Dismissed

United India Ins Co. Ltd., Hyderabad v. Green Wood High School, Warangal Dist and 2 Others

Telangana HC7 Nov 2023MACMA/397/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an appeal filed by an insurance company challenging an MACT award in a motor accident case involving damage to a school gate. The Court held that the issuance of a valid cover note established insurance liability under the Motor Vehicles Act, rendering the appellant's denial irrelevant.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 397 of 2015 allowed to proceed against the appellant.

United India Ins Co. Ltd., Hyderabad Vs Green Wood… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry THREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

¶5

MOTOR ACCIOENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 397 0F 2015

¶6

Appeal Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the Judgment and Decree daled 23-12-2014 in O.P.No.712 ot 20OB on the file of the Court of the Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -cum- | Additional District Judge, at Warangal.

¶7

Between:

¶8

United lndia lnsurance Co. Ltd, Divisional Office Warangal through its Regional Office, TP-HUB Hyderabad Rep by its Manager

¶9

...AppellanUR-3

¶10

AND

¶11

Green Wood High School, near KITS Colleges, Yerragattu Gutta, Ambala Road, Hasanparthy M & [M] Warangal District rep by its Correspondent

¶12

M/s Gurukrupa Crane Services, Plot No.711, Steel Market, Kalemsoli, Raigadh District, Maharasha State, rep by its Owner Ramshankar, S/o. Raja Halla, R/o Kalamsoli, District Raigadh, Maharastra State

¶13

United lndia lnsurance Co Ltd.,, Chennai, Tamilnadu State Rep by its Regional Manager

¶14

[Not^{necessary party to this Appeal, as the Appellant Office is} the dealing Office in the casel

¶15

...Respondents

¶16

l.A. NO: 1 OF 201 5(MACMAMP. NO: 1128 OF 2015)

¶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 to grant STAY of execution of the Judgment and Decree [Award] passed in O.P.No.712 of 2008 daled 23-12-2014 by MACT-cum-l Addl. District Judge, Warangal, pending Appeal.

¶18

Counsel for the Appellant: Sri. A.V.K.S. Prasad

¶19

Counsel for the Respondents: None Appeared

¶20

The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

¶21

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

¶22

M.A.C.M.A.NO.397 0F 2015

¶23

JUDGMENT:

¶24

Heard learned counsel Sri Mr. A.V.K.S.prasad, for the appellant-insurance company. Respondent Nos.2 ald 3 herein t remained ex parte before the Tribunal, therefore, notice! to respondents 2 and 3 are dispensed with in the light of decision of Meka Chakra Rao vs. Yelubandi babu Rao @ Reddemma and others^r. Noticc to claimant is served, however, there is no representation on behalf of claimant.

¶25

The present appeal has been hled by the appellant-insurance company aggrieved by the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Warangal (for short, 'MACT) in M.V.O.p.No.7t2 of 20O8, dated 23.12.2014 and. thereby seeking to set aside the award against the insurance company.

¶26

3 The brief factual matrix of the present appeal is as under

¶27

The claimant, respondent no. t herein, is a School, represented by its correspondent and it is contended that it had constructed a big gate in front of the school by spending lakhs of

¶28

I {ot (r) ALr 4e5 (DB)

¶29

¶30

LNA,] MACMA No.397 oJ^2o1S

¶31

rupees. On^{04.O6.2007at about2.00 p'm', heary lorry crare} No.MH-O6-AF-^{1418, belonging to the 2"d respondentherein,} insured^{with appellantand respondent No'3 herein,was drivenby} its driver in^{rash and negligent manner and while takingreverse} gear, dashed the^{gate of the school, as a result,the entire gate was} completely^{damageda:nd ttre supporting wallsdeveloped cracks'} The claimant^{hledO.P.claiming compensationof Rs'2,37,OOO/-} from the^{ownerof the vehicle and the insurance company'}

¶32

The respondent Nos.l^{and 2before the MACTremained} ex parte^{and appellant-insurancecompanyfiled counter denying} the allegations^{made in the claimpetition and contended that the} driver of the^{vehiclehas violatedthe terms and conditions of the} policy ald that^{no insuralce coverageas per M'V'Act for the} property damaged^{to the third party and prayedfor dismissalof} the claim^petition.

