Partly allowed

Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Bheemankar Nanaji

Telangana HC30 Jan 2025MACMA/3132/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed in part an insurance company's appeal against a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award. The court reduced non-pecuniary damages applying a Supreme Court precedent and reduced interest rates, though it upheld liability.

What did the court decide?

Non-pecuniary damages reduced to Rs. 77,000; interest reduced to 7.5% per annum; otherwise Tribunal order stands.

Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Bheemankar… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[^32s3 ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH GOURT FOR THE"STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

¶6

MOTOR ACCIDEN T CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS^{APPEAL NO: 2030 OF 2018}

¶7

Appeal filed under Section 173 of MV Act against^{the judgment and decree} dated 22-01-2018 in O.P.No. 57 of 2017^{on the file of the Court of the Chairman,} Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-lll Additional^{District Judge,Asifabad.}

¶8

Between:

¶9

HDFC ERGO General lnsurance Co. Ltd.,^{Represented by its Branch} Manager, ll Floor, D.No.6-3-346/1, above Scotia^{Bank, Road No.1,Banjara} Hills, Hyderabad

¶10

...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT No.³

¶11

AND

¶12

Junagare Leela Bai Wo Late J. Dilip, Age^{23 years, Housewife}

¶13

Junagare Akshara, D/o Late J. Dilip, Age 4^years

¶14

Junagare Vaishnavi, D/o Late J. Dilip, Age^{1 year}

¶15

Junagare Deepika, D/o Late J. Dilip, Age^{'1 month}

¶16

Junagare Bapuji @ Bavuji, S/o Bapu,^{Age 55 years,Occ Agriculturist}

¶17

Junagare Nababai, Wo Bapuji, Age 50^{years, Occ Household.}

¶18

(Respondent Nos.2 to 4 are minors and are being Represented^{by their} mother and natural^guardian J. Leela Bai^{i.e. RespondentNo,'1.herein)}

¶19

All are R/o Chilatiguda, Asifabad Mandal, Adilabad^District.

¶20

...RESPONDENT Nos.¹ to 6/PETITIONERS

¶21

Counsel for the Appellant: Sri A. Ramakrishna^Reddy

¶22

Counsel for the Respondents: Sri S. Chandra^Shekhar

¶23

The Court delivered the following JUDGMENT:

¶24

':;:r:,f::

¶25

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUEIICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI M.A.C.M.A.No.2O3O of 2O18

¶26

JUDGMENT:

¶27

Aggrieved by the Judgment passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum- III Additionat District Judge, Asifabad (for short, 'the Tribunal) in O.P.No.S7 of 2Ot7, d,ated, 22.O1.2OIa, the 3'd respondent/ Insurance Company in the said O.P. preferred the present Appeal seeking to set-aside the order of the learned Tribunal.

¶28

For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter be referred as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

¶29

The brief facts of the case are that the petilioners, who are the wife, children and parents of Late J.Dilip (hereinafter referred as 'the deceased') filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.15,39,00O/- for the death of the deceased-J.Dilip in a road accident that occurred on 22.03.2016. It is stated by the petitioners that on 22.03.2016 at about 7.00 p.m., when the deceased was proceeding on motorcycle bearing No.AP-O 1-AF-7655 along with pillion rider and when reached Vinay Garden of Kaghaznagar, a.Tata Magic Auto bearing No.AP-01-TV-3649, which was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, dashed the motorcycle of

MCP,J Macna No.)030 oI20l8

¶35

the deceased. As a result, the deceased sustained injuries^al1 over the body and died on the spot and the pillion rider-B.Nanaji sustained injuries.

¶36

Based on a complaint, Police of Kaghaznagar Police Station, Adilabad District, registered a case in Crime No.27 of 2O16 under Sections 304-4 and 337 IPC, conducted investigation and filed charge sheet under Ex.A3 against the driver of crime Tata Magic Auto bearing No.AP-0 1-TV-3649.

