MACMA/2805/2014 of Cholamandalam MS.General Insurance Co.Ltd Vs Vegolapu Sarala,Sharada on 30 December 2022

1. Vegolapu Sarala @ Sharada, W/o Komuraiah, Occ: Household, Rl/o H.No.

[9:33, Kalvacherla Vilage of Kamanpur Mandal, Karimnagar ][District.]2. Vegolapu Naga Laxmi, D/o Komuraiah, aged'1 1 years, Occ: Student, Minor,Rep by Respondent No.1 .Rep by Respondent No.1 .

3. Vegolapu Shirisha @ Shrisha, .D/o Komuraiah, aged 8 years, Occ: Student,Minor, Rep by Respondent No.'1 .Minor, Rep by Respondent No.'1 .

No.'1 .4. Vegolapu Shankaraiah, S/o Banaiah, Occ: Nil (Died) L.R's are Resp No.1 to 3and 5.and 5.

5. Vegolapu Laxmi, D/o Shankaraiah, Occ: Household, R/o H.No.8-33,Kalvacherla Vilalse of Kamanpur Mandal' ^"t'i:.:.n*1"?:lrdenrs/ [petitioners]Kalvacherla Vilalse of Kamanpur Mandal' ^"t'i:.:.n*1"?:lrdenrs/ [petitioners]

6. Vemulla Kanakaiah, S/o Bakkaiah, Occ: Driver of Trolley No. Ap-1S-X-6415,Ri/o Kalvachada Village of Kamanpur Mandal, Karimnagjar Diskict.Ri/o Kalvachada Village of Kamanpur Mandal, Karimnagjar Diskict.

7. GundaShankaralingam,, Sio Lachaiah, Occ: Ownerof Trolley No. Ap-15-X-6415, Ryo Kalvacherla Vilase of Kamanpur Mandat, SEll?t?rf[Bi.Ji,ib="r,6415, Ryo Kalvacherla Vilase of Kamanpur Mandat, SEll?t?rf[Bi.Ji,ib="r, For the Appellant : SRI KOTA SUBBA RAO, Advocate Forthe Respondent Nos.1 to 3 & 5 : SRI RAMACHANDRA RAO VEMUGANTI,Advocate Forthe Respondent Nos.6 & 7 : NONE APPEARED

The Court delivered the following I JUDGTUENT

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINIM.A.C.M.A. NO.2 805 of20l4

Juds men t:

This appeal is flled by the appellanr-lnsurance Company,being aggrieved by the arvard and dccree clarecl 0g-0g-2013. macle inO.P No.52 of 2012 on the fiie of the Chainnan, Moror AccidenrsClaims Tribunal-Cum-VI Addl. District and Sessions Judge atGodavarikhani (for shon, the Tribunal).

For the sakc ol convenience, iiereinafter, the parties are refcrredto as per they are array before the Tribunal.

The facts ol the case are as lollows:

The claimants have filed the claim petition under Section 166(i)(c) of thc Motor !'ehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.9,00,000/- for the death of the deceased V. Konrr-rraiah. rvho died in amotor vehicle accicient that occurrcd on 07.0g.2009 at about l2:00hours. It is stated by the petitioners that on the latelul day thedeceased and another hamali A. pr.avc.en loaded ir.on ba.r.s in autotrolley at Shankerlingam Iron shop and rvere going to unload the sameat Pannur Village, when they reached at the turning point in pannur village the auto turned turtle due to "vhich, the deceased lell down onthe drainage edge and the iron bars fell orr hii-n as a result he died.Thus, the accident occuned due to the rash and negiigent driving ofauto driver, i.e. respondent No. [I ][.]

It was further contended by the claimants that the deceased [was]hale and healthy and was [working ]as a [l.ramali ][and ][used ][to ][eam]Rs.6000/- per month. As the accident occurred [due ]to [rash ][and]negtigent driving by the auto tlolley driver, the [claimants ][filed ][claim]petition against the respondents 1,2&.3, being driver, owner [and ][the]insurer of the offending [vehicle.]

Before the tribunal respondent no. I [t'emained ][exparte ][and]respondent no. 2 did not [fi ]le counter.

