Dismissed

M/S.Icici Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Srinivasulu and Anr.

Telangana HC27 Jul 2023MACMA/453/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a motor accident miscellaneous civil appeal where the appellant insurance company challenged the lower court's award. The appeal argued the driver lacked a license. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding the insurance company failed to prove the owner knowingly provided the vehicle to an unlicensed driver, thus no fundamental breach occurred.

What did the court decide?

The miscellaneous civil appeal was dismissed without any order as to costs.

M/S.Icici Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Srinivasulu and… — Insurance | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³²¹⁶ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

THURSDAY,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.LAXMAN

¶6

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISC ELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 453 OF 2O1O

¶7

Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the order and decree in M.V.O.P.No. 1772 ol 2O06 daled 21 .11.2008 on the file of the Court of the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for the trial at JHCBBC - cum - Additional Family Court - cum - XXlll Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad.

¶8

Between:

¶9

M/S.lOlCl Lombard General lnsurance Co. Ltd., Authorized Person, O/o.D.No.1-11-256, Level-lV, East Wing, lClCl Bank Towers, Street No.1, Begumpet, Hyderabad. [Policy No. 3003/101 4959/00/000 valid from 31.10.05 to 31 .10.20061

¶10

...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT-2

¶11

AND

¶12

Srinivasulu, S/o.Chinnaiah, Age: 23^years, Occ: Employee R/o.H.No.S-16, Greenhills Colony, Street No.58, Habsiguda, Hyderabad.

¶13

K.Srinivas, S/o.K.Anjaiah, Aged Major Rl/o.H.No.21-93/7, Chilkanagar, Uppal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶14

.RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS 1 /RESPONDENTS 1

¶15

Counsel for the Appellant : Sri R. SHEETAL KUMAR

¶16

Counsel for Respondents : None appeared

¶17

The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

¶18

THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE M. LAXMAN

¶19

M.A.C.M.A No.453 of 2O1O

¶20

JUDGMENT:

¶21

This is an appea[ fited by the lnsurance Company aggrieved by the Award and Decree dated 21 .11.2008 passed in M.V.O.P.No.1772 of 2006 on the fite of the Additionat Metropolitan Sessions Judge for the Triat of JHCBBC-cum-Additionat Famity Court-cum-XXlll Additionat Chief Judge, Hyderabad (for short, 'the Court betow').

¶22

The onty point that arises in the present appeal is that the driver has no licence to drive the vehicle, as such, the insurance company is not liabte to pay the com pensation.

¶23

A ctose scrutiny of the impugned award of the Court betow shows that there were no efforts from the lnsurance Company to summon either the driver or the owner of the vehicle. There are no pleadings that the owner has detiberatety and intentionaLty handed over the vehicle to the driver knowingty wetl that the driver has no license nor lead any evidence to that effect.

¶24

..r-r,1...-,.r{r-id;!eJ-.r'y^rii.,:-,&.!.-.-1,.:^!\vr.-Fi,r..r<"

¶25

r* n.9,r 1,r.- ::lr\d*. u -\a..kz.-), i r4:t tr. . a'!._a' :,

¶26

*-.-.,-.ri

¶27

-n{n$tr.,drriiafi

¶28

MTJ MACMA t{O.4S3 2010

¶29

¶30

The contention of the [earned counsel^{for appeltant} is that the notice for production of documents^{was issued} to owner and driver prior to fiting of the^petition, however, there was no rGponse from them.

¶31

On perusal of the materiat on record, the^evidence shows that no efforts were made during the^course of triat to summon the driver or the owner; and the Court^below atso found that there are no specific^pteadings from^the insurance company that the owner of the vehicte^had consciously with the knowtedge that the driver was^not hotding the license handed over such vehicle, so as to amount to fundamental breach of contract. Admittedty, in the present case there is a poticy and the insurance company faiLed to prove that there is a fundamental breach on the part of the owner of the vehicle. ln the said background, I do not find any merit in this appeat, hence, the.impugned award passed by the Court below cannot be set aside.

