Partly allowed

Shriram General Insurance Company Limited v. Livakath Begum

Telangana HC2 Aug 2024MACMA/1918/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the insurance company's appeal partly, reducing the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal from Rs. 10.43 lakh to Rs. 9.25 lakh, while confirming the liability to pay and the applicability of the pay-and-recover principle.

What did the court decide?

Reducing compensation to Rs. 9,25,000 with interest @ 7% per annum; Insurance Company to pay first and recover from Owner of crime vehicle.

Shriram General Insurance Company Limited Vs… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[32s3 I

¶2

IN THE HIGH^{COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY, THE SECOND^{DAYOF AUGUST} TWO THOUSAND^{ANDTWENTY FOUR}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE^{SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI}

¶6

M.A.C.M.A.No:19^{18 of 2019}

¶7

Appeal filed under^{Section173 of M V Act by against the Judgment and} Decree dated. 21-12-2015^{passed in M V O P'No'412of 2O14on the file of the} CourtoftheChairman,lvlotorAccidentClaimsTribunal-cum.DistrictJudgeat Nizamabad

¶8

Between:

¶9

Shriram General^{lnsuranceCompany.Limited,Repby- its BranchManager'} -Axis bank, Near Kapila 6ili,"n otric",^{ooor No S_O_S7olii,ino floor,Besiiles} ;';i;i,'iy;;;;i";ioao,^{Nizamaoao. ."AppellanuRespondent No'2}

¶10

AND

¶11

1 Liyakath Begum, W/o^{Late Mohd.Latheef,} 2 Ghousiva Firdaus,^{D /o Late Mohd.Latheef, Age: 14 years'Occ: Student} Minor

¶12

lvluskan Begum,^{D/o Late Mohd. Lateef,Age: 11 years, Occ:Student Minor'} All R/o- H.No.10-10-212.^{canalcatta'Nagaram, Nizamabad district} G;.p";jeni^{r;"ii elti"smino, riep5v suardRespondent No l Mother)} ...Petitioners/ResPondents

¶13

4 Pallaou Poshetty,^{S/o PallapuSayanna-, A99:-m9jor, Occ: Agriculture cum.} ^ b*,i;|. "r lilJt.r'oearing^{ub. Rpjzs-RO-r6+g att-acned trollybearing No. AP-.} id:i-'66i8^{nyo.n^r.ro.::r z0l5, khanapur VillageArmoor MandalNizamabad} District.

¶14

...ResPondenUResPondent

¶15

Counsel forthe^{Appellant:SRI C. BUCHI REDDY}

¶16

counsel forthe^{Respondents:SRI P. RADHIVE REDDY}

¶17

The Court delivered^{the following:JUDGMENT}

¶18

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI M.A.C.M.A. No.1918 0F 2019

¶19

JUDGMENT:

¶20

1 . Aggrieved b1. the order dated 21 .12.2O15 passed in M.V.O.P.NO.412 of 2014, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge), Nizamabad, the 2n,t respondent therein/ Insurance Company preferred the present Appeal seeking to set-aside thc order of the learned Tribunal_

¶21

For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter be referred as thev rvcre arrayed before thc Tribunal.

¶22

The facts of the case rn brief are that the claim petitioners, who are the q,ife ancl daughters of the deceased_Mohd. Latheef, filed a petition under Section 166 (l)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act against the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 claiming compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- together with interest @ 24o/o per annum on account of the death of the deceased_Mohd. Latheef in a motor vehicie accident that occurred on 2O.OZ.2Ol4 at about 6.0O p.m. As stated by the petitioners, on 2O.O2.2074 at about O.OO p.m., when the deceased, as a labourer, was travelling o4 the Tractor bearing No.AP-2S-AD- 1049 attached with Trolley be aring No.Ap25-X-6628 from Varni Chowrastha towards Nagaram and when reached^{Sainagar,Road No.3 at Varini Road,Nrzamabad' the driver} of the^{said Tractordrove the samein a rash and negligent manner'}

¶23

E:rt <sup>-"'ry1

¶24

¶25

due to which,^{the deceased fe1l down from the Tractor attached to} theTrailerandsustainedgrievousinjuries.Immediately,hewas shiftedtoGovernmentHeadquartersHospital,Nizamabad,from wherc he^{was referredto Osmania GeneralHospital} '^Hyderabad and while^{undergoingtreatment, he died on 30'07'2014at about} 2.30 AM. lt^{is furthersubmitted by the petitionersthat at the time} ofaccident,thedeceasedwasaged35yearsandwasearning Rs.15,000/-^{permonth bydoing Labour work andwas} contributing^{the same for the welfare and maintenanceof family} and due to^{his untimelydeath in the accident, the petitionerslost} theirsourceofincomeandputtosufferance.Hence,lrledthe claim^{petitionseekingcompensation of Rs'10'0O'OOO/- along with} intercst against^{Respondent No 1, being the owner and Respondent} No.2, being^{the insurerof the crimevehicle}

