Dismissed

United India Insurance Company Limited, v. G.Sandhya

Telangana HC15 Nov 2023MACMA/2677/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this motor accident appeal, the United India Insurance Company appealed against a compensation award of Rs. 3 lakhs by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The High Court dismissal the appeal, upholding the Tribunal's finding that all respondents were jointly and severally liable.

What did the court decide?

The motor accident civil miscellaneous appeal was dismissed, confirming the award and decree of the Trial Court, with no order as to costs.

United India Insurance Company Limited, Vs G.Sandhya — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁰⁰ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELAI.IGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

WEDNESDAY, TI-IE FIFTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

¶6

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO:2677 OF 2008

¶7

Appeal filed Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act,1988 against the Award and decree in O.P.No.1373 of 2006 dated.l 8 10412008 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- X Additional Chief Judge [FAC] cum X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad.

¶8

Between:

¶9

United lndia lnsurance Company Limited,, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad through its Div. Office-|, Secbad. Rep.by its Sr. Div. Manager. ...AppellanURespondent No.2

¶10

AND

¶11

G.Sandhya, Wo Radhaiah @ Raju Service Rlo 1-8-677h9, Padma Colony, Behind Shankar Mutt,

¶12

L.Rajeswar Rao, S/o Anand Rao, age major Business, Rep.by its Managing Director. Ryo 1-1-364/75ISRT Javaharnagar, RTC XC Roads, Musheerabad,

¶13

APSRTC, Office at R.T.C--X Roads, ltlusheerabad, Hyderabad. rep.by its Managing Director.

¶14

R -2 dismissed for default vide Court Order dated 1310712016

¶15

...Respondents

¶16

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2008(MACMAMP. NO: 5689 OF 2008|

¶17

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased grant stay of execution of Judgment and Decree passed in OP.NO.1373 of 2006 dated 18-4-2OOB by N,IACT cum lX Additional Chief Judge [FAC] cum X Additbnal Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad pending disposal of the appeal.

¶18

Counsel for the Appellant : Sri AVKS Prasad

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : Sri V Atchuta Ram

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : Sri C Sunilkumar Reddy (SC for APSRTC)

¶21

The Court made the following: Judgment

¶22

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA}

¶23

M.A. C.M.A.No.26^{770F 2008}

¶24

JUDG ME^NT:

¶25

This appeal is filed under^{Section 173 of the Motor} Vehicles Act by the^{appellant/respondent No.2, aggrieved by} the award and decree,^{dated 18.04.2008 passed in} O.P.No.1373 of 2006^{on the file of IX Additional ChiefJudge} (FAC) X Additional Chief Judge,^{Fast Track Court, City Civil} Court, Hyderabad^{(for short "the Tribunal").}

¶26

For the sake of^{convenience, the partieswill be} hereinafter referred to^{as arrayed before the Tribunal'}

¶27

Brief facts of the^{caseare that on 19.06.2006 at about} 11:10 AM the^{petitioner and her husband were waiting at the} bus-stand at Patancheru,^{at that time a bus bearinqNo'AP-} 09-X-6950 driven^{by its driver in a rash and negligent manner} at high speed came and^{hit the petitioner,as a result of} which, the^{petitionerfell down and wheel of the bus ran over} her left foot, crushing it,^{causedfractureof both bonesin the} foot and extensive loss of^{skin and muscle. Immediately,the} petitioner was taken to Apollo Hospital,^{Hyderabad, whereshe} underwent surgery on her crushed left^{foot, which was fixed} with'K'wire, and also underwent skin^{graFt. She was treated} \ l,

-/'

(

NBK, J MACMA 2677 2008

¶32

as an in-patient at the said hospital for several days. The Police, Patancheru registered a case in Cr.No.220 of 2006 under Section 337 of IPC. The 1't respondent is the registered owner and the 2nd respondent is the insurer of the said bus. The said bus is hired out to the 3'd respondent. Therefore, all the three respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner.

¶33

Before the Tribunal, the respondent No.1 remained exparte. Respondent No.2 and 3 filed their respective counters and submitted that they are not liable to pay the compensation and prayed to dismiss the petition.

¶34

Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:

¶35

1. Whether the accident took place on 19.06.2006 at about 11:10 am., due to rash and negligent driving of bus bearing No.AP-09-X-6950, by its driver?

¶36

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?

¶37

1. To what relief?

¶38

During trial, on behalf of the petitioners, PW-1 to PW-4 are examined and Ex.A-l to Ex.A-15 are marked. On the

{

NBK, J MACI,IA 2677 2008

¶43

other hand, on behalf of respondent, Ex.B-1 is^marked and Rw-1 is examined.

¶44

After considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal though held that the accident was not occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of APSRTC bus and awarded an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- with interest @ 7.5olo^per annum from the date of petitioner till the date of realization, by holding respondent Nos.1 to 3 are^jointly and severally liable to deposit the awarded amount within 2 months from the date of award. Aggrieved by the said award and decree, the respondent No.2 has filed the present appeal.

¶45

B. Heard both sides and perused the record.

¶46

The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant strongly contended that the learned Tribunal erred in fixing the monthly income of the petitioner at Rs.8,000/- and coming to a final award at Rs.3,00,000/- and submitted that since the bus is given on hire to APSRTC, they are not liable to^pay the compensation as awarded by the learned tribunal in the impugned order.

