Dismissed

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

Telangana HC20 Oct 2023MACMA/723/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed an appeal filed by an insurance company against an MACT award in a death claim case. The insurance company challenged the liability on the grounds that the driver lacked a valid license, alleging a policy violation. The Court held that the company must first satisfy the award and is entitled to recover the amount from the vehicle owner.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; Appellant directed to deposit compensation; Entitled to recover amount from vehicle owner.

Reliance Gneral Insurance Company Ltd. and Anr. Vs… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁸³¹

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

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

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETW

¶6

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 723 OF 2015

¶7

Appeal under Section 1 73 of Motor Vehicles Act against the order and decree in M.V.O.P.No.302 of 2009 dated 02.01.2015 on the file of the Court of the Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge Warangal.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Reliance General lnsurance Company Ltd, rep by its General Manager O/o.Green Square Plaza, Hanamkonda.

¶10

Reliance General lnsurance Company Ltd, rep by its Area Manager O/o.Deccan Chambers, 4rh Floor, Somajitluda, Hyderabad.

¶11

.,.APPELLANTS/RES. NOS. 2 &3

¶12

AND

¶13

Keshaboina Sammakka, Wo.late K.Mallaiah, aged 42 )€ars, Occ: Household

¶14

Keshaboina Naresh, S/o late K.Mallaiah, age 26^years, Occ: Student

¶15

Keshaboina Sujatha, D/o.late K.Mallaiah, aged 24 yea$, Occ: Student

¶16

Keshaboina Sandhya, D/o.late K.Mallaiah, aged 19^years, Occ: Student

¶17

All are R/o.H.No .25-7 -36311, Kazipeta, Warangal Dishict.

¶18

G.Narasimhulu, S/o G.Balaiah, Occ: Lorry Owner Rl/o.H.No.1-16, Lakshmapur Village, Shameerpet, Ranga Reddy District.

¶19

...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS/RESP.NO. 1

¶20

Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. RAMACHANDRAREDDY GADI

¶21

Counsel for the Respondents:^---

¶22

The Court made the following: JUDGMENT

¶23

ITOIT'BLE SRI WSTICE LA)Ofi NARAYANA ALISHETTY M.A.C.M.A.NO.723 0F 20ts

¶24

JUIXIMENT:

¶25

Heard learned standing counsel Sri Rama Chandra Reddy for tJle appellant Nos.l & 2 - insurance company.

¶26

The present appeal has been hled by the appellants/ insurance company challenging the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Prl.District Judge, Warangal (for short, MACT') in M.V.O.P.No.3O2 of 2009, dated 02.01.2015, and thereby seeking to set-aside the award against the insurance company.

¶27

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

¶28

On 31.10.20O8, about 5.3O pm, while the deceased i.e., Mallaiah was proceeding from Peddapalli bus stand to Kaman, Peddapalli on his cycle, a lorry bearing registration No.Ap-2g_ TA-3033 came in rash and negligent mzrnner and dashed the L. deceased. Due^'lro said accident, the deceasecl received multiple fractures and grievous injuries and he \,as shifted to Government Hospital, Peddapalli and lor further treatment, he

¶29

LNA,I MACMA No.723 ol 2015

¶30

¶31

was admitted in Surya Hospital, Karimnagar.^While undergoing treatment, he died on 31.10.2008. The Police, Peddapalli P.S., registered a case in Crime No.251/2008 under Section 304-A of IPC and Section 3 read with section I81^{of MV Act, againstthe} driver ofthe offending vehicle and filed^{charge sheet.}

¶32

The claimants, i.e., respondent No.l is wife, respondent No.2 is son and respondent Nos.3 & 4 are daughters of deceased herein, have frled claim petition against owner of the vehicle and insurance company under section¹ 66 of Motor Vehicles Act read with Rute 455 of A.P.M.V.Rules, l9B9 before the^MACT claiming compensation of Rs.17,00,000/- along with interest @ l2o/o pet annum.

¶33

According to the claimants, the deceased was aged about 52 years as on the date of accident, hale and healthy and^was working as Senior Trackman in South Central Railway^{and on} the date of the accident, hc rvas^u'orking at^{Peddapalliand was} getting an income of Rs. 16,848/- per month^{and claimants lost} the support of the deceased.

¶34

,.,.,?-

¶35

LNA,I MACMA No.723 ol2015

¶36

¶37

The respondent No.S herein, who is owner of the offending ' vehicle, remained ex-parte.