¶26

Respondent^{No. 1, who is owner of the Crime vehicle i e''} Tractor and^{Trailer,filed his counter denying the avermentsmade} in the claim^{petition which includesage' avocation' manner of} accident,^{rash and negligentdriving of the driver of the subject} TractorandTrailerandcontendedthatthesubjectTractorand Trailer was insured^{with the 2'd respondentand hence'the 2"d} respondent alone^{is liable to pay compensation and that the} compensation^{claimed is excess and exorbitantand hence'prayed} to dismiss^{the claimagainsthim'}

¶27

¶28

MACMA ra 1e13at )o)e

¶29

Respon<lent. No.2/lnsurance Company flled its counter denying the averments made in the claim petition including, mannel' ol acciclent, age, avocation, carning capar:iqz of the petitioner, involvemr:nt of thc subject Tractor and 'lrailer and contended that the deceased travelled as an unauthorized passenger on the subject Tractor and Trailer and the clriver of the subject Tractor and Trailer do not possess valid driving license and the subject traclor and trailer is not covered with valid fi[ness certificate to plv on lhe route and that the compensation claimed is cxcess and exorbitant and hencc, prayed to dismiss the claim agajnst it.

¶30

Based on the rival cont.entions made by both the parties, the learned Tribunal had framed the follorving issues for consideration: -

¶31

I Whether Mohd.Latheef died due to rasl't and negligent diuing of Troctor beaing No.AP-2S AD 1O49 and Trolley beaing No.AP 25 X-6628?

¶32

2 Wtether the petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs. 10,OO,0OO/ - fron the respondents as prayed for?

¶33

3 To ulnt relieJ?

¶34

7 . Before tl-re Tribunal, on behalf of the petitioners, pWs 1 to 3 are examincd and Exs.A i to .46 were marked. On behalf of Respondent No.2/lnsurancc Company, RW1 was examined and Ex.B1-Copv of Insurance Polic1..u,as marked.

¶35

¶36

Alter considerlng^{the evidence and documentshled by both} sides, the^{learned Tribunal had allowed the claim petition by} awarding^{compensationof Rs' 10,43,000/-with simpleinterest@} T.Sokperannumfromthedateoflrlingofpetitiontillthedateof deposit of^{amountwhich is payable by RespondentNos l& 2} jointty and severally.^{Aggrievedby the same'the present Appeal is} hled by the^{InsuranceCompany,who is arrayed as respondent} No.2 in the^O.P

¶37

g. Heard both^{sides and perused the materialavailable on} record.

¶38

lo.ThecontentionsofthelearnedStandingCounselfor appellant/^{InsuranceCompanyare that the learnedTribunalfailed} to consider^{that there is delayof '8'days in registering FIR and that} thedeceasedtravelledasanunauthorizedpassengerasEx.BlInsurance^{policy shows that the seatingcapacity of the subject} Tractor is^{one, which isonly for driver and that there is no} additional^{premium paid to coverthe risk of the labourer' as such} Insurance Company^{is not liable to pay any compensationto the} appellant. It^{is also contended that the Tribunaloughtto have} taken notional^{income whilecomputingcompensation ltis also} contendedthatthesubjectvehicieisprohibitedforcarrying passengers^{as it is a goodsvehicle'Finally,it also contendedthat} the learned^{Tribunalerred in granting compensation twice towards}

¶39

¶40

M^.MA ) tets ol,0le

¶41

loss of love and alfection and hcncc, prayed to set aside the same, It also relicd uporr ccrtain decisrons which arc reportcrl in 1999(5) ALD 138 (DIl), 2O11 Law Suit (AP) 1061, 2013 (1) ALD 41 and 2018 (3) ALD 53 1 , rvherein the Insurance Company is nr;t lialtle to pay any compcnsation under no faLrlt liability.

¶42

11 On thr: other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the learned Tribunal after considering all the aspects, has an,arded reasonable compensation for rvhich interference ol tlris Court is unn'arranted. Hc etlso relicd upon certain dccisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court which arc reported in 2022 Law Suit (SC) 1575 and orders passed bv this Court in MACMA.2|27 ol' 2019, dated 02.12.2022, wherein pay and recovery prinr:iplc u,as adopted directing [hc Insurance Compzrny to pay the compensation amounL in the first instance and later recorrer thc same from the owner of the crime vehicle.

