MACMA/336/2017 of ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., HYD Vs V.NEELAMMA, NALGONDA AND 4 OTHERS on 30 December 2022

JUDGMENT:

Being dissatisfied with the order [and ][decree passed ][by ][the]Motor Accidents Claims [Tribunal-cum-I ][Additional ][District ][Judge,]Nalgonda District in O.P. No.906 of 2010 dated [06.06.2010, ][the]present appeal is filed by the appellant-IClCl Lombard GeneralInsurance Cornpany Ltd.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties have been referred to asarrayed before the Tribunal.

3. According to the petitioners, on 29.10.2010 the deceased-Mallaiah was proceeding on his motorcycle bearirtg No. AP 27 ,D4905 from Huzumagar to his village and on.the way when he reachedBakkamanthulagudem Village at about 6:30 P.M hours, a lorrybearing No. AP 16 TU 9738 came in a rash and negligent manner athigh speed in opposite direction [and ]dashed the motorcycle. Due towhich the deceased sustained [grievous ]injuries and diedinstantaneously. Thus, the [petitioners ]are claiming compensation of MGP,JMacma 336 2011

Rs.5,00,000/- against the respondent Nos.l and 2, who are owner andinsurer of the lorry [jointly ]and severally liable to pay compensation.

4- Respondent No.1 remained exparte.

5.

5. Respondent No.2 filed counter disputing the lnanner in whichthe accident occurred, age, avocation, income and health condition ofthe deceased. It is further contended that the clairn is highlyexcessive, no merits in the petition and sought for disrnissal of thecase.

6. ln view of the above pleadings, the Tribunal raised thefollowing issues:following issues:

l) Whether the deceased by nanxe VallapudasuMallaiah dted due negligent driving of the drtverof the lorry bearing No. AP 16 TU 9738?Mallaiah dted due negligent driving of the drtverof the lorry bearing No. AP 16 TU 9738?

2) Whether the claimants are entitled forcompensation, tf so, to what amount and frontwhom?compensation, tf so, to what amount and frontwhom?

To what relie/?i)

7 . In order to prove the issues, on behalf of the petitioners, PWs.land 2 were exarnined and [got ]marked Exs.A-l to 4.-6. On behalf ofrespondents; Rw.l was examined and Ex.Bl and B 2 were rnarked.

JMGP,JMacma 336 2017

8. Considering the oral and documentary [evidence ][available ][on]record, the Tribunal has [awarded ]an [amount ][of ][Rs.4,65,000/- ][towards]compensation to the claimants along [with ][proportionate ][costs ][and]interest @ 7.5% per annum from the [date ]of [petition ]till [realization]against the respondent Nos.l and 2 [jointly ][and ][severally.]

9. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-InsuranceCompany and the learned Counsel for the respondent Nos.l to 4lclaimants. Perused the material available on record.

10. The learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-InsuranceCornpany subrnitted that the Tribunal failed to see that the cover notebearing No. GJ85l863l does not pertain to the crime lorry but itbelongs to another vehicle which is not involved in the accident andthe Tribunal failed to see that the date of accident is 2g.l.2ll}and thepolicy is valid from 18.2.2010, which is 20 days after the date ofaccident and that the Tribunal [failed ]to see that on the date of accident,there was no policy existing to [the ]offending vehicle. It is furthersubmitted that the amount [awarded ]by the Tribunal is highly MGP,JMacrna 336 20ll cxcesslveAccordingly, prayed for setting aside the irnpugned orderin the O.P.

I I. The leamed Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.lto 4-claimants submitted that the Tribunal after considering the oraland documentary evidence available on record, has awardedreasonable compensation against both the respondents [jointly ]andseverally and the same needs no interference by this Court. Therefore,the learned counsel sought for dismissalof the appeal.

12. With regard to the manner of accident, there is no disputeHowever, after evaluating the evidence of PWs.l and 2 coupled withthe documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal rightlyheld that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving ofthe driver of the offending vehicle

13. With regard to the quantum of compensation is concerned,according to the petitioners, the deceased was an agriculturist, aged 40years and used to earn Rs.5,000/- per month. However, since there isno income proof, the Tribunal had rightly taken the incorne of thedeceased at Rs.3,00 0/- per month and by deducting l/4th towards - MCP,JMacrna_336 _2017

personal and living [expenses ][of ][the ][deceased ][who is ][having ][four]:dependants, [applied the ][relevant ][prultiplier ][and ][awarded ][an ][amount ][of]Rs.4,05,000/- towards [loss ][of ]dependency. [Further ][the ][Tribunal]awarded an amount [of ][Rs.40,000/- ][towards ][loss ][of ][estate, ][love ][and]affection, Rs.10,000/- [towards ]consortium [and ][Rs.10,000/- ][towards]funeral expenses and in [total, ][the ][Tribunal ][awarded ][an ][amount ][of]Rs.4,65,000/-, which [is ][just ][and ][reasonable.]

14. With regard to the liability, [as ][stated above, ][the ][accident]occurred due to the rash [and ][negligent ][driving ][of ][the ][offending vehicle]by its driver. [Learned Standing Counsel ][for ][the ][respondent ][No.2-]Insurance Cornpany subrnitted [that there ][is no ][policy ][to ][the offending]lorry as on the date of accident, [however, ][admitted ][in their ][counter]that they have issued [policy ]to the [crime ][lorr)' ][bearing ][No.]AP.16.ru.9738 covering the [period ][from ][18.2.2010 ][to ][17.2-2011 ][to]the respondent No.l [herein. ][The ][accident occurred ][on ][29.01 ][.2010. ][In]support of their contention, [their Legal ][Manager ][was examined ][as]RW-l and he narrated [the same ][in their additional ][counter. ][He further]stated that they searched [for ][the ][policy ][of ][the said vehicle ][and ][found]that the cover note No.GJ85l863l [was ][issued ][to ][vehicle bearing No.]

