea r Mayuri Hotel.
,.l Gddown ," Nizamabad
: i ,, ,APPELLANr/
I AND 2nd Respondent
i G
, w/o.Gurudu
,:
;ab6ut 55 years,
lrt r.l i'l:i:i{ E r/b.M6nd ora village of
.I t. ir, |zamabad District
rt/o. Giinidu Shankcr,
liri-; r'a.,f :. years Occ Household,
'!i.i il e of Balkonda
t. ',1 .
bad District.
t,i lvt. ani,ibl<i.Gurudu
I
It' ut 27 years, Occ:
Mendora village of
iNizamabad District
,'jo
angu, d/o.Gurudu
t, out 25 years, Occ.
doia.village of
l*i lif, : Nizamabad Districl
iTlr: RESPONDENTS/
-;il !- :
i#s Petitioners
lE[. 51 years,
,
l4li
'Owner ot lorry
::t 5
,I:i: r 3 , Narsi
iiili il :
-;:l :t$ -
-. RES PODNENTS/
1 "t respondenl
Appeal Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the Order and
Decree made in o'p.No.'122 0f 2oo0 dated 16.08-2005 0n the fire of the court of the
chairman, Motor Accident craims Tribunar-cum- r Additionar District Judge,
Nizamabad.

¶56

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 Smt I. Maamu Vani, Advocate for the Appellant and of Sri P. Radhive Reddy, Advocate for the Respondents.

¶57

This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

¶58

That the Motor Accident Civii Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby IS dismissed.

¶59

That there shall bc. no order as to costs in this appeal.

¶60

SD/. MOHD. SANAULLAH ANSARI ASSISTANT-REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// (tt sEcirdft oFFrcER

¶61

To,

¶62

The Chairman, [,lotor Accident Claims Tribunal-cumI Additional District Judge, Nizamabad.

¶63

One CC to Sri l. [/aamu Vani, Advocate [OPUC]

¶64

One CC to Sri P. tladhive Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 4. \wo CD Copies

CHR / L'

HIGH COURT

DATE D: 1 610312023

DECREE

MACMA.N o.2628 of 2008

¶71

DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS

¶72

o
1

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd, Nizamabad v. Gurudu Gangubai and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd, Nizamabad v. Gurudu Gangubai and 4 Others

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

The a.P.S.R.T.C.,Rep.by M.D.,Musheerabad, Hyderabad and Anothr Vs Mohd. Nazeeruddin, Nizamabad and Another

The Managing Director, Apsrtc and Anothers Vs K.Jagan Mohan Reddy, and 2 Others

Apsrtc, Rep.by Md, Picket, Secunderabad. and Another Vs M.Veena and 5 Others

Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited, Chennai. Vs Bandi Ramachandram , Ramachandru and 4 Others

The Managing Director, Hyd. Vs Thaneeru Kondaiah, R.R.Dist.

The Apsrtc., and Another Vs S.Krishna Murthy and 5 Others