Dismissed

Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Thota Gopi Krishna and Another

Telangana HC20 Oct 2023MACMA/347/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an appeal filed by an insurance company challenging a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award. The insurance company argued the driver lacked a license, entitling the insurer to deny liability under Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Court held the insurer failed to rebut evidence proving no valid license was in the driver's possession, thus upholding the lower court'

What did the court decide?

The appeal is dismissed, affirming the compensation award of Rs. 1,27,500, and the appellant-insurer is directed to deposit the compensation amount within six weeks.

Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Thota Gopi Krishna and… — Insurance | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁸³ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRlgly, rHE TWENIETH DAy oF ocroBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry THREE_

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

¶6

M.AC.M.A. NO: 347 oF 2015

¶7

' Appear fired under section 173 0f Motor vehicres Act against the order and decree in M.v.o p.No.i 149 of 2.010 oatea tl-oa-idrJ o, tn. fire of the court of the chairman Motor Accidents craims rriornar-cum-it^-Rooitionat District Judge, (FTC), Ranga Reddy District.

¶8

¶9

Between:

¶10

HDFC ERGO General lnsuran"u^? Lld,, Rep.by its Br. Manager, 3rd floor, 6_3_ 346/1, opp-Jatasam vensat Rao park, Br"j";iiill, i;Jeraoao.

¶11

AND

¶12

...APPELLAiIT/RESPoM)ENT No.2

¶13

1' Thota Gopi Krishna, S/o.Rangaiah, Aged 3g yrs, occ service Assistant, Balajinagar, Ghatkesar Vi age and Mandal, Ranga n"JOy Oistrict.

¶14

...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER

¶15

2 N.Venkateswara Reddy, S/o.Nagi Reddy, Aged about 49 yrs, Occ Owner of the vehicte No Ap-03-AF-Z6og, Rfo.z_26, Na;On"r"ia.,i"itur. tf,rfl, Prakasham District.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶17

¶18

:, MAGMAMP. NO: 938 OF 2015

¶19

Petition under section i5'r cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, ir,,,Jiigh c;n may be preased to stav the execution of decree and judgmenr passeoin o.p.Nl.iiag 6i;;il,.t,:J '13-08.2o14 on the fire of the M;to; nccioents claims'Tribunar-cum-Xl Addr. Dist. Judge. (FTC) Ranga Reddy District and p""ai.s ii,'" ii"ar disposar of the main appeal

¶20

Counsel for the Appeltant: SRt KOTA SUBBA RAO

¶21

Counsel for the Respondents: NONE APPEARED

¶22

The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

¶23

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

¶24

M.A.C.M.A.NO.347 0F 20L5

¶25

JUDGMENT:

¶26

Heard learned counsel Sri Mr. Kota Subba Rao, for the appellant-insurance company

¶27

The present appeal has becn filed by the appellant_insurance company aggrieved by the au,ard passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Xl Adciitional District Judge (FTC), Ranga Reddy District (for short,^.MACTJ in O.p.No. It49 of 2O10, dated 13.08.2014 and thereby seeking [o set aside the award against the appellant-insurance company.

¶28

3 The brief factual matnx of the present appeal is as under.

¶29

On 02.06.2070, at abour lO.3O p.m., while the claimant_ injured was proceeding on l.ris motor cycle bearing registration No.AP-2O-D-58O9 ancl whe n he reached near turning at Satyanagar Colony of Nagaram village in Keesara Mandal, the driver of the tractor bearing registration No.Ap O3_AF-_76O2 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed ttre motorcycle of the claimant, as a result, he sustained multiple frachlres and other injuries. The claimant was admitted in

¶30

LNA,l ttAcMA Nc. 147^oJ2015

¶31

¶32

Raghavendra Hospital at^{KarnalaNagar, Hyderabad'and was} treated as inpatient^{from02.O6.2010to O9'06'2O1O, that he has} been taking treatment^{as outpatientafter dischargefrom the} hospital, that he^{sufferedlot of pain and agony and incurredhuge} amount towards treatment^{andmedicinesandclaimed} compensation^{of Rs. 3,00,O00/-.}

¶33

The respondent No.l,^{the owner of the tractorremained} ex-parte.