¶38

B. The appellants-Insurance Company filed counter denying all the allegations made in the claim petition and contended that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid driving license and had no authentic license to drive the lorry at the time of accident. Thus, the conditions of the insurance policy were violated and therefore, insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation and frnally, prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

¶39

On the basis of the above pleadings, the MACT framed the

¶40

following issues:

¶41

i) Whether the motor vehicle accident, dated 31.10.2008, arose on account of negligence of the driver of lorry bearing registration fVo.Rp ZA-fn3033?

¶42

ii) Whether the petitioners are entitle d to compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?

¶43

iii) To what relief ?

¶44

LNA.J MACMA No.723 ol 2015

¶45

¶46

lO. In order to substantiate the case,^{P.Ws. 1} to^P.W.3were examined and Exs.Al to A5 & Ex.Xl^were marked^{on behalf of} the claimants. On behalf of appellant-insurance company,^{RW. 1} was examined and Ex.Bl to Ex.BS were marked

¶47

The MACT, on due consideration of evidence and^material placed on record, came to conclusion that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing registration No.AP-28-TA-3033 and awarded compensation of Rs. 16,01,926 /- along with interest (4 7.5o/"^per emnum from the date of petition till the date of realization. The owner of the offending vehicle i.e respondent No.5 herein is^{liable to pay the} said compensation with costs, however, the appellant-insurance company was directed to deposit the decretal amount to^the credit of this case, within one month and they are^permitted to recover and realize the decretal amount, from the respondent No.S herein, who is the owner of the offending vehicle.

¶48

12- During the course of hearing o[ the appeal, Iearned counsel for appellant-insurance company submitted that^the MACT erro-neously decreed the O.P., and there is absolutely^no t"tr

¶49

LNA,J MACMANo.723 ol20)s

¶50

¶51

liability for payment of any compensation by the insurance company. The MACT failed to consider that after the death of the deceased, 2"d respondent herein was appointed on compassionate grounds in the Railway Department and the MACT had wrongly taken the age of the deceased as 53 and appropriate multiplier was taken '1 l' for awarding compensation. The leamed MACT erred in fxing the liability and also computing the compensation, contrary to the established legal principles and customs and finally, prayed to set aside the au,ard passed by the MACT.

¶52

The main contention raised by the appellant in the present appeal is that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having driving license, as such, it amounts to violation of policy condiLions and in support of the said contention, the insurance company examined RW. l, who is Assistant Manager of appellan t-insurance company. RW. 1, in his evidence dcposcd that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having an,\ tvpe of driving license at the time of the alleged accident and he n.as charged under Section 304-A of IpC and Section l8t of MV Acr

¶53

LNA,) MACMANo.T2iol mE

¶54

¶55

by the Police. That the insurance company issued legal notice to the driver and owner of the offending vehicle to produce the documents i.e., driving license of the driver. Thougl'r, the notice was lerved on the driver of the crime vehicle, he has not produced any license before the insurance company. He further deposed that as per Ex.Pl-copy of insurance policy issued to the respondent no.l, the person driving the vehicle must hold an effective and valid driving license and therefore, the owner of the offending vehicle violated the terms of insurance policy.

¶56

Consideration :

¶57

With regard to issue no.1, on appreciation of evidence and material placed on record, the MACT had corne to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, s,hich resulted death of the deceased.

¶58

1 5. With regard to the main contention raised b_r' the learned counsel for appellants that driver of the olfending lorry had no valid and effective driving license at the time of the accident and tltus, there is clear violation and breach of policl' ol insurance

¶59

LNA,I MACMA No.723 ol2015

¶60

¶61

by the owner of the vehicle, the learned MACT, on appreciation of the evidence and material placed on record, held that owner of the offending vehicle alone is liable to pay compensation. The MACT further observed that except stating that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid driving license, no document is produced to prove the same and in the absence of any proof to show that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid license, it cannot be said that the insurance company is exonerated of the liability of paying compensation by relying upon the decision of Hon,ble Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd., vs. Swaran Singh and othersr.

¶62

With regard to exoneration of insurance company from its liability for payment of compensation amount, the Motor Vehicles Act is beneficial legislation aimed at providing relief to victims and their families. In Swaran Singh (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held as u nder'

¶63

'1O7. \'c mav, horvever, hasten to add that ttre Tribunal and the.court must, horvever, exercise their juasdiction to issue such a direction upon consideration of t]:e facts and clrcLlmstanccs of each case and in the event such a direction