¶33

Basing on the above pleadings,^{the MACThad framed the} following issues:

¶34

i) Whether the acciCent^{was due to rash and negligentdrivingon} the part of^{the driver of the heavylorrybearing no'MH-O6-AF-} 1418 ?

¶35

ii) Whether the^{petitioner is entitledfor damages, if so, what} amount and from whom^?

¶36

\ \

¶37

LNA,] MACMA No. 197 oJ 20t5

¶38

¶39

iii) To what relief ?

¶40

In order to substantiate the case. on behalf of the claimant, P.Ws. 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.AI to Ag were mrfked. On behalf of the 3.d respondent_insurance company, R.W. 1 was examined and Exs.B1 to E}3 were marked.

¶41

The MACT after considering the evidence placed on record, c€une to conclusion that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle and awarded compensation of Rs.25,OOO/- towards damages.

¶42

The owner of the vehicle and the Insurance Company i.e., respondents 1 to 3 were held to be jointly and severalll. Iiable to pay the said compensation with costs and interest (At 60/0 per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.

¶43

During the course of hearing of appeal, learned counsel for appellant-insurance company mainry contended that cover note and other particulars furnished by the claimant are not tallying with its record and that MACT ought to have directed the claimant to furnish correct policy particulars. The appellarrt dt:nied the subsistence of any valid policy to the crime vehicle. To support the said plea, the insurance company examined RW. 1 , who I I

¶44

¶45

Y@l".6

¶46

LNA,I MACMA No.397 ol2015

¶47

categoricaliy denied^{the existenceof policycoverageto the crime} vehicle.Theappellantissuednoticetotheclaimanttofurnishthe detailsofpolicytothevehicleinquestion,thathavingreceivedthe notice,claimantfailedtofumishthedetailsandhewasremained ex porte and therefore,^{the MACT ought to have decided the case} against the owner^{of the crime vehicle'}

¶48

1 1. The learned^{counsel for appellant further submittedthat} without appreciating^{the evidenceof RW 1, the MACT committed} error in fastening^{the liability upon the insurance company to pay} compensation.^{The learned counselfor appellantmainly contended} that only cover note^{was issuedand no such policy was issued'} Therefore, insurance^{companyis not liable ald thus' the MACT} erred in holding that^{insurance companyis liable for payment of} compensation and hnally,^{prayed to allow the appeal setting aside} the claim against the^{insurance company'Insupport of his} contention,heplacedrelianceinthecaseofUnitedlndialnsurance Company Ltd. Vs. B.Jaya Lakshmi^{and others2.}

¶49

Consideration:

¶50

With regard to cover note^{number aldother particulars} furnished. by the claimant, the MACT^{on perusal of copyof cover} ,2004(4)ALD99

¶51

\ I

¶52

LNA/ MACM/\ Na.397 ol2015

¶53

¶54

note, found^{that the proposal form was issued on 08.12.2006 in} respect^{of crime vehicle bearing No.MH-06-AF- 1448 in favour of} M/s.Gurukrupa^{CraneServices, and the particularsarealso} mentioned^{in the cover note.Therefore, the MACT held that cover} note^{is valid as it was issued in respect of the crimevehicle and} when^{the policy was subsisting on the basis of covernote at the} time^{of the accident, the respondents2 and 3 being insurersare} Iiable^{for payment of compensation. Therefore, the MACT rejected} the contention^{of the insurarce company that no policy ivas issued} with tfre^{covernote and ultimatelyheld that respondentsI to 3 are} liable^to PaY^{comPensation.}