¶34

The 2"d respondent-Insurance^{Companyappellanthercin} filed counter denying^{allegations made in thc claim petition and} contended that the^{driver of the tractor was not having valid} drivrng license at the^{time of accident,that respondcnt no lhas} violated lhe terms and conditions^{of the insuranccpolicy, as such'} insurance company is^{not liable to pay compensationand prayed} for dismissal of the claim^{petition against the iusurancecompany'}

¶35

ln order to substantiate^{the case, on behalfof the claimant'} P.Ws.l and 2 were examined^{and Exs.Alto AIO were markedOn} beha-lf of the 2nd respondent-insurance^{company,R W Iwas} examincd and Exs.Bl to^{B3 weremarked'}

¶36

LNA,J MACMA No 347 ol2015

¶37

¶38

The MACT on due consideration of^{evidence placedon} record, came to conclusion that the^{accident took placedue to the} rash and negligent driving o[ the driver^{of the Tractor and awarded} compensation to the claimant as^follows:

¶39

Sl.No	Head	Compensatlon awsrded
1	Painandagony	Rs.50,000/-
2	Transportation expenditure and attendant	Rs.20,OOO/
3	Repairs tothe motorcycle	Rs-16,5OO/^-
4	[.ossofearnings	Rs.4I,OOO/
	Total	Rs.1,27,5O0/-

¶40

The owner of the vehicle and the^{Insurance company 1.e.,} respondents I and 2 were held to be^{jointly and severallyliableto} pay the said compensation with costs and^{inlerest(! 9'k per} annum

¶41

During the course of hearing of^{appeal, learned counsel for} appellant submitted that MACT^{failedto see that the driver of the} vehicle was not having driving license at^{the time of the accident,} that MACT failed to see that under Section^{149 of the M.V.Act,the} insurance company can deny the liability and^{when once there was}

¶42

LNA,I MACMA Na 347 of 20tS

¶43

¶44

no liabiiity, the insurance company should be exonerated totally, even without resorting the principles of .pay and recovery,.

¶45

Considerati on:

¶46

With rcgard to the driving license of the driver of the tractor, the MACT held that there was no evidence to show that trx. 82 notice was served on respondent no.1 asking him to show_cause as to why policy should not be cancelled and further, it was not mentioned in the said notice that respondent No.1 was driving the vehicle and that he was not having valid driving license. The MACT further held rhat though in the charge-sheet, Section 1g1 of thc M.V.Act was mentioned and it was established that respondenr no.1 r.vas not having driving license, Section 1g1 of thc MV Act only shorn s that driver did not produce driving license rvhen demanded by the police and that it does not confirm that therc was no driving licensc in favour of respondent no. 1, who was driving the tractor at the time of the accident. MACT further held that except issuing shorv-cause notice for canceilation of policy, no evidence was placed to show that policy was cancelled by insurance company_ Therefore, the MACT opined that respondents 1 and 2 were held to be liable jointly ald severally to the compensation. Further, the

¶47

LNA.J MACMA No JtrT ol2015

¶48

¶49

I t

¶50

insurance company has not examined any olhcial from RTA Department nor placed aly material to substantiate their contention.

¶51

I 1. The learned counsel for thc appetlanr rhough claiming that the insurance company is not liable to pay the compcnsation as the driver of the vehicle was not having the valid licence at the time o[ the accident, it is for the insurance company to provc that driver had no valid driving license and that thcre rvas brear_:h of policy conditions.

¶52

On perusal of the impugncd a\r,ard, this Court is of the considered view that the insurance company has tailcd to prove that the driver of the vehicle was not hat,ing valid driving license at the time of the accidence by way ol rebuttat cvidencc. Therefore, the MACT has rightly come to a conclusion thar the orvncr of the vehicle and the insurance company were hcld tiablc to pay the compensation jointly and severally.

¶53

For the aforesaid reasons, the Appcal is tiablc to bc dismissed and is accordingly dismisscd, alTirming the award passed by the MACT. The appcllan t- ir.r su rancc is directcd to

¶54

MACMA No 147 of ZO)s

¶55

¶56

deposit thc compensation amount within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order duly adjusting the amount if already deposited. On such deposit. the claimant is entitled to deposit the entire compensation amount. There shall be no ordcr as to costs.

