United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Rajesh Kumar Rana — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2025)

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Rajesh Kumar Rana — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the appellant insurer; the Tribunal's decree (award of Rs.23,000/- with interest @7% per annum) stands confirmed; miscellaneous petitions, if any, closed; no order as to costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether there existed a proper insurance policy for the crime vehicle, and consequently whether the appellant Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation awarded by the Tribunal (the findings on the manner of accident having gone unchallenged).

Court's answer

There being no dispute on the manner of accident, the Tribunal's findings on that aspect not having been challenged, the Court confined the appeal to the single point of the existence of the insurance policy.

Ratio / Principle

A perusal of the appendix of evidence showed that the respondents had not filed any document to show either violation of policy conditions or that there was no proper policy for the crime vehicle.

Key takeaways

Accordingly, the Court held the contention of the appellant/Insurance Company (that it was not liable to pay compensation for want of a proper policy) to be unsustainable.ratio¶62
The petitioner had adduced oral and documentary evidence (PW.2/Doctor; Ex.A1/FIR, Ex.A2/Discharge Summary, Ex.A3/Medical Bill, Ex.A4/C.T. Scan Report, Ex.A5/Disability Certificate, Ex.A6/Salary Certificate, Ex.A7/Leave Letter) establishing the injuries, treatment, mental agony and loss of income, supporting the Tribunal's award.ratio¶65
The respondent/petitioner had not preferred any appeal for enhancement of compensation nor made efforts before this Court to press his case.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (MACMA No.1405 of 2014, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad, decided 17.02.2025 by Smt Justice M.G. Priyadarsini) filed by United India Insurance Co Ltd under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Tribunal's order and decree dated 15.04.2008 in O.P.No.1461 of 2005 awarding Rs.23,000/- with interest @7% per annum to an injured claimant - Held: (i) the Tribunal's findings on the manner of the accident of 29.04.2005 were not challenged, so the only point for consideration was the existence of a proper insurance policy for the crime vehicle; (ii) a perusal of the appendix of evidence showed that the respondents had filed no document demonstrating either violation of policy conditions or the absence of a proper policy, and the insurer's contention of non-liability was therefore unsustainable; (iii) the claimant's evidence (PW.2/Doctor and Exs.A1-A7 comprising FIR, discharge summary, medical bill, C.T. scan report, disability certificate, salary certificate and leave letter) established the injuries, treatment, mental agony and loss of income; (iv) the claimant had sought no enhancement; the appeal, being devoid of merit and substance, was dismissed with no order as to costs, miscellaneous petitions were closed and the Tribunal's decree stood confirmed.

r I i

[^32s3 ]

I I l l

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRiYADARSINI

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL M ISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 140 5 0F 2014

Appeal filed Under section 173 of lr/otor Vehicles Act,.1988 against the order and decree in l\4.V.o. P. No.1405 of 2014 dated.15. o4.2oo} on the fil6 of the court of the chairman, Motor Accidents claims Tribunal (v Addl. Metropolitan sessions Judge(Mahita court)-XtX Addt. chief Judge city criminat court) ai Hyderabad.

Between:

United lndia lnsurance Co L_!d,. rep by its Divisional Manager,H.No.2/A, Vengalraona gar, Hyderabad-3g (Policy No.050 SO0t31 tO13t 1 6tooO/OS6i9/1 996 tite time Policy.

...AppellanUR-2

AND

1 [9jq9l1^{Ku.qar Rana,S/o.Kumar Chines Cook,Irrletro} Fat Food Centre RTo.West [\4arredpally, Secunderabad.

2 !t^oJr! fgUgl^{Ameen, S/o.Shaik tmam, Aged Major} Not Known Rt/o.8_36_ 1 6518.1 5. Erragadda, Hyderabad.

R2-Life for default vide co.dt.20109/1^.l

...Respondents/

Petitioner & R-1

l.A. NO: 2 OF 20O8(MACMAM P. NO: 63 420F 20081

Petition under Section 1 s i cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, trJ Higrt court may oe preasea io Jay the order passed in o.p.No.1461/0s dated is.0;'.200s on thb fite of the v AJdr. Metropolitan Sessions Judge-Cum_(Mahila Courts) at Hyderabad,

l.A. NO:4 OF^{2OO8(MACMAM P. NO: 40321 OF 2008)}

PetitionunderSectionl5lCPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesStatedin the affidavit^{filed in support of the petition,the High Court may be pleased}

Counsel for the^{Appellant:SRl. N MOHANKRISHNA}

Counsel for^{the Respondents:None Appeared'}

The Court delivered^{the following:Judgment}

HONOURABLE SMT.JUSTICE M.G.PRIYAD ARSINI

M.A.C.M.A. No .1405 0F 2014

JUDGMENT:

Aggrieved by the order and decree dated i5.O4.2OOg (hereinafter will be referred as ,impugned orderJ passed by the learned Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal _ cum _ V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge (Mahila Court) _ cum_ XIX Additional Chief Judge, City Criminal Courts at Hyderabad (hereinafter will bc referreci as .lribunalJ in O.p.No.1461 of 2005, thc respondent No_2/ Insurance Company has filed the prcsent Appeal to set asidc thc impugned order.

