Dismissed

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Eluri Jayasri and 9 Others

Telangana HC7 Dec 2023MACMA/3082/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an appeal filed by the insurer against the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal's award. The Court held that the insurer cannot be exonerated as the deceased was a passenger and the insurer failed to prove the car was hired or the deceased was an unauthorized user. The claim allowed.

What did the court decide?

The appeal filed by the insurer against the compensation award of the Tribunal was dismissed; the Tribunal's judgment and decree were confirmed.

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Eluri… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^337e I

¶2

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

¶3

THURSDAY ,THE SEVENTH^{DAY OF DECEMBER} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE.

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{P.SAII/IKOSHY} AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{N.TUKARAIT,IJI}

¶6

MOTOR CIDENT CIVIL SCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO:^{3062 OFm19}

¶7

Appeal Under Section 173 of^{Motor VehiclesAct againstthe order and decree} in M.V.O.P.No. 316 of 2015 dated 22.09.2016^{on the file of the Court of the} Chairman Motor Accident Claims^Tribunal -cum-Additional^{DistrictJudge,at} Khammam.

¶8

Between:

¶9

National lnsurance Co. Ltd.,^{Branch,Khammam,11-5'1214'Near} Collectorate, Wyra Road,^Khammam.

¶10

...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT No.6

¶11

AND

¶12

1 . Eluri Jayasri, W/o Late Srinivasa Rao,^Age. 15^{years, Occ. Houseiold,Rl/o} H.No.3-i02, Street No.g, Jayanagar Colony,^{Ballepalli, Khammam Town and} District.

¶13

Eluri Sravya, D/o Late Srinivasa^{Rao, Age. 23 years,Occ. Student,Rl/o} H.No.3-102, Street No.g, Jayanagar Colony,^{Ballepalli, KhammarnTown and} District.

¶14

Eluri Sowmya, D/o Late Srinivasa^{Rao, Age' 21 years Occ. Student, Rl/o} H.No.3-102,- Street No.g, Jayanagar Colony,^{Ballepalli, KhammamTown and} District.

¶15

Eluri Krishna Murthy, S/o Appaiah,^{Aged about75} Wats,^occRetired Employee, Rl/o H.No.3-102, Street^{No.9,JayanagarColony'Ballepalli'} Khammam Town and District.

¶16

5 Eluri siromani, wo Krishna^{Murthy' Aged about 70} )'ears'^{occu' Housewife'} R/o H.No.3-102, Street No.9, Jayanagar Colony,^{Ballsalli,Khammam Town} and District.

¶17

...RESPONDENT Nos. 1 to S/PETITIONERS

¶18

Samirreni Srilaxmi, W/o Late Siva Prasad, Age.40 years, occ. House wife, Residents of Chandra Classic Towers, Penthouse, Oppsoite TNGOs Function Hall,^t/DOs Colony, Khammam.

¶19

Samirrent Abhinay, S/o Late Siva Prasad, Aged about 15^years, occ. Student, Resid3nts of Chandra Classic Towers, Penthouse, Oppsbite TNGOS Function Hall, \rDOs Colony, Khammam.

¶20

Samireni Niharika, D/o Late Siva Prasad. Aged about 14^yearc, occ. Student, Resid,:nts of Chandra Classic Towers, Penthouse, Oppsoite TNGOs Function Hall, 'DOs Colony, Khammam.

¶21

Samineni Manvitha, D/o Late Siva Prasad. Aged about 10 years, occ. Student, Residents of Chandra Classic Towers, Penthouse, Oppsoite TNGOs Functirn Hall, VDOs Colony, Khammam.

¶22

(Respondents 7 to I are being minors., rep. by Their mother and natural guardiirn- Respondent No.6 herein)

¶23

10.Samin,:ni Urmila, Wo Venkateshwar Rao, Aged about 60 years, occ. House wife, Flesidents of Chandra Classic Towers, Penthouse, Oppsoite TNGOs Function Hall, VDOs Colony, Khammam.

¶24

Resporrdents 6 to 10 are the legal heirs of the deceased Samineni Siva Prasad who is the Owner of the Car bearing No. AP 20 AE 3600

¶25

...RESPONDENT Nos.6 to 10/ RESPONDENT No. I to 5

¶26

lA NO: 3 OF i1019

¶27

Petitiorr under Section 151 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the op€,ration of the Order and Decree dated 22-09-2018 passed in O.P.No.316 o' 2015 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunalcum - I Addl. I)istrict Judge, Khammam.

¶28

Counsel for the Appellant : Sri A RAMAKRISHNA REDDY

¶29

Counsel for Respondents : None appeared

¶30

The Court del vered the following: JUDGMENT

¶31

¶32

HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE P. SAM KOSHY AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI M.A. .4. N .3 82oF 2

¶33

JUDGMENT:^{(per Hon'bteSri} Justice N. Tukaramii)

¶34

We have heard Mr. A. Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant/respondenr No.6/insurer and perused the record.

