Dismissed

The New India Assurance Company v. Masula Sathavva

Telangana HC10 Mar 2023MACMA/4896/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an appeal filed by The New India Assurance Company against an award made by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The Court upheld the Tribunal's finding that the claimant was not a gratuitous passenger as he was traveling as the owner of goods, rendering the insurance company liable.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; no order as to costs.

The New India Assurance Company Vs Masula Sathavva — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF IVARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶5

M.A.C.M.A.No. 4896 OF 2008

¶6

Appeal Under Section 173 of M.V.Act against the award and decree made in M.V.O.P.No.373 of 2001 dated 19.09.2005 on the file of the Court of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-Vl Additional District Judge (FTC), Nizamabad.

¶7

Between:

¶8

The New lndia Assurance Company, Rep by its Divisional lVlanager, Subash Nagar, Nizamabad.

¶9

...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT No.2

¶10

AND

¶11

Masula Sathawa, Wo.late Ramachandraiah Labour & Vegetable Business Rl/o.Kamala Street, Bhiknoor Village & IMandal, Nizamabad District. ... RESPONDENT/PETITIONER

¶12

'B.Veeraiah, S/o.Kistayya, Major Owner of Mini Van Bearing No.APB 8792 Rl/o.Bhiknoor Village & Mandal, Nizamabad District. (Respondent No.2 dismissed vide C.O dated 15.09.2016)

¶13

...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT

¶14

Counsel for the Appellant : SRl. KOTA SUBBA RAO

¶15

Counsel for the Respondents : ----

¶16

The Court made the following: JUDGMENT

¶17

TIIE, HCII'OURABLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KI.-! NE(}ANTI

i !,I I I

I t

I I

i I

M.A.C.M.A.No .4896 of 2OOa

¶23

JUDGMI}NI:

¶24

Thil; is an appr:a1 preferrcd bl. tltc tnsLr. ir rcre cortpalty aggricrrerl trl rhe a,,r,ard dated 19.09.20O5 parsr;ed ir ).p No.373 of 2001 orr 1I r il,: of the Chairman, Motor Accidtnts C lims Tribunal (Fast Tr:.ck C:rr- rtt, Nizamabad at Karnar-edd_r., rrht.rt'ri thc Tribnnal has grantecl it I imount of Rs.34,400/ against Llte r:lil rr :d amount of Rs.1,00,t)0(tr'-

¶25

I la'..tr q heard Mr. I(ota Subba Rao, learncd :_. _rnsel for the appellant irlr;i lritnce company and perused thc enti -: m:tterial on record.

¶26

3- [t ir; t re case of the claimant that the claiman] rr.as travelling in the gc,rtdr; r, :hicle as owner of the goods ard as the ,,,: hicle turned turtie, he reti,' ,/ed injuries o1 head, ha1ds, legs, ltack r rtrl other parts of the bodl' an 1 llso received injury on his arm. sh:rft r:it hrrmorous. Immediar:,:11, rr. Ler the accident, he was shifted to the hc r;piturl and he has spent arno.rrrts towards treatment.

¶27

Oonsir eling the said aspects, the court belov ].as arvarded the comp€rnsa t oir.

¶28

Lr:arrLt d counsel for the insurance compan)- su:trrits that the claimant is :- g^-a:uitous passenger and when ther.e is rit ation of the conditions or't re policy, the insurance company rs no lable to pay

:I ii

r !

r I

LK, ] MACMA_4896_2()04

¶34

)

¶35

the compensation, but, the Tribunal has held the insurance company Iiable to pay the compensation.

¶36

The insurance company has^got examined RWI and also^got marked Ex.B1 Insurance policy. The said^{witness himselfexamined} on behalf of the insurance company stated that as the claimalt^was travelling in the crime vehicle as owner of the^goods.

¶37

7 - In that view of the matter, the claimant cannot be termed^as gratuitous passenger ald the insurance company is liable to^pay the compensation.

¶38

Hence, there are no grounds made out by the insurance company and accordingly the appeal is^dismissed.

¶39

Pending miscellaneous^petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶40

Sd/. K. AMMAJI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

'1. The Chairman, lvlotor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-Vl Additional District Judge (FTC), Nizamabad. (With Records)

¶46

1. One CC to Sri Kota Subba Rao , Advocate (OPUC)

¶47

Two CD Copies

¶48

¶49

H|GH COUR-DATED:10lt}i'12023

¶50

it
Li
/,
!:.
'r> i1't
0 r Jili ztrIl
!:i.)1-.r
,./

¶51

JUDGMENI'

¶52

MACMA.No.,4896 of 2008

¶53

Dismissing tt e M.A.G.M.A Without costs.

¶54

4;
,9
<br>)
6 w

¶55

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶56

FRIDAY ,THE TENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶57

PRESENT

¶58

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶59

M.A.C.M.A.No. 4896 OF 2008

¶60

Between:

¶61

The New lndia Assurance Company, Rep by its Divisional Manager, Subash Nagar, Nizamabad.

¶62

...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT No.2 AND

¶63

Masula Sathavva, Wo.late Ramachandraiah Labour & Vegetable Business R/o.Kamala Street, Bhiknoor Village & Mandal, Nizamabad District. ...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER

¶64

B.Veeraiah, S/o.Krstayya, Major Owner of Mini Van Bearing No.APB 8792 R/o.Bhiknoor Village & Mandal, Nizamabad District. (Respondent No.2 dismissed vide C.O dated 15.09.2016)

¶65

...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT

¶66

Appeal Under Section 173 of M.V.Act against the award and decree made in M.V.O.P.No.373 of 2001 dated 19.09.2005 on the file of the Court of the Chairman, Motor AccidenG Claims Tribunal-Cum-Vl Additional District Judge (FTC), Nizamabad.

¶67

ORDER :This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Tribunal and the material papers in the O.P. and upon hearing lhe arguments of Sri Kota Subba Rao, Advocate for the Appetlant and None Apperared for Respondents.

¶68

This Court doth Order and Decree as follows :

¶69

That the appeal be and hereby is dismissed.

¶70

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

¶71

Sd/. K. AMMAJI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR /TTRUE COPY// Ap SECTION OFFICER

¶72

To, 1. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-Vl Additional District Judge (FTC), Nizamabad (With Records)

¶73

Two CD Copies

HIGH COUIII-'

DATED:1 Alffit?.023

DECREE

MACMA.No,4llg6 of 2008

¶80

DISMISSING'T HE M.A.C.M.A WITHOUT CO,liTS.

¶81

't - q?l ? bL(

The New India Assurance Company v. Masula Sathavva

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The New India Assurance Company v. Masula Sathavva

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

V.Thirupathi Vs Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Limited

National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Janagam Ashok Rao and Another

Smt. Humeera Fathima Vs Mrs. B.Janardhan Reddy

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Vs Shake Naga Malleswari and 6 Others

Munagala Sandhya Rani Vs P.Thirupathaiah

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Nizamabad. Vs Puppala Voddemma, Nizamabad Dist., and 5 Ano.