¶37

It is stated by the petitioners that due to untimely death of the deceased, they lost their sole bread winner and were put to mental shock and agony. Hence frled claim petition seeking compensation of Rs. 15,39,000/- against the respondents, who are the driver, owner and insurer of subject Tata Magic Auto bearing No.AP-O1-TV-3649 involved in the accident.

¶38

Before the Tribuna,l, respondent Nos.1 & 2 /driver and owner of the crime Tata Magic Auto bearing No.AP-O 1-TV-3649 remained ex-parte. Respondent No.3/Insurance Company frled its counter contending that the petitioner/injured has to prove his age, occupation, loss of income due to the alleged accident and^also contended that respondent No.1 was not having valid driving license to drive the crime vehicle at the time of accident and thereby violated the terms and conditions of insurance policy. As

¶39

¶40

MGP,J Macma No.2030 oJ 2018

¶41

such, respondent No.3 is not liab.lg*.to pay compensation and that the compensation claimed is excess and exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the claim against it.

¶42

Based on the above pleadings, the learned Tribunal had

¶43

framed the following issues for conducting trial:-

¶44

L Whether Jungare Dilip died in the accident that occrurred on 22.O3.2016 at about 19.0O hours at Vinag Garden of Kagha-zngar, uithin the limits'of P. S. Kaghaznagar?

¶45

LL. Whether the said accident occuned due to rash and negligent dnuing of Tata Magic Auto beaing No.AP-O 1 TV-3649?

¶46

LII Whether petitioners are entitled to cLaim compen^sation for the accidental death of Jungare Diltp. If so, houL much and against which of tlrc respondents?

¶47

LU To what reliej?

¶48

Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the petitioners, PWs 1 & 2 were examined and Exs.A I to A4 were marked. As respondent Nos. 1 & 2 remained ex-parte, on behalfof respondent No.3, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced.

¶49

After considering the evidence and documents availabie on record, the learned Tribunal had partly-allowed the claim petition by awarding a sum of Rs.8,37,000/- towards compensation along with interest @ 9o/o per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit payable by all the respondent Nos.l to 3 jointly and severally. Aggrieved by the same, the 3'a respondent/ Insurance

¶50

¶51

¶52

MGP,J Macna No )030 oJ20l8

¶53

Company in the said O.P. preferred.Jhe present Appeal seeking to set-aside the order of the learned Tribunal.

¶54

Heard arguments of Sri Chandrasekhar Reddy, learned Counsel representing on behalf of Sri A.Ramakrishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for appellant/Insurance Company and Sri S.Chandrasekhar, learned counsel representing respondents / claim petitioners.

¶55

1 1. The contentions of the learned Standing Counsel for appeilant/ Insurance Company are that the driver of the crime Tata Magic Auto bearing No.AP-01-TV-3649 do not possess driving license at the time of accident and the owner of the said Auto had willfully handed over the Auto to the driver who do not possess valid driving license and committed breach of terms and conditions of policy. As such, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation. It also contended that the Tribunal erred in awarding Rs.2,25,000/- under the Head of Non-pecuniary damages and that the interest awarded on the compensation amount is excess and therefore requested to reduce the same Lo .7.5o/o per annum.

¶56

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/claim petitioners, who appeared through virtual mode, contended that the learned Tribunal, after considering all

¶57

¶58

MGP,J Macna No.2030 oJ 2018

¶59

t.,

¶60

the aspects, had awarded lg.asonable compensation and

¶61

interference of this Court is not necessary.

¶62

Now the point that emerge for consideration is,

¶63

Whether the order passed bg the learned Tribunal requires interference of this Court?

¶64

Point:-

¶65

This Court has perused the evidence and documents available on record. Petitioner No. 1 /wife of the deceased examined herself as PW 1 and reiterated the contents made in the claim petition. As she is not an eye witness to the incident, she got examined PW2- eye witness to the incident. PW2 in his evidence deposed that he was runnrng a shop by the side of main road where the accident took place and he witnessed the accident.