¶35

2 'fhis appeal has been Cried assailing the decree and order dared 22.09.2018 in M.V.O.P.No. 316 of ZO15 on t_he file of the Chatman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional Dis trict Judge, Khammam

¶36

The brief facts of rhe case are th^t, on 23.12.2072 at abott 4.45 p.m. when the deceased/Eluri Srinivas Rao and others were proceeding in Car bearing No. Ap_20_AE_3600 and reached Loyolo School near V.Venk atayapa).em village, the driver, drove the car in rash and negligent manner, Iost control and dashed the vehicle against a tree. This accident

¶37

¶38

PSr('&NlXJ NnC\1._1082^2()l9

¶39

¶40

resulted in the instantaneous^{death o F E,luri Srinivas} Rao/deceased and two others.^{Thus the clairn petidon.}

¶41

4 k enquiry the petitioner No.l got^{examined herselfas} PS7-1 and marked Exs.A-1 to^A-6. Further, the eyewitn,:ss/PW-2 and the^{officer who issuedlast p^y} certiFrcate of the deceased/PW-3^{were examined.The}

¶42

respondents including^{the insurer adduccd no oralevidence;}

¶43

houreve:: marked the insurance policy/Ex.B-^{1 .}

¶44

TlLe trial Court on considering^{the materials,granted}

¶45

Rs.48,71,492/- with interest at^l.Soh Per^{annurn tothe} petitionr:ts as comPensation by^{holding the respondents} includinl3 the insurer ioindy^{and 'severally liable to pay}

¶46

comPent;auon.

¶47

6 In appeal, though several aspects^{raised, the respondent} No.6/in,;urer limited^{the contest to the aspectthat the vehicle} was hire,l out by the owner^{against the terms and conditions} of the policy/Ex.B-l. The^{deceasedbeing an unauthorized}

¶48

PSKIJ&NlRJ Il.(i., \ I)tr2 2019

¶49

¶50

-7

¶51

Passenger,^{the liabiliry} cannor be fastened under the insurance policy/Ex.B-1- However basing on the serf inreresred statemenr of P)7-2, the tribunal erred in concluding this essenrial factor. Thus pleadcd that the respondent No.6/insurer should have been exonerated.

¶52

At the outset, on tire moot poinr the respondent No.6/insurer had not placed any evidence and failed to make out any factor to substantiate that the deceased was fare paid passenger or engaged the car on hire. The material on record and the statemenr of the pW_2 are unequivocally establishing the facts of the deceased being passenger in the car and the accident due ro rash and neg.ligent driving of the driver of the car. Thus, excepr the pleading of the respondent No.6/insurer, there is no dring on record to indicate that the

¶53

) l

¶54

car was on hire at material time. To add, the petirioners, claim is that the accident occurred when the owner of the vehicle including the deceased were returning after attending a

¶55

t,sK.t&\ Ilt,l lt.\c\t _-]081-lr)19

¶56

¶57

¶58

worshil) event. This plea/statement in evidencc remained

¶59

uncontl overted. In such factual posit-ion deducing that the

¶60

car was hired out would be highly improbable.

¶61

A. any stretch, unless it is established that the deceased was a fare paid passenger or the car was hired at relevant time, holding him as an unauthorized passenger would be improbable and merely on the fact that the dcceased was in the car z s passenger settling him as an unauthorized would be untenab.e. Above all even as per the respondent No.6/in;urer, the insurance policy/Ex.B-1 is comprehensive policy which covers the risk of the passengers. In this factual position, without proving the alleged fact ar.d violation of poliry condition, the claim of respondent No.6/insurer for

¶62

exonerat.on does not merit consideration.

¶63

Fol the aforesaid, the liability concluded by the tribunal against rlle respondent No.6/insurer is found perfecdy

¶64

justified.

¶65

¶66

PSK,I&N-llr,l t\t 1ci\JA_l(r8l,2r.) I 9

¶67

¶68

Consequendy, the appeal is liable to be and accordingly

¶69

dismrssed. There shall be no order to costs.

¶70

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions if any,

¶71

stands closed.

¶72

Sd/. M OHD. SANAULLAH^ANS ASSISTANT^REGIST

//TRUE^COPY//

SECTION^O ICER

To, 1. The Chairman^{MoforAccident Claims Tribunal-tum-Additional District} Judge, at^{Khammam. (withrecords' if any)}

¶77

1. 6;ajCi"^{sri. A. RAMAKRISHNA REDDY'Advocate [oPUC]}

¶78

Two^{CD CoPies}

Tyh/njb

$ar

HIGH C()URT

DATED:0711212023

JUDGME:NT⁺ DECREE MACMA.No.3082 of 2019

¶85

iiS 21l:i r_:r' ! l<br>()
+

¶86

APPEAL IS DISMISSED

¶87

HIGFICOURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶88

¶89

THURSDAY,THE^{SEVENTH DAY OF DECEMAER} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTYTHREE}

¶90

PRESENT

¶91

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY} AND THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI}

¶92

MO R ctD ctv Mtsc EO SAP E o oF ml9

¶93

Between:

¶94

National lnsurance^{Co. Ltd.' Branch,Khammam'11-5-1214' Near} Collectorate,^{WYraRoad, Khammam'}

¶95

...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT^No'6

¶96

AND

¶97

1 Eluri Javasri, Wo^{Late Srinivasa Rao, Age' 45 years' Occ..l-t'ousehold'Rl/o} 'H:lG:i'1"0;,' di;;.iffi .e, J"tilas"i' c';ionv, Batlepalli' Khammam^rown and District.