¶55

13.^{The decisionreferred to arrd relied upon by the learned} counsel^{for the appellart do not applyto the facts of the present} case^{and same is distinguishable on facts.}

¶56

In^{National Insurance CompanyLimited vs. Abhaysing}

¶57

¶58

pratapsing Waghela and others^s , the Hon'ble Apex Court at paragraph-L7^{held that 'If a couer note had been issuedu-thich in} terms^{of clause(b) of sub-section(1) of Section 145 of the Act uould} come utithin^{the puruietu of definition of certiftcate of insurance;it}

7r
I

r (2008) 9 scc 133

\ i.

.,at l

LNA,] MACMA No 397 oJ 2015

¶65

would olso come uithin the puruietu of the d.efinition of insurance policg. If a couer note ls lssued, it remains ualid. till it is cancelled.,

¶66

In the light of above decision of Hon'ble Apex court, issuance of cover note itself is sufficient to fasten the liability of insurance company and therefore, the insurance company is liable to pay compensation.

¶67

Conclusion:

¶68

In the light of factual matrix and legal position, in considererl opinion of this Court, there is no irregularity in the award passed by the MACT and further, the appellant failed to make out any ground warranting this Court to interfere with the award passed by the MACT. Therefore, the appeal fails ald is accordingly dismissed, alliiming the award passed by the MACT. There sha.lr be no order as to costs

¶69

1.7. Pending miscellaneous applications if aly shall stald closed. Sd/- MOHD. lSMAlL ASSISTANT GIST R //TRUE COPY"

¶70

SECTION OFFICER

¶71

To,

¶72

The Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -cum- I Additional District Judge, at Warangal

¶73

One CC to Sri. A.V.K.S. Prasad, Advocate [OPUCI

¶74

Two CD Copies

PSRw

H IGH COURT

LNA,J

DATED:0711112023

JUDGM NT

MACMA.No.397 ot 2015

o iL rrlE SIt"c
k
1 4 irtAt 202{
()
):
<br>

¶82

APPEAL IS DISMISSED

¶83

6^q{"A W >\,^u

¶84

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶85

TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶86

PRESENT

¶87

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETry MOTOR AcctD ENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 397 oF 2015

¶88

Between:

¶89

united lndia lnsurance co. Ltd, Divisionar office warangar through its Regional Office, TP-HUB Hyderabad Rep by its Manager

¶90

...AppellanUR-3

¶91

AND

¶92

1 3;","rlHf.",X#fl l,ifi l",i't,xift,#:l?f "Ji:fl,.ii',.I;Eq#sf i*?STif ],

¶93

2 M/s Gurukrupa Crane Services, plot No.711, Steel Market, Kalemsoli, Raigadh District, Maharasha Siate, rep oy iii o*n"i'ilrrinr"iril57b. nr;, Halla, Rl/o Katamsoti, District Raigadh, Uiniiriiij Stril

¶94

3 United India lnsurance Co Ltd.,, Chennai, Tamilnadu State Rep by its Regional Manaqer

¶95

[Not^{necessarv-oartv} to this Appeal, as the Appellant Office is the dealing Office in the cadel

¶96

...Respondents

¶97

Appeal Under section r73 of Motor vehicres Act against the Judgment and Decree dated 23-12-2014 in o.p.No.712 ot 2oo} on the fire of the court of the chairman Motor Accident craims Tribunar -cum- | Additionar District Judge, at Warangal.

¶98

ORDER: This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower court and the materiar papers in the case and upon hearing the arguments of Sri A.V.K.s. prasad, Advocate for the Appellant.

¶99

This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

¶100

That the ft/otor Accident Civil Miscellaneous^{Appeal filed against the Order} and Decree of the court of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -cum-^| additional District Judge, Warangal,^{passed in I/.V.O.P.No.712} of²⁰⁰⁸ dated 23-12-2014 be and hereby^is dismissed, and

¶101