¶43

Non, tht' point that emerges for determination is,

¶44

Whether tlrc order passed by the learned 'I'ihnal requires interference of this Court?

¶45

POINT;-

¶46

This Criurt has perused the entire evidcnce and documents available on record. On behalf of the claim pctitioners, petitioner No. 1, who is tht: u,ife of the deceased, examined herself as pW 1 and got exermirrcd PWs 2 & 3. During the cortrse of her

¶47

¶48

M6P'I

¶49

examination,^{PW 1 reitcratedthe contents of the claimpetition'} PW3, who is an^{eye witnessto the accident, deposed thatthe} accident took^{place due to the rash and negligentdriving of the} driverofthecrimeTractorandTrailer'PWl,insupportofher evidence,^{got markedEXs.A1 to A6 on her behalf A perusal of} Ex.Al-FlRshowsthatPoliceofVTowan,Nizamabad'registereda caseinCrimeNo.|2Tof2ol4underSection33TIPCagainstthe driver of the^{crime Tractor and filed charge sheet underEx A2 for} the offence^{under Section 304-A IPCEx A3 is the Post mortem} examination report.^{Ex.A4 is the inquestreport Ex'A5-Report of} the Motor^{Vehicle lnspector showsthat the accident had not} occurred due^{to any mechanical defects in the Tractor and Trailer} and Ex.A6 is^{the Copy of Insurance policy which shows that the} policy was in force^{as on the date of accident A perusal of} evidence of^{PW3,who is an eye witness to the incidentcoupled} with Exs.A 1^{to A5, confirms that the death of the deceasedwas} due to rash and^{negligentdrivingof the drivingof the subject} Tractor bearing^{No.AP-2S-AD 1O49attachedwith Trolley bearing} No.AP-25-X-6628.^{Though PWs 1 to 3 were cross-examined at} length, nothing^{adversewas elicited from them to disbelievetheir} testimonY.

¶50

On behalf^{of Insurance Company, RW1was examined' He} deposed that^{there was delay of 8 days in Iodgingcomplaint to the}

¶51

¶52

MGP,] rlAct\ No 1e13 at 2a1e

¶53

Police ancl that rhe deceased was travelling as an unauthorized passenger on tl'rc subject Tractor and Trailer and hence, lnsurance Companl,is not liable lo pay any compensation to the petitioner. In support of hrs cvjdence, he got marked Ex.B 1- Insurance policy.

¶54

In this rcgard, it is pertinent to refer to the complaint given by PW1 r.r,herein, the reason stated by her for delay in lodging FIR is that immecliately after the accident, she thought that her husband r,',,ould rccover from injuries. Hence, she did not lodge any complaint irrmediately after the accident. However, immecliately after the death of' her husband, she gave a complair-rt before the Police. Thc sirid cxplanation rs reasonable and u,or-Lld not make any consequcnce in deciding the petition. It is also rtdmittr:d fact that de lay in lodging of FIR cannot be a ground to dismiss the claim petitiorr as the family members will be engagec in providing neccssary trcatment to the injured inste:rd of rushing to police station for givrrrg a complaint regarding the accident.

¶55

In this ri-gard, it is pertinent to refer to tl-re ju<lgmr)nt of the Hon'b1e Ap<'x Court in the case of Ravi v. Badrinaryanl, wherein, the Hon'blc Apcx Court at Para No.21 held as under:-

¶56

"21. The pLtrpose of lodging the FIR in such type o,r cases is pirnarilrr to intimate the police to initiate investtgation of ciminaL oJJi:n<:es. Lodging of FIR cerla y proues .factum of acciden t so that the uictim is abte to ktd.ge o case t-n.

(201l) 4 SCC {)93

I I

I I : I

compensation^{but detag in doingso conftot be the moin ground} for^{rejecting the claimpetition ln other utords' althougLt lodqing} of FIR is^{uitatin deciding motor accident cloim cases'delatt in} lodging the^{same should not be treoted' as fatal for such} proceedtngs,^{ifclaimanthas beenoble todemonstrote} satisfactory^{and. cogentreasons for it' There couldbe uaietgof} reosons^{in genuinecases for detayed lodgment of FIR' Unless} kith ond^{kin of the uictimare abte to regain a certainleuelof} tranquititg^{of mindond are composed to Lodge it' eueni'f' there is} delag, the^{some desentesto be condoned'Insuch} circumstances,^{the authenticity of ttrc FIR ossumesmtt ch more} significance^{thand'elay in todgingtt'tereof supported by cogent} reosons

