Dismissed

The United India Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Dudekula Aslam and Another

Telangana HC1 Aug 2023MACMA/804/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this motor accident civil miscellaneous appeal, the High Court of Telangana dismissed the Insurance Company's appeal against the Tribunal's decree awarding compensation to the victim affected by a tractor collision.

What did the court decide?

The Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was dismissed and the Tribunal's judgment and decree dated 28.07.2009 were confirmed.

The United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Dudekula… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYOERABAD

¶2

TUESDAY THE FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW THREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶5

MOTOR ACCIDEN T CIVIL MISCELLANEO US APPEAL NO: 804 OF 2011

¶6

Appeal filed.. under Section 173 of M.V.Act. against the decree and Judgment dated 28th day of Jury 2009 passed in M.v. o.p.No.646 of 2oo7 on the file of Motor Vehicle Accidents Tribunal-cum-lll Addl. Dist. And sessions Judge (FTC) at Medak.

¶7

Between:

¶8

The United lndia lnsurance c.g. LTD , Rep- by its Branch Manager Branch office, Op New Bus Stand Sangareddy town, Meba(District.

¶9

...AppellanURespondent No.2.

¶10

AND

¶11

'1. Dudekula Aslam S/o. lAquJanq, Aged. 14 years, Student Rep. by his father lpylrl,^{S/o. Saipuddin R/o. Kistapur VildgeKutcharam UahOai,} n4eOiiDistrict. ...iResponaent ruo.ripititiLner.

¶12

Vadla Viftal, S/o. Bhumaiah, Owner of Tractor bearing No. Ap 23 D 4914 R/o. Kistapur Village Kulcharam Mandal, Medak District.

¶13

...Respondent No.2/Respondent No.1.

¶14

Counsel for the Appellant :SRl. SRINIVASA RAO VUTLA

¶15

Counsel for the Respondents: Sri A KRUPADHAR REDDY

¶16

The Court made the following Judgment:

¶17

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶18

M.A.C.M.A.NO.804 0F 201 1

¶19

JUDGMENT:

¶20

This M.A.C.M.A is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the appellant/Insurance Company aggrieved by the order and decree dated 28.07.2009, passed in M.V.O.P.No.646 of 2OO7 by the Motor Accident Claims Tiibunal-Cum-III Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC) at Medak (for short "Tribunal").

¶21

For convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed before the Court below.

¶22

Brief facts of the case are that on 12.11.2003, the petitioner was proceeding to his village Kistapur on foot and when he reached in front of Sriramulu Hotel, at that time one tractor bearing No.AP-23-D-4914 came from behind in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the petitioner, due to which the petitioner sustained grievous injuries, and he was shifted to Dr.Surender Hospital, Medak. From there, he was shifted to BBR Hospital, Balanagar, Hyderabad and a case in Cr.No.11/04 under Section 338 IpC was registered by police,

¶23

RRN,J MACMA 804 2OI I

¶24

¶25

Kulcharam. For the above accident, the^{petitioner herein filed} a claim seeking compensation of Rs.2,O0,OOO /-.

¶26

Considering the claim, counter and the evidence,^{both oral} and documentary, brought on record, the Tribunal allowed^the O.P. in part awarding compensation of Rs.1,10,0OO/- together with interest at 7.5o/o p.a. from the date of the petition till^its deposit.

¶27

The Police Kulcharam has registered a iase in Cr.No.11^of 2004 under Section 338 of LP.C.

¶28

Heard both sides and perused the material available^on record.

¶29

Against the above said order, the Insurartce^Company filed the present appeal on the ground that^{the Tribunalfailed} to appreciate the fact that Ex.B.1^policy covers^the risk^{of the} vehicle bearing No.AP-23D-4912 of Swaraj Tractor, which^is not involved in any accident as the same was a^different vehicle and also the fact that the vehicle bearing^No.AP-23D- 4914 is a Two-Wheeler Hero Honda^Splender and the^same was not insured with the appellant/Insurance^Company.

RRN,J MACMA 804 2OII

\ \

I t

7 . While perusing the record of the claim petition, the insuralce policy shows that the insured vehicle is 'swaraj Tractor', but bears the No.AP-23D-4912. As per the pleadings, it was mistakenly shown as AP-23D-4914. So, based on the policy, the vehicle's name is shown as 'swaraj Tractor'. Thus, this Court believes that Swaraj Tractor is involved in the accident arrd due to error, instead of^,4912' it was shown as '4914'.