¶57

Pending miscellaneous applications if any shalt stand closed.

¶58

SD/.A.V.S.PRASAD ASSISTANT B.EGISTRAR //TRUECOPY// .,V/

¶59

SECTION OFFICER

¶60

To,

¶61

1 . The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Xl Additional District Judge(FTC) , i^:

¶62

2- One CC to Sri Kota Subba Rao, Advocate [OPUC]

¶63

Two CD Copies

KVRJp

HIGH COURT

DATED:2011012023

JUDGMENT+DECREE MACMA.No.347 of 2015

¶69

1t\e STAI
t
a
oo 2 { I AN 2$2[ -I'
n
!
*
tl

¶70

¶71

r '?^.1.

¶72

DISMISSING THE APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS :.. ':i

¶73

¶74

¶75

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

¶76

FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶77

PRESENT

¶78

i.JHE HONOURABLE'SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA^ALISHETTY

¶79

M.A.C.M.A. NO:347 OF 2015

¶80

Between:

¶81

HDFC ERGO General lnsurance Co Ltd.,, Rep.by its 8r. Manager, 3rd^floor, 6-3346i1, Opp-Jalagam Vengal Rao Park, Banjara Hills,^Hyderabad.

¶82

...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT No.2

¶83

AND

¶84

Thota Gopi Krishna, S/o.Rangaiah, Aged 38^{Yrs, Occ Service Assistant,} Balajinagar, Ghatkesar Village and^{Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.}

¶85

...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER

¶86

N.Venkateswara Reddy, S/o.Nagi^{Reddy, Aged about 49 Yrs, Occ Owner of} the vehicle No AP-03-AF-7603,^{Rl/o.2-26,Madhavaram,Tallur(M),} Prakasham District.

¶87

¶88

...RESPONoENTS/RESPONOENTS

{.,

i Appeat filed under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against^{the order and} decree in M.V.O.P.No.1149 of^20'10 dated^{13{8-2014 on the file of the Courtof} the Chairman Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Xl^{Additional District Judge,} (FTC), Ranga Reddy District.

¶93

ORDER: This appeal coming on for hearing and^{uponperusingthe grounds of} appeal,.the Judgment and Decree of the Lower^{Courtand thematerialpaper in the} case. and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Kota Subba^{Rao, Advocatefor the} I :-'.i . App<illant and None appeared for Respondent^{Nos.1 & 2.}

¶94

This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

¶95

,-t. t . Thati tne Motoi Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is dismissed, affirming the award^{passed by the Motor Accident Claims tribunal;}

¶96

I ;

¶97

That the appellant lnsurance be and hereby directed to deposit the compensation amount within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order duly adjusting lhe amount if already deposited;

¶98

on such deposit that the claimant be and hereby entifled to deposit the entire compensation amount;

¶99

That save as aforesai4 the decree of the Lower court shafl stands confirmed in all other respects; and

¶100

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

¶101

SD/.A.V.S.PRASAD ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// (_&/

¶102

SECTION OFFICER

¶103

To, '' ;'r, 1. The chairman, Motorhccidents craimdiTribunar-cum-Xr Additionar District Judge(FTC)

¶104

1. Two CD Copies

"d 4u
;.I , . i$t:,

HIGH COURT

DATED:201'1012023

DECREE

MACMA.No.347 of 2015

DISMISSING THE APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS

¶111

D
)
I 1b>4
t

Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Thota Gopi Krishna and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Thota Gopi Krishna and Another

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

Kaneez Fatima and 3 Others Vs Aska Kiran Raja and Another

K Venkateshwar Rao, Ranga Reddy Dist Vs R Shankar, Ranga Reddy Dist and Anr.

Geesa Narasamma and 4 Others Vs Bhookya Venkanna and 2 Others

Reliance Gneral Insurance Company Ltd. and Anr. Vs Keshaboina Sammakka and 4 Ors.

Karravula Dhadi Raju Vs Bongani Mallesh and Anr.

Ahmed Ali Vs Sri.Rajpal Rathi