MGP,JMacrna 336 2017

AI').O5.W.7877 and the respondent No.l herein purchased policy fromtlreir cornpany on 18.2.2010 and as the policy was purchasedsubsequent to the accident, their company is not liable to paycourpensation to the petitioners. Both the said policies were markedas Exs.Bl and 82. However, RW.l in his cross-exalnination statedthat they have agents present at the outlets and also in the office inorder to collecl the prerniums and the agent gives cover note at thefirst instance on collection of the premium amount and on depositingthe amount in the office by the agent, who collected prerniurn at theoffice, the policy will be issued. The validity period of the cover noteis 60 days. He did not specify the pennissible period for the agents todeposit the amount at the office, which was collected by them at theoutlets. He also admitted that the Xerox copy of the said cover noteshown to him seems to be alike one issued frorn their office andnumber of cover note mentioned is GJ8518631 and it was issued forthe crime vehicle and the validity is from 31.12.2009 to 30.10.2010.The original cover note will be with the respondent No.l but afterreceiving the surnmons, he did not appear before the Court tochallenge the case of the petitioners and did not put forth any evidencestating that the cover note was issued to him even before the date of Macma ,ryfll,

Macma ,ryfll, accident by [the ][agent, ][who ][has ][collected ][premium ][of ][Rs.19,500-00.]When the actual [person ][has ][failed ]to [contest ][the case, ][there ][is ][no ][other]option to the [petitioner ][except ]to file [the copy ][of ][cover note ][which ][is]available with him. Further [respondent ][No.2 did not ][take ][any ][steps ][to]examine the agent to [prove ]that the said [cover note ][was ][issued ][in]favour of respondent No.l. Even the respondent [No.2 failed ][to ][speak]about the rnode of payrnent of premium and on what date it is [paid ]andto whom it was paid. Considering the above facts and circumstances,the Tribunal rightly fixed the liability against the respondent Nos.land 2 [jointly ]and severally. Therefore, in view of the abovediscussion, this.Court is of the opinion that there are no valid [grounds]to interfere with the cogent findings given by the Tribunal and theappeal is liable to be dismissed.

15. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is disrnissed. There shall be [no]order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed MOHDLASSISTANT//TRUE COPY//SECTIONICERTo,1. The Chairman, M.A.C.T.-Cum-l [Additional District ][Judge, ][Nalgonda (With]Record if any)2. One CC to S'ri. tt Mohan [Krishna, ][Advocate ][OPUC]5. One CC to Sri. ChalakaniVenkat [Yadav, ][Advocate ][OPUC]4. One CC to Sri. Prabhu [Nath ][Vasireddy, ][Advocate ]IOPUC]5. Two CD CopiesTJA"- I

HIGH COURT

DATED:30/1 212022

JUDGMENT

MACMA.No.336 of 2O17

DISMISSING THE MACMAWITHOUT COSTS.

sTATi-'tr$E:]''. 'r j,j[,i][t\t]rJtg; ,')':."Ci'r i '

tN THE HIGH [COURT ][FOR THE ][STATE OF TELANGANA]AT HYDERABAD

3+il,3ffi"=f'l,B' [= ][*]

Rr DAY'm E rH rXISlX,

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 336 OF 2017

Between:

ICICI Lombard General lnsurance Company Ltd., Br.Office, 4th Floor, OsmanPlaza, Opposite HSBC Road No.1, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.

(Policy Cover Note No.8518631 valid from 31-12-2009 to 30-12-2010)

...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT NO.2

AND

1. Vallapudasu Neelamma, , Wo Mallaiah, age:37 years, Occ: Household

2. Vallapudasu Nagalaxmi, D/o.Mallaiah, age:20 years, Occ: Student

3. Valapudasu Vishalandra, D/o: Mallaiah, age 18 years, Occ: Student.

4. Vallapudas Malleshwari, D/o.Mallaiah, age:16 years, Occ: Student The petitioners No.3 and 4 being minors rep.by their natural mother, thePetitioner No.1 herein.

All are R/o Vardhapumm village of Mattampalli Mandal, Nalgonda District.Presently R/o Ramnagar, Nalgonda Town.

5. Ayya ppa Swamy Nand i pati, S/o. Sathyanarayana,R/o.D.No.4-82, Old WaterTank, lbrahimpatnam village and Mandal, KrishnaDistrict. Owner of the LorryNo.AP-16-TU-9738Tank, lbrahimpatnam village and Mandal, KrishnaDistrict. Owner of the LorryNo.AP-16-TU-9738

... RESPONDENTS/PETITION ERS

Appeal Under Section of Motor Vehicles Act against the order and decree in O.P.No. 906 of 2O1O dated: 06-06-2010, on the file of the Court of the Chairman MotorAccident Claims Tribunal-Cum-l Add itional District Judge, Nal gonda.

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. N.MOHAN KRISHNA, Advocate forthe Appellant and Sri. CHALAKANI VENKAT YADAV, Advocate for the RespondentNo.5.

This Court doth Order and Decree as Follows

1. That the Motor Accident civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby isdismissed; anddismissed; and

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

SD/- MOHD ISMAILASSISTANT REGISTRAR//TRUE COPY//tiSECTION OFFICER

To,

1. The chairman, M.A.c.T.-cum-l Additional District Judge, Nargonda (withRecord if any)Record if any)2. Two CD CopiesTJIA"-A"- HIGH COURT

DATED:30/1 212022

DECREE

MACMA.No.336 of 2017

DISMISSING THE MACMAWITHOUT COSTS.

ee$N\