¶35

The appellalt/respondent No.2 failed to prove that Ex.B1 policy covers risk of vehicle bearing No.AP-23D-49L2 of Swaraj Tractor, which is not involved in any accident as the sarne was a different vehicle and the appellant did not dispute the occurrence of the accident, except the date of issuance of charge sheet dated 25.O3.2OO4.

¶36

9 . The Tribunal, after evaluating oral and documentar5r evidence adduced by both the parties, rightly came to the conclusion that the crime vehicle was tractor bearing No.Ap23D-4914 insured with respondent No.2 company.

¶37

In view of the above discussion, the Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion and it does not need interference of

RRN,J MACMA 804 2OII

i..

this Court. Consequently, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

¶42

Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A is dismissed by confirming the order and decree dated 2g.OZ.2OOg, passed ln M.V.O.P.No.646 of 2OO7 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-Cum-III Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC) at Medak. No order as to costs.

¶43

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand dismissed.

¶44

To,

¶45

Sd/. K. VENKAIAH ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// f4v" SECTION OFFICER

¶46

The Motor Vehicire Accidents Tribunar-cum-Ir Addr. Dist. And sessions Judge (FTC) at Medak. (With Records)

¶47

One CC to SRI. SR|N|VASA RAO VUTLA, Advocate [OpUC]

¶48

One GC to SRt. A KRUPADHAR REDDY, Advocate [OpUC]

¶49

Two CD Copies

${}-

HIGH COURT

DATED:01/08/2023

JUDGMENT

MACMA.No.8o4 of 2011

{ ^e STATE o
7:
!
rl
1, L E stt ?$2X j
f,oo .f,,I
+
T DFSPfJ c<br>

DISMISSING THE MACMA

6<br>\3-/ \15
1s$x

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶61

TUESDAY THE FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶62

PRESENT

¶63

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶64

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 804 OF 2011

¶65

Between:

¶66

The United lndia lnsurance CO. LTD., Rep. by its Branch Manager Branch Office, Opp New Bus Stand Sangareddy town, Medak District.

¶67

...AppellanURespondent No.2.

¶68

AND

¶69

l. Dudekula Aslam S/o. Moulana Student Rep. by his father Moulana S/o. Saipuddin R/o- Kistapur Village Kulcharam lvlandal, Medak District

¶70

...Respondent No.'l /Petitioner

¶71

Vadla Vittal, Sio. Bhumaiah owner of Tractor bearing No. Ap 23 D 4914 Ryo Kistapur Village Kulcharam Mandal, Medak District

¶72

...Respondent No.2/Respondent No.1.

¶73

Appeal filed.. under Section 173 of M.V.Act. against the decree and Judgment dated 28th day of July 2OOg passed in M.V. O.p.No.646 of 2007 on the file of Motor Vehicle Accidents Tribunal-Cum-lll Addl. District & Sessions Judge (FTC) at Medak.

¶74

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 case and upon hearing the arguments of Sri V.srinivasa Rao, Advocate for the Appellant and of Sri A. Krupadhar Reddy, Advocate for the Respondents.

¶75

This Court doth Judgment and Decree as follows:-

¶76

'1. That the MACMA be and hereby is dismissed;

¶77

That the Order and decree dated 28.07 -2009 passed in M.V.O.P.No. 646 of 2007 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -cum -lll Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC) at Medak is be and hereby confirmed; and

¶78

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

¶79

Sd/. K. VENKAIAH ASSISTANT REGtSTjIiAR //TRUE COPY// secrroM&6cen To,

¶80

1 The Motor Vehicile Accidents Tribunal-cum_lll Addl. District & Sessions Judge (FTC) at Medak.

¶81

2 Two CD Copies

HIGH COURT

DATED:01/08/2023

DECREE

MACMA.No.8o4 0f 2011

DISMISSING THE MACMA

The United India Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Dudekula Aslam and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The United India Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Dudekula Aslam 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

M.Yadaiah, Vs v.v.Chowdary

Syed Noor , Mohd Noor Vs a.Raghuveer Reddy and Anr.

Suryavamshi Gopal Vs v. Mohan and Anr.

R.Chandrakala Vs the Ap State Road Transport Corporation

R. Sai Vara Prasad, Secunderabad Vs the Apsrtc, Rep by Its Md, Hyderabad

Shivarla Rajender, R.R. Dist. Vs Smt. P. Renuka and Another