For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred as they were srrayscl before the Tribunal.

3 The brief facts of the case as can be seen from the record are as under

a) The petitioner filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act claiming compensation of Rs.2,OO,OOOl_ for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 29.O4.2OO5. As per the petitioner, the petitioner was going on a motor vehicle and when he reached near Uppal Bus Stand road, a Bajaj Chetak bearing No.Ap 9 2262 came in a rash and negiigent manner and dashed against motor cycle, as

\ \

w -{.,']t\ \

2

I i I I I I I I

a result, he sustained^{frac ture injuries andbecame} unconscious. It is stated^{by the petitioner that ht: was ri'orking} as Head Cook in Chinese^{Restaurant and earnir-rg Rs 5,OOO/-} per month. Due to the injuries,^{he becamedisabled and lost his} income. Hence, he has becn^{claiming-compensalion of} Rs.2,OO,O00/-

Before the learned Tribunal, in^{reply to the above petition} averments, the respondent^{No.2 filed counter and u'hereas} respondent No.1 remained exparte.^{In the counter,the} respondent No.2 denied the manner^{ofthe accrdent,age,} occupation and incomc^{of the injured. lt was contendcdLhat the} policy was issued, however, the^{registration\r'zts expired on} 04.12.2OO4 i.e.,^prior to the^{accident.Hence,respondent No.2 is} noL liable to pay compensation.

Based on the above pteadings, the Tribunal^framcdthe following issues:

i) Whether the accident took^place on^{29.O4.2005 at} about 23.3O hours, due to rash and negligent diuing of Bajaj Scooter bearing No.AP 9^{7262, by its diuer?}

i, Whether the petitioner is entitled to^claim compensation from the respondents, if^so, to^uhat amount and from uhom?

iii) To tuhat relieft

3

vcPJ MACMA.No.l405 0I2014

i i

I

.-,ffi*r
'-ir-.,'

---.

In order to establish his clairn before the learned Tribunal, PWs. 1 and 2 were examined and Exs:Al to A9 were exhibited on behalf of the petitioner. On the other hand, the owner of the crime vehicle was examined as RW1, however, no documentary evidence was aclduced on behalf of the respondents to dcny the claim of the petitioner.

The learned Tribunal alter considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, passed the impugned order awarding an amount ol Rs.23,000/- with intere st @Zok per annum from the date of petition till date of deposit. Aggrieved by the same, the Appellant/ Insurance Company hled the present Appeal to set aside the impugned order.

Despite servicc of notice, respon<lents have not contested the case.

Heard Sri N.Mohan Krishna, learnecl Standing Counsel for the Appellant/ Insurance Company and perused the material available on record including the grounds ofAppeal.

The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that there is no proper insurance policy to the crime

\ \

I

;

I

; : i 1; i I I

\

vehicle. Hence, the Insurance^{Companyis not liab1eto pay any} compensatlon

A perusal of^{recorddisclosesthat there is no dispute} regarding the manner^{of accidenl, since the lindings arrived at} by the Tribunal on those^{aspects are not challenged. Therefore,} there is no necessilr to once^{again decidethe aboveaspect and} the only point that has^{to be consideredin the present appeal is} with regard to the existing of the^{insurancepolicy.}

A perusal of the appendix of the^{evidence shorvs tha[ the} respondents have not filed any^{documentto shou'thattherc is} either violation of^{policy conditionsor no proper policy to the} crime vehicle. Under these^{circumstances,this Court is of the} considered view that the contention^{of the appcllant/ Insurance} Company is unsustainable.

On the other hand, the^{petitioner has adduced both oral} and documentary evidence to^{prove theinjtrriesand got} examined PW.2/Doctor, who spoke^{about the nat.ure of injuries} sustained by the petitioner. Further,^{Ex.A 1} /^{FIR disclosesthe} manner of the accident, Ex.A2 / Dischargc^Summary, trx.A3/Medical 8il1, Ex.A4 lC.T Scan Report and Ex.A5/Disability Certrhcate disclose that he has suffered

a

injuries. trx.A6 is Salary Certihcate and Ex.A7 is Leave [,etter. All these documents have established that the petitioner has sustained injuries in the. accident and took treatment and suffered mental agony and loss of income. However, the learned Tribunal after considering all the aspects have awarded an amount of Rs.23,0O0/- with interest @7o/o per annum from the date of filing of the petition till date of deposit.

It is also pertinent to statc that the respondent/ petitioner has not preferred any appeal for enhancement of compensation and not even made any efforts before this Court to decide their case. As there are no merits in lhe appeal filed by the Appellant/ Insurance Company, this Court is of the considered opinion that the appeal is devoid of merit and substance and liable to be dismissed.