¶64

(:00J)Is(ct()7

¶65

LNA,J MACMA No /23 ol2015

¶66

¶67

has been issued, despite arrivint at a finding of fact to the effect that the insurer has been able to establish that the insured has committed a breach of contract of insurance as envisaged under sub-clause (t) of clause (a) of sub-section (2) of Section 149 of the Act, the insurance company shatl be entitled to realise the awarded amount from the owner or driver of the vehicle, as the case may be, in executi'on of the same award having regard to ttle provisions of Sections 165 and 168 of the Act. However, in the event, having regard to the limited scope of inquiry in the proceedings before the Tribunal it had not been able to do so, the insurance company may initiate a separate action therefor against the owner or the driver of the vehicle or both, as the case may be. Those exceptional erses may arise when the evidence becomes available to or comes to t]le notice of the insurer at a subsequent stage or for one reason or the other, the insurer was not given an opportunity to defend at all. Such a course of action may also be resorted to when a fraud or collusion berween the victim and the owner of the vehicle is detected or comes to the knowledge of the insurer at a later sta8c.

¶68

1o8. Although, as noticed hereinbefore, there are ccrtain special leave petitions wherein the persons havrng the^vehicles at the time when the accidents took place did not hold any licence at all, in the facts aIrd circumstances of the case,^lve do not intend to set aside the said awa-rds. Such awards ma1'also be satished by th€ petitioners herein subject to their rrght to recover the same from the owners of the vehicles in the manncr lard down therein. But this order may oot be considered .rs a precedent."

¶69

In the light of decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Swaran Singh (supra), in considered view of this Court, thc insurzrnce company has to satisfy the award passed by the Tribunal and thereafter, the appellant-insurance company is entitlcd^{to recover} the same from the owner of the offending vehiclc.

¶70

LNA,! MACMA No-723 ol2O1s

¶71

¶72

Conclusion:

¶73

[n the result, Appeat is dismissed. The appellantinsurance company is directed to deposit the compensation amount within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, duly adjusting the amount already paid and the insurance company is entitled to recover the entire compensation amount from the owner of the vehicle. On such deposit, the claimants are entitled to withdraw the entire compensation amount. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶74

Pending miscellaneous applications if any shall stand

¶75

closed

¶76

sd/- MOHD.^ls AIL AS SISTANT^REGIS

//TRUE^COPY//

SECTION^OFFICER

The Chairman^{Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Princlpal District Judge} 2. 3;:'a a',:'^{g'[] i'ff,"13'1il,'J -ARE DDy G ADr,Ad vocate[oPU c]} 3 Two CD CoPies

Mjr/pr

fr-

HlGH COURT

LNA, J

DATED: 2011012023

JUDGMENT MACMA.No.723 of 2015

¶87

, : .' :l--
.a- ...
r't?' f.i
i::fi 'rl,'Jl
,i :1 1 s
* 1 .::'"
.oesir,Nc\

¶88

DISMISSING THE MACMA

¶89

5^{t{.f,.</sup> w ,*\r ,r}

¶90

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶91

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

¶92

PRESENT

¶93

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

¶94

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 723 OF 2015

¶95

Between:

¶96

'1. Reliance General lnsurance Company Ltd, rep by its General Manager O/o.Green Square Plaza, Hanamkonda.

¶97

Reliance General lnsurance Company Ltd, rep by its Area Manager O/o.Deccan Chambers, 4th Floor, Somajiguda, Hyderabad.

¶98

...APPELLANTS/RES. NOS. 2 &3

¶99

AND

¶100

Keshaboina Sammakka, Wo.late K.Mallaiah, aged 42^years, Occ: Household

¶101

Keshaboina Naresh, S/o. late K.Mallaiah, age 26^years, Occ: Student

¶102

Keshaboina Sujatha, D/o.late K.Mallaiah, aged 24^years, Occ: Student

¶103

Keshaboina Sandhya, D/o.late K.Mallaiah, aged 19^years, Occ: Student

¶104

All are Rl/o.H.No.25-7 -3631 1 . Kazrpeta, Warangal District.

¶105

5 G.Narasimhulu, S/o G.Balaiah, Occ: Lorry Owner Rl/o.H. No.1-'16, Lakshmapur Mllage, Sharneerpet, Ranga Reddy Drstrict.

¶106

... RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS/RESP.NO.1

¶107

Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the order and decree in M.V.O.P.No.3O2 ot 2OOg dated 02.01 .201 5 on the file of the Court of the Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge Warangal.

¶108

ORDER: This appeal coming on for hearing and upon^perusing the^grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the MVOP and upon hearing the arguments of SRI RAMACHANDRAREDDY GADI, Advocate for the appellant and None Appeared for the Respondents.

¶109

This Court doth order and decree as follows

¶110

That this appeal be and hereby is dismissed;

¶111

Thal the appetlant insurance company^{is directed to deposit the compensalion} amount within a^period of six⁽⁶⁾ weeks^{from the date of receiptof copy of this} order

¶112