¶66

As far as documentary evidence is concerned, Ex.A1 is the FIR registered by Police of Kaghaznagar Police Station, Adilabad District in Crime No.27 of 2016 under Sections 304-A and 337 IpC, who conducted investigation and filed charge sheet .under Ex.A2 against the driver of crime Tata Magic Auto bearing No.Ap-O1-TV3649 stating that the death of the deceased was due tg rash and negligent driving of the driver of subject Tata Magic Auto. Ex.A3 is the Inquest report. Ex.A4 is the MVI report.

¶67

Therefore, from the above oral evidence of pWsl & 2 coupled with the documentary evidence marked under Exs.Al to A4, it is

¶68

¶69

¶70

MCP,J Macma No.2030 oI2018

¶71

clear that the death^{of the deceased-wasdue to rash and negligent} driving of the driver of^{Tata MagicAuto bearing No.AP-01-TV-3649.}

¶72

The hrst and foremost^{contention of the learned counselfor} the appellant/ Insurance^{Companyis that as the owner of the} crime Auto had willfully^{handed over the said Autoto the driver} who do not possess^{valid driving licenseand committed breachof} the terms and conditions^{ofpolicy, the appellant/ Insurance} Company is not liable to^{pay compensation to the petitioners.}

¶73

In this regard, it^{is relevant to state that though the learned} counsel for the appellant/^{InsltranceCompanycontendedthat the} driver of the crime^{vehicle do not possess valid driving license at} the time of accident, but it^had not^{taken any steps to examine} RTA Authorities to substantiate^{their contentionexcept giving mere} suggestions to PW1. It is^{well settledlaw that the RTA of{icials are} the competent^persons to^{adjudicate as to whethera person is} having valid driving^license or not.^{Inthe present case, the} respondents faited to examine^{any of the RTA ofhcials to establish} that the driver of the crime^{vehicle was not holding valid driving} license. Hence, the contention of the^{learned counselfor the} appellalt in this regard^{is unsustainable. Moreover, thepolicy} conditions regarding driver not holding valid^and effective^driving license at the time of accident cannot be considered as

¶74

¶75

MGP,J Macna No 2030 oI20t8

¶76

..4

¶77

fundamental breach that had coqlributed to the cause of accident to discharge the appellant/ Insurance Company from its liability. In such circumstances, as stated supra, mere absence, fake or invalid driving license or disqualihcation of the driver for driving at the relevant time are not in themselves defenses available to the insurer against either the insured or the third parties, more particularly, when no material is placed by the Insurance Company to substantiate their contention.

¶78

In view of the above discussion, it is made clear that the Insurance Company cannot be exonerated from its liabilitv in paying compensation.

¶79

The other contention of the learned counsel for the Appellant/ Insurance Company is that the learned Tribunal erred in awarding excess amounts under the Head of Non_pecuniary damages and also erred in granting excess intere st @ 9%o per annum instead of 7.5o/o per annum.

¶80

A perusal of quantum of compensation in the impugned judgment shows that the learned Tribunal, 1n the absence of documentary proof, assessed the earnings of the deceased equal to that of daily wage earner and fixed his monthly . income @ Rs.4,00O/-, deducted l/4fr towards personai expenses, applied multiplier 'I7' aod calculated loss of earnings @ Rs.6,12,000/_.

.-..*-

MAP,J Mocna No.2030 of20tE

¶85

¶86

I I I I

¶87

Apart from above, the Tribunal-- aiso granted a sum of Rs. 1,75,000/- under the Head of non-pecuniary damages i.e., Rs.1,0O,O0O/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.25,000/ -towards funeral expenses and Rs.50,000/- towards loss of estate which this Court finds it to be excess and is inclined to interfere with the same by relying upon the Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.Pranag Sethi & others (2017 ACJ 27OO), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court had fixed reasonable Iigures on conventional heads, viz., loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses as Rs. 15,OOO/-, Rs. a0,000/ and Rs. 15,0OO/- respectively which in all comes to Rs.7O,0O0/(which shall carry lO%o enhancement for every three years), and hereby award a sum of Rs.77,0OO/- towards non-pecuniary damages. Hence, the amount under the Head of non-pecuniary damages is reduced from Rs.1,75,000/- to 77,OOO/-.