¶32

ML,' MACMA NO.453 2010

¶33

¶34

Accordingty, the M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed. No order

¶35

as to costs.

¶36

Miscetlaneous applications, pending if any, shatl

¶37

stand closed.

¶38

Sd/- G. SIREESHA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

{. The Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge^for the^{trial at JHCBBC} -^cum - Additional Family Court - cum - XXlll^{Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad.}

¶43

One CC to Sri R. SHEETAL^{KUMAR,Advocate} [OPUC]

¶44

Two CD Copies

Asr/njb

Yt,

HIGH COURT

ML,J

DATED:2710712023

JUDGMENT^{+ DECREE}

MACMA.No.453^{of 2010}

¶52

1 HE STAT e
v I
cf, t
o 0 5 Jtli ?tl24 ai
../
t
f:sF.r r (.'. J' -./

¶53

DISMISSING^MACMA II'ITHOUT COSTS

¶54

a.{4
F{--
L\ \2- D

¶55

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

¶56

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

¶57

PRESENT

¶58

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^M.LI\JXMAN

¶59

MOTOR

¶60

CIDENT CIVIL MI SCELLANEOUS^{APPEAL NO: 453 oF 2010}

¶61

Between:

¶62

M/S.lClCl Lombard General^{lnsurance Co. Ltd., Authorized Person,} Oio.D.No.1-1 1-256, Level-lV,^{East Wing, lClCl Bank Towers, StreetNo.1,} Begumpet, Hyderabad- lPolicy^{No.300311014959/00/000vali{j from31.10.O5} to 31.10.20061

¶63

...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT.2

¶64

AND

¶65

Srinivasulu, S/o.Chinnaiah,^{Age: 23 years, Occ: Employee Rl/o.H.No.5-16'} Greenhills Colony, Street^{No.58, Habsiguda, Hyderabad.}

¶66

K.Srinivas, S/o.K.Anjaiah, Aged^{Maior Fyo.H.No.21-93/7, Chilkanagar, Uppal'} Ranga Reddy District.

¶67

...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS 1 /RESPIONDENTS¹

¶68

Appeal filed under Section^'l 73 of^{MotorVehiclesAct againstthe orderand} decree in M.V.O.P.No. 1772 ol^2OO6 daled^{21.11.2OO8on the file of the Courtof the} Additional Metropolitan sessions Judge^{for the trial at JHCBBC} -^cum -^Additional Family Court - cum - XXlll Additbnal^{Chief Judge, Hyderabad.}

¶69

ORDER :This appeal coming on^{for hearingand upon perusingthe groundsof} appeal, the Judgment and^{Decree of the Lower Court and the materialpapers in} the MVOP and upon hearing the^{arguments of Sri R' SHEETAL KUMAR, Advocate} for the Appellant and none^{appeared for Respondents.}

¶70

This Court doth order and decree as follows:_

¶71

That the MACMA be and hereby is dismissed; and

¶72

That there shall be no order as io costs in tnis apjeat

¶73

//TRUE COPY//

¶74

Sd/. G. STREESHA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

)^,

To,

SECTIO,N OFFICER

1' The Additionar Metroporitan Sessions Judge for the triar at JHCBBC - cum - Additionar Famirv court - cum - XX* Addiiionar cnier.iuoge, nvo"r"uai.

¶79

1. Two CD Copi6s

Asr/njb

HIGH COURT

ML,J

DATED:2710712023

DECREE

MACMA.No.4S3 ol201O

DISMISSING MACMA WITHOUT COSTSⁱ

¶89

,rcs1,('a w {\6r>

M/S.Icici Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Srinivasulu and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Icici Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Srinivasulu and Anr.

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

Thota Laxman Vs The State of Telangana

Nekkella Ramesh Vs The State of Telangana

Joga Bhavani Vs The State of Telangana

Br Mngr.,Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,Hyd Vs Ghanpur Rajamani , Rajibai and Anr.

United India Insurance Company Limited, Hyderabad. Vs Gottemukkala Rajavva , Rajamma and 7 Others

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Y.Venkateswarulu and 2 Ors.