In the result, the Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand

closed.

sD/:lil'SRIFARI;^--- UTY REGISTRAR.

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To, 'l . The Chairman, [Vlotor Accidents Claims Tribunal (V Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge^{(Mahila Court)-XIX Addl.Chief Judge City Criminal Court)} at Hyderabad.^{(With records)}

Two CD CoPies

ffi,-

PB

HIGH COURT

DATED:^1710212025

i ilE o !a
.J(.j
1O SEP zffi
:(

JUDGMENT+DECREE

2 DRAFTS

MACMA.No.1405^{of 2014}

DISMISSING^{THE MACMA}

WITHOUT^COSTS

(, (

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THESTATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

MOTOR AC CIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1 405 0F 2014

Between:

United lndia lnsurance Co Ltd, rep by its Divisional Manager,H.No.2/A. Vengalraonagar, Hyderabad-3g (Policy No.050 so) I 31 to 1 3t 1 6 toooroSotgir sd6^-iif; time Policy.

...AppellanUR-2

AND

1 fajesh^{KumarRana, S/o.Kumar Chines} Cook, Metro Fat Food Centre

2 !!oL!,t_qOgt^{Ameen, S/o.Shaik lmam, Aged} Major Not Known R/o.8-36_ 165181 5, Erragadda, Hyderabad.

.1 R2-Life for default vide co.dt.20l09i1

Respondents/

Petitioner & R-1

Appeal filed Under Section 173 of [\rtotor Vehicres Act,19B8 against the order and decree in M.V-o.p.No. 14o5 of 2014 dated.15.04.2008 on the rirE oiite Cor.t ot the chalrman' Motor Accidents_ craims Tribunar (v Addr. Metroporitan s;;;", Judge(Mahita Court)-XtX Addt. Chief Judge City Criminat Court) ,i HVJ"*L"O. -

. This appeal coming on,for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Tribunar and ttre materiar [rper." in tre rr,rvoflano upon hearing the arguments of SRr N.rvoHANKRrsHNA, Advocate toi tn" npp"rirnt and NONE APPERAED, Advocate for the Respondent No.1.

This court doth Order^{and Decree as follows:}

1'ThattheNilotorAccidentCivilMiscellaneousappealbeandherebyis dismissed.

rhal save as^{aforesaid,the decree of the Tribunal Shall stands confirmed} in all other resPects;^and

That there^{be no order as to costs in thisappeal'}

SD/- N SRIHARI, DEPUW REGISTRAR, //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER

To,

The Chairman,^{,4otorAccidentsClaims Tribunal(V Addl Metropolitan} sessions Judge^{(tr/ahilacourt)-XlX Addl. chiefJudge city criminal court)} at Hyderabad.

Two CD Copies

PB uy

/

HIGH COURT

DATED: 1710212025

JUDGMENT+DECREE

2 DRAFTS

MACMA.No.1405 ot²⁰¹⁴

DISMISSING^{THE MACMA}

WITHOUT COSTS

0r)
t,

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order and decree dated 15.04.2008 passed by the Tribunal in O.P.No.1461 of 2005 awarding compensation of Rs.23,000/- with interest @7% per annum from the date of petition till date of deposit; the respondent No.2/Insurance Company filed the present appeal to set aside this impugned order.¶29
Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge (Mahila Court)-cum-XIX Additional Chief Judge, City Criminal Courts at Hyderabad · 15.04.2008
Prior proceeding
Injured petitioner filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act claiming Rs.2,00,000/- for fracture injuries and unconsciousness caused when a Bajaj Chetak (AP 9 2262) allegedly driven rashly and negligently dashed his motorcycle near Uppal Bus Stand road on 29.04.2005; he claimed to be a Head Cook earning Rs.5,000/- per month and alleged disability and loss of income.¶32
Prior proceeding
Respondent No.2 (insurer) filed counter denying the manner of accident, age, occupation and income of the injured; it contended that although a policy was issued, the vehicle registration had expired on 04.12.2004, prior to the accident, making it not liable; respondent No.1 remained ex parte.¶38
Prior proceeding
The Tribunal framed three issues: (i) whether the accident occurred on 29.04.2005 at about 23.30 hours due to rash and negligent driving of Bajaj Scooter AP 9 7262 by its driver; (ii) whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, and if so to what amount and from whom; (iii) to what relief.¶39
Prior proceeding
For the claimant, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A9 exhibited; the owner of the crime vehicle was examined as RW1; no documentary evidence was adduced by the respondents to deny the claim.¶49
Prior proceeding
After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal passed the impugned order awarding Rs.23,000/- with interest (printed garbled as '@Zok', recorded elsewhere as @7%) per annum from the date of petition till date of deposit.¶50
Prior proceeding
Despite service of notice, the respondents did not contest the appeal; only the appellant/Insurance Company was heard through its Standing Counsel.¶51