¶63

In^{view of the above,the contention of the learnedcounsel} for appellant/^{Insurance Companythat the learned Tribunaltooka} Ienient^{viewwith regard to delay in lodging FIR is unsustainabie'}

¶64

i8. It is^{furthercontentionof the learned Standing Counsel for} Appellant/^{Insurance Company that the learned Tribunal failed to} see that^{the deceasedtravelledas an unauthorizedpassenger on} the subject^{Tractor and further contendedthatEx Bl-Insurance} policy does^{not cover risk of the labourerand therefore' the} insurance^{company is not liable to pay any compensationln this} regard, it^is Pertinent^{to refertothe decision of High Courtof} Gujarat rna case between^{United India Insurance Co'Ltd'} Vs.Fatmaben^{Ismailbhai2 whereinthe Court' at Para 12 of the} Judgment,^{held as under:-}

¶65

¶66

MCP)

¶67

" 12. As di.scussed herelnaboue, the uehicle in quesiictrt was a goods uelicle and tlrc deceased u.)as on unauthoized possenqar h the uehicle in question ancl therelbre, the

¶68

irrsrrrarrce campanll ts not liable to pag tha cLntotLnt of comp?nstLtLott. Howeuer, as the monifest objecl <tf the prouisrrrs oJ the MV Act i.s lo ensure that thr: porty, toho suffers i\juries due to the use of tLLe motorcAcle, ancl moy be able lo get the damoges for the injurtes sustained/ decttlt. If the goods uehicle is used for carrying the passengers, ogainst the tenns of insurance policy, as is in the case on lLand, th.e claimants cannot suffer for the technicalities of uthether th.e outner/ itsurance companA should pag the amount. As the uehic[e is lnsured ulth th.e insurance compang, the insurance compotlq sha rtrst paA the compensation and it s for the rnsure'LL'e cornpanA to recouer from the ou.tner if so tutshes."

¶69

From thc above referrcd decision, it is clezrr that the Insurance Clompany cannot be exonerated from its lirrbility to pay the compensation amount. It shall pay the compenszrtion at first and then recover the same from the owner. Moreover, a perusal of Ex.A6=trx.81-l rrsurance policy shows that the policl' was in force as on the datc of accident. Therefore, the Insurance Company is liable to pav r:o rlpt: n sa tior-r.

¶70

It is the lurther contcntion of the learned counscl lbr the appellant/ I nsLl rance Company is that the learned Tritrunal erred in taking the rrlonthly income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/- without any substantial proof. In this regard, it is pcrtir-renl to reler the evidencc of PW I u,hercin she deposed that his husband used to do labour work urnd also had Rice business and used to earn

I ! i I I jI I I

i,:

Rs. 15,000/ -^{per month. Further,there is a mention in Ex'A4-} Inquest^{Reportthat the occupation of the deceased as "Rice} Business".^{Hence, the learnedTribunal came to a conclusion that} the deceased,^{as an abled bodiedman, can earn not less than} Rs.6,000/-^{per month by doing labour work and Ricebusiness'} Hence,interferenceofthisCourtisnotnecessaryinthisregard.

¶75

2I. Coming^{to the aspect of compensation' the learnedTribunal} hxed the monthly^{income of the deceased@ Rs 6'000/- and} deducted 1/3rd^{towards personal expensesas the numberof} dependents^{are three and appliedmultiplier '16' for the deceascd} being aged 38^years ,^{whichcomes to Rs'7'68'000/-'Apart from} this the^{Iearned Tribunal had awarded asum of Rs 25'O00/-} towards funeral^{expensesand alsoawardedcompensation towards} Ioss of love^{and affection twice whichneeds interferenceof this} Court. This^{Court by relying upon the Judgment of HonbleApex} Court in the^{case ofNoitiono,l Insurance Co' Ltd'V*Pranag}

¶76

Sethi & others^{(2017 ACJ 27OO/,wherein the HonbleApex Court} had fixed reasonable^{figures on conventional heads, viz', loss of} estate, loss^{of consortium and funeral expenses as Rs' 15'0O0/-'} Rs. 40,000/-^{and Rs. 15,000/-respectivelywhichin all comes to} Rs.7O,OOO/-^{(which shall carrylO"henhancement for everythree} years), is inclined^{to award a sum of Rs'77,O00/-towardsnon-} pecuniary damages.^{Further, consideringthe fact that the claim}