)

NBK, J MACMA 2677 m08

¶51

A perusal of the impugned award would show that the Tribunal has framed Issue No.1 as to whether the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent act of driving of the drivgr of the bus and came to the conclusion that the accident had not occurred due to negligence of the driver of the bus. Further, the other contention raised by the appellant herein is that since the bus is unaeJ the control oF the APSRTC at the time of alleged accident as such they are not liable to pay the compensation but, on a perusal of the impugned order, the finding arrived at by the learned tribunal holding all the respondents jointly and severally to deposit the compensation awarded by the tribunal, is very reasonable and convincing in view of the facts and circumstances.

¶52

In view of the foregoing discussion, I see no reason to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal and there are no grounds to interfere with the findings arrived at by the Tribunal and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

¶53

L2. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed, confirming the award and decree, dated 18.04.2008 passed in O.P.No.1373 of 2006 on the file of IX Additional Chief Judge (FAC) X I )

NBK, J MACMA_2677_2008

¶58

Additional Chief Judge, Fast Track Court, City Civil Court,

¶59

Hyderabad. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶60

Miscellaneous petitions. if anv, pendi2gl shall stand

¶61

closed.

¶62

¶63

Sd/- T. VIJAY KUMAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAC

//TRUE COPY//

,Q-- -'

To,

SECTION OFFICER

1 The Motor Accident Ctaims Tribunal_cum_ X Additionat Chief Judge IFTCI , 3H f"i:'J::l"l fi !"i J'os:, ijiv d;r i;;,i; ydera bad ( wi th reco;ds ) i^p;i tr $"ilx^{il"lnis:il*]]"trs f,,^,,?1,",,o,,",}

ADK/kam -x-\

I I : t.

HIGH^COURT DATED:1^511112023

¶73

;
'-:,:*:: -.
"r:'-r:E#,1
::'

¶74

JUDGMENT+DECREE MACMA.No.2677^{of 2008}

¶75

i
:ir
'-rli
?,
1HE S iA
</
+
.)
lE
. -ri
1g iPB 2t2{ a -1.t"rr&_,,
,.t
ffii
..: ,1 'ry'._fli....
,i,
?
7

¶76

DISMISSTNG^{THE MACMA} WITHOUT^COSTS

¶77

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

¶78

'##

¶79

WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶80

PRESENT

¶81

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

¶82

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO:2677 OF 2008

¶83

I'i-l i* 7t

¶84

Between:

¶85

United lndia lnsurance Company Limited,, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad through its Div. Office-|, Secbad. Rep.by its Sr. Div. Manager.

¶86

...AppellanURespondent No.2

¶87

-,, ''i4 ,Irr-$i

¶88

AND

¶89

G.Sandhya, Wo Radhaiah @ Raju Service FJo'l-8-677119, Padma Colony, Behind Shankar Mutt,

¶90

L.Rajeswar Rao, S/o Anand Rao, age major Business, Rep.by its Managing Director. Ryo 1-1-364l75lSRT Javaharnagar, RTC XC Roads, Musheerabad,

¶91

APSRTC, Office at R.T.C,-X Roads, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. rep.by its Managing Director.

¶92

$. ' :;. .:{B - r,.i'&' ' ri,

¶93

R -2 dismissed for default vide Court Order dated 1310712016

¶94

...Respondents

¶95

Appeal filed Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act,1988 against the Award and decree in O.P.No.'1373 of 2006 dated.1 8 lO4l20OB on the file of the Court of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- lX Additional Chief Judge [FAC] cum Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad.

¶96

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 Sri A V K S Prasad, Advocale for the Appellant and of Sri V Atchuta Ram, Advocate for the Respondent No.1 and Sri C Sunil Kumar Reddy (SC for APSRTC) Advocate for the Respondent No.3.

ri ;

r{# Y!,

This Court doth Order and Decree as follows :

¶101

That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is dismissed, confirming the award & decree, dated 18-04-2008 passed in O.P.No.1373 of 2006.

¶102

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

¶103

,! .:ta

¶104

Sd/. T. VIJAY KUMAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

/.t -- (v-

SECTION OFFICER

ffi

To,

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- X Additional Chief Judge [FTC] cum lX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad (With records)

¶111

Two CD Copies

¶112

ADI(kam $"-

¶113

.^'f}t-l ;r;S.. .Y4-'.

¶114

f.i ,i,....Jt.: .n:;;3an'; I!',l[:]E^rr: b laE!..1: +.' i.'.'.i {liI5.F i I

I *,,

f ,+ f,

IFe

HIGH COURT DATED:1 511112023

¶119

-s#dfr. ffi:+ 'sW',' ; ,'. :..s i' :q;'

¶120

DECREE

¶121

MACMA.No.2677 of 2008

¶122

DISM!SS!NG THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS

¶123

,E#-

¶124

!!.
+tI;.}.
':" t
t.
ffi

¶125

r
+ r:-{r
-._!rffi-,
l::,F
B

United India Insurance Company Limited, v. G.Sandhya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

United India Insurance Company Limited, v. G.Sandhya

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

Sri Sai Balaji Ginning and Oil Mills Vs Northern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited.

Khubchand Roopani, S/o. Meharchand Roopani, Vs The Andhra Pradesh Central Power Distribution Company

M/s. Kitchen Appliances India Ltd., Branch Office Vs Government of Andhra pradesh rep by its Principal

M/s. Murali Manpower Agencies Vs The Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.

Natuva Kavitha Vs The State of Telangana

Paduri Narsimha Reddy Vs K.Narsimha Reddy and Anr.