¶88

In so far as interest on the compensation amount is concerned, this Court, by relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and othersl, reduces the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal from 9o/o per annum to 7.5o/o per annum.

¶89

12013 ACJ 1403 = 2013 (4) ALT 35

¶90

¶91

MGP,J Mocnn No.2030 oJ20t8

¶92

I I I I t:l) I

¶93

In the result, M.A.C.M.A.*o.2030 of 2018 filed by the Insurance Company is partly-allowed by reducing the amount of Rs.1,75,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under the Head of nonpecuniary damages to Rs.77,O0O/ - and also reducing the rate of interest frorn 9ok per annum lo 7.5o/o per annum. Except the said findings, the findings arrived at by the learned Tribunal in all other aspects shall remain same. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶94

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶95

Sd/. T. JAYASREE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

CTION OFFICER

To,

1 The chairman, Motor Accidents^{claims Tribunal-cum-lllAdditionalDistrict} Judge, Asifabad.^(with records,^{if any)} 2. One"GC to Sri A. Ramakrishna^{Reddy,Advocate} [OPUC] 3 One CC to Sri S. Chandra Shekhar,^Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies VH/ghw

¶100

i "_' 1tti*att:'*rr-1$-''r'.'-

HIGH GOURT

DATED: 3010112025

JUDGMENT+DECREE

MACMA.No.2030 of 2018

¶105

g S,T.{iT,|- c
lt<br>[tq M
:) t t
c)
t
r;l,--:;p.tJ

¶106

PARTLY ALLOWING MACMA WITHOUT COSTS

¶107

.oSd G

¶108

¶109

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶110

THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETFf DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶111

PRESENT

¶112

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

¶113

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 2030 OF 2018

¶114

Between:

¶115

HDFC ERGO General lnsurance Co. Ltd., Represented by its Branch Manager, ll Floor, D.No.6-3-346/1, above Scotia Bank, Road No.1, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad

¶116

..APPELLANT/RESPONDENT No. 3

¶117

AND

¶118

Junagare Leela Bai W/o Late J. Dilip, Age 23 years, Housewife

¶119

Junagare Akshara, D/o Late J. Dilip, Age 4 years

¶120

Junagare Vaishnavi, D/o Late J Dilip, Age 1 year

¶121

Junagare Deepika, D/o Late J. Dilip, Age 1 month

¶122

Junagare Bapuji @ Bavuji, S/o Bapu, Age 55 years, Occ Agriculturist

¶123

Junagare Nababai, Wo Bapuji, Age 50 years, Occ Household.

¶124

(Respondent Nos.2 to 4 are minors and are being Represented by their mother and natural guardian J. Leela Bai i.e. Respondent No.'1 herein)

¶125

All are R/o Chilatiguda, Asifabad lvlandal, Adilabad District.

¶126

...RESPONDENT Nos. 1 to 6/PETITIONERS

¶127

Appeal filed under Section 173 of MV Act against the^judgment and decree dated 22-01-2018 in O.P.No. 57 oI 2017 on the file of the Court of-the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-lll Additional District Judge, Asifabad.

¶128

This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the^grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Court below and the material^papers in the case and upon hearing the arguments of Sri A. Ramakrishna Reddy, Advocate for the appellant and Sri S. Chandra Shekhar, Advocate for the Respondents.

¶129

Thrs Court doth Order and Decree as follows.

¶130

That the MACMA No. 2030 of 20.18 filed by the lnsurance Company be and hereby is partly-allowed by reducing the amount of Rs. 1,75,0001 awarded by the Tribunal under the Head of non-pecunrary damages to Rs. 77,0001- and also reducing the rate of interest from 9% per annum to 7.5o/o per annum;

¶131