¶77

¶78

petitioners 2 it 3 being minor chilclrcn o[ the dcceasecL. this Court is inclined to ruvirrd a sum of Rs.40,000/- each under thc head of parental consortium as per the decision of the Apex Court in Magma Generql Insurance Compang Limited. o. Nanu Ram @ Chuhttt Ro,rn o.nd others3. Thus, in all, the claimants are entitled for a rotal compensation of Rs.9,25,O00/-

¶79

In the rcstrlt. the Appeal liled by lhe Insurance Companl, is partly-allowe<1 reducing the amount of compensation granted by the Tribunal lj-onr Rs. i0,43,000/- to Rs.9,25,00O/- u,hich carries interest (a) 7.rt',/o per annum payable by Respondent Nos.1 & 2 jointly and sevcr:rllv within a period of two months fronr the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Respondent No.2/Insurance Company (appellant herein) shall pay the compensation in the first instance and lati:r reco/er the same from Respondent No. i. Upon such paymcnt made, the rcspondents/ claim petttioners are entitled to $,ithdrar,t, the same as per the apportionmcnt made by the learned'l'ribnnal. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶80

Misccllarreous petitions pcnding, if any, shall stand closed

¶81

Sd/- MOHD. ISMAIL 3(z"rr) l8 scL t7o ASSISTANT REGISTRAR i/TRUE COPY//

¶82

secfroN oFFlcER

¶83

To, 1. The Chairman, Motor^{Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judgeat} Nizam abad^.

¶84

One CC to SRI^{C. BUCHI REDDY, Advocate[OPUC]}

¶85

3 One CC^to SRI^{P. RADHIVEREDDY, AdvocateIOPUC]}

¶86

Two CD^CoPies

AS,4(am

HIGH COURT

DATED:0210812024

JUDGMENT+DECREE

MACMA.No.I 918 of 2019

¶93

4
,r1-'
/.+
.Nt<br>ai
l,:
i'
-., \ tt't
/.
\ /:r
\--- -'' :.r r, r

¶94

MACMA IS PARTLY ALLOWED

¶95

0,x,*"

¶96

[^32s3 ]

¶97

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYOERABAD

¶98

FRIDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶99

PRESENT

¶100

THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

¶101

M.A.C.M.A.No: 1918 of 2019

¶102

Between:

¶103

Shriram General lnsurance Compan Limited, Rep by its Branch Manager, Branch Office, Door No. 5-6-57018,2 6d floor, Besides Axis bank, Near Kapila hotel, Hyderabad road, Nizamabad. ...AppellanURespondent No.2

¶104

AND

¶105

1 . Liyakath Begum, W/o Late Mohd. Latheef,

¶106

Ghousiva Firdaus, D /o Late Mohd. Latheef, Age:^{14 years, Occ:} Student Minor

¶107

Muskan Begum, D/o Late Mohd. Lateef, Age: 1'l^years, Occ: Student^Minor

¶108

All Rl/o. H.No.10-10-212. canal calta, Nagaram, Nizamabad^district. (Respondent 2 and 3 Bering minor Rep by guard Respondent No.1 Mother)

¶109

...Petitioners/Respondents

¶110

4 Pallapu Poshetty, S/o Pallapu Sayanna, Age: major, Occ: Agriculture^cum Owner of Tractor bearing No. AP-25-AD-1049 attached^{trolly bearingNo. AP-} 25-X-6628 Rl/o. H.No. 3-12015, Khanapur Village. Armoor^{Mandal. Nizamabad} District.

¶111

...RespondenURespondent

¶112

Appeal filed under Section 1 73 of M.V. Act by against the Judgment^and Decree dated. 21-12-2015^passed in M.V.O.P.No.412 of 2014 on the^{file of the} Court of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-District^{Judge at} Nizamabad.

¶113

This appeal coming on for hearing and upon^perusing the^grounds of^appeal, the^judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the^{materialpapers in the case and}

¶114

upon hearing the arguments of SRI C. BUCHI REDDY, Advocate for the Appellant and SRI P. RADHIVE REDDY, Advocate for the Respondents

¶115

This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

¶116

'1 . That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by the lnsurance company be and hereby is partly allowed reducing the amount of compensation granted by the Tribunal from Rs 10,43,0001 to Rs.9,25,0001 which carries interest @ L\o/o per annum payable by Respondent Nos.'1 & 2 jointly and severally within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this orders;

¶117

That the respondent No.2/lnsurance Company (appellant herein) shall pay lhe compensation in the first instance and later recover the same from Respondent No.1 ;

¶118