¶98

2 EluriSravva,D/oLateSrinivasaRao'Age'23years'.Oc.cStudent'F/o Eliil.i:ioil'siiJ"i-N'".s-,^{lrvinisarcol5nv,Bailepal{i' Khammam rown} and District.

¶99

3 EluriSowmva,D/oLateSrinivasaRao,Age'2lyearsOccStudent'R/oEiliti:itj)l St&i^{-Nt.-s, jlvl"tsarCbtoiv,Balfeparli' Khammam rown} and District.

¶100

4 Ei#,f$"a,y',I1,'dr:i'.f 'Ef,^{'Si$str3f$,[:,'ffid:"*TsJ:ffl} Kndmrfiam Town^{and District.}

¶101

5 SIHJ:'[,T"ff^{''rx!"-,['l]nE,'Y.i"hilb.f "l,*?:!lP€3,1i;r1""H;'[BLT} Khammam Town^{and District.}

¶102

...RESPONDENT^{Nos.'l to S/PETITIONERS}

¶103

6 Samineni^{Srilaxmi,WoLateSiva Prasad,} Age^{40 years' occ'House wife'} ffiil;;i;-;i-'C#ior.i^{ci"tiii, iowLrs, ientnorjse, oppsoite rNcos} Function^{Hall, VDOs Colony,Khammam'}

¶104

7 Samineni A,bhinay,^{S/o Late SivaPrasad, ngeO} *otll^{15 years' occ'} 5ft;;-i nesioenli ot^{cnanoiablassicfouErs,Penthouse' oppsoite} il.tGos Function^{Hall, VDOs Colony, Khammam'}

¶105

¶106

SamineniNiharika,D/oLateSivaPrasad.Ageda'bout14yea^rs'occ. 5ffi;;i" i;;id"nti^{or- cnanoraclassic TowErs, Penthouse' oppsoite} iNGOs Function^{Hall, VDOs Colony, Kharnmam'}

¶107

9 Samineni Manvitha,^{D/o LateSiva Prasad' Aged} {ouJ^{10 years'occ'} 5t]lffii-filffiil'^{oi ctan*ac{assic Towers, Penthouse' oppsoite} itrcG runction^{Hall, VDOs Colony,Kharnmam'}

¶108

¶109

(Respondents 7 to 9 are being minors., rep. by Their mother and natural guar( ian- Respondent No.6 herein)

¶110

Samineni Urmila, W/o Venkateshwar Rao, Aged about 60 years, occ. House wife, Residents of Chandra Classic Towers, Penthouse, Oppsoite TllGOs Function Hall, VDOs Colony, Khammam.

¶111

Resp()ndents 6 to 10 are the legal heirs of the deceased Samineni Siva Prasad who is the Owner of the Car bearing No. AP 20 AE 3600

¶112

...RESPONDENT Nos. 6 to 10/ RESPONDENT No.'l to 5 ' Apperrl Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the order and decree in M.V.O.P.l,lo. 316 of 2015 dated 22.09.2018 on the file of the Court of the Chairman lrlotor Accident Claims Tribunal -cum-Additional District Judge, at Khammam.

¶113

ORDER: This appeal coming on for hearing and upon^perusing the^grounds of appeal, the J:dgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material^papers in the case and upon hearing the arguments of Sri A. RAMAKRISHNA REDDY, Advocate for the Appellant and None appeard for the Respondents.

¶114

This Court doth Judgment and decree as follows:-

¶115

That tl-e MACMA filed against the order and decree of the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (l Additional District Judge), at Khammam^passed in M.V.O.P.No. 316 of 2015 daled 22.O9.2018 be and hereby is confirmed, and th() appeal is dismissed; and

¶116

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

¶117

s9/- MOHD. SANAULLAH AN ARI ASS]STANT REGI //TRUE COPY//

¶118

SECTION OFFICER

¶119

To,

¶120

The Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal --cum-Additional District Judge, at Khammam.

¶121

Two CD Copies

¶122

Tvh,/nib'^-+Ns

HIGH COURT

DATED:0711212023

DECREE

MACMA.N|o.3O82 of 2019

¶128

APPEAL I$ DISMISSED

¶129

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Eluri Jayasri and 9 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Eluri Jayasri and 9 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

M/s. TaherAli Industries and Projects, (P) Ltd., Vs The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax

Geethala Reddy Prasad Reddy Vs Union of India

Arigela Satyanarayana, Vs Union of India

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Aedella Aparna

Aedella Aparna Vs Ch.Anjaneyulu

P. Laxmi and 3 Others Vs B. Swamy and Another