Respondent No.3 fi led counter denying [the ][averments ][of ][the]

claim petition and the [rranner ][in ][which ][the ][accident ][occun'ed,]including the age, avocation [and income ][of ][the ][deceased' ][It ][is further]contended that the deceased [was ][travelling ][in ][the ][auto ][trolley ][against]perrnit which is violation of insurance [policy ][conditions ][and ][that ][the]deceased travelled as a [gratuitous ][passenger ][and ][that he ][was ][not]working as a hamali. Furthermore, [he also contends ][that ][the amount]

claimed is excessive and exorbitant and prayed fbr dismissal of thecase The tribunal after considering the evidence on record and alsothe exhibits and on elaborate discussion canle to the conclusion thatthe deceased was working as hamali at the time of accident and healong with the another hamali loaded iron bars and was travellingalong with the goods for unloading purpose. The learned Tribunal hasanswered all the issues in favour of the claimants and also awardedcompensation of Rs. 9,94,000/-.

Heard both sides and perused the material available on record The main contentions advanced bv the learned Standins counselappearing for appe llant/insurance company is that there is noprovision and permit to sit and travel in an auto trolley other than thedriver and that the risk of the labourer is not covered under theinsurance policy.

Per contra. the Leamed counsel for respondents/claimants hascontended that the tribunal taking into consideration the evidenceadduced by the claimants and also the exhibits and awarded reasonable compensation. Hence, interference by this court is notnecessary.necessary.

Adrrittedlr-, there is no dispute rvith regard to the manner of theaccident and the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle byits driver in causing the accident. But, the only conterrtion of theleamed Counsel for appellant is that the deceased was not working asa hamali, but he was an unauthorized passenger and therefore, as therewas breach of terms and condition of the Policy, the leamed Tribunalought not to have fastened liability upon the insurance Company.

The Apex Court in the case of Hanumanagouda vs UnitedIndia Insurance co. Ltd and Othersr, at para No. 06, has observedas under:- "The High Court has clearlyfallen in eruor inholding that tlte insurer is not liable in respect ofdeath o/ Hanumanth. The clause - "personsemplol'ed in connection v'ith lhe operation" isclearb, over and above the coverage provided by lhepolicy to [" ]persons entployed in connection withloading/unloading of motor vehicle". As Gumasthe,the deceased was accompanying the goods in transit for [the ][purpose of delivery of ][goods. ][This ][has ][been]accepted by the High Court. Obviously, [as]Gumasthe the deceased would [be ][covered ][by ][the]expression ["persons ]employed in [connection ][with]operation of motor vehicle" The operation of [the]aforesaid clause has wrongly been restricted [and]limited only to persons employed in connection [with]loading/unloading of the motor [vehicle. ]["]

Conclusion

In the present case the deceased is working as [a ]hamali and [was]travelling along with goods for toading and unloading [purpose.]Therefore, the above set olfacts are squarely applicable [to ][the ][plesent]case.Hence in view of the above decision of the Hon'ble Apex cotrrtand for the reasons mentioned supra, the appeai lacks merits.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed confinning the award passed by the learned Tribunal to the extent of fixing the liabilityjointty and severally upon the insurance company. No costs.jointty and severally upon the insurance company. No costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.

Sd/.A.V.S.PRASADASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To1. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- Vl Additional Districtand Sessions Judge, Godavarikhani. (with records)1. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- Vl Additional Districtand Sessions Judge, Godavarikhani. (with records)

2. One CC to Sd Kota Subba Rao, Advocate IOPUCI

IOPUCI3. One CC to Sri Ramachandra Rao Vemuganti, Advocate [OPUC]

4. Two CD Copies

K\ "b-\ "b-

HIGH COURT

DATED:3O11212022

JUDGMENTMACMA.No.2805 ol 2014

DISMISSING MACMA WITHOUT COSTS.

S [i,4 ]iEo71'.-;'".{,ilrh?t[$TI];i1B i *;,1

[ [32s3 ]]

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABADFRIDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

PRESENTTHE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M,G.PRIYADARSINI

M.A.C.M.A. NO: 2805 OF 2014

Between:

Cholamandalam lr/S.General lnsurance Co.Ltd., Rep by its Br.Manager, #.139, 1.rFloor, Navaketan Complex, 1-'l-130 to 1-1-4O, S.D.road, Secunderabad 500003....APPELLANT/ RESPONDENT NO.3

AND

1. Vegolapu Sarala @ Sharada, W/o Komuraiah, Occ: Household, R/o H.No.8-33, Kalvacherla Vilage of Kamanpur Nlandal, Karimnagar District.8-33, Kalvacherla Vilage of Kamanpur Nlandal, Karimnagar District.2. Vegolapu Naga Laxmi, D/o Komuraiah, aged 11 years, Occ: Student, tVlinor,Rep by Respondent No.1 .Rep by Respondent No.1 .

.3. Vegolapu Shirisha @ Shrisha, D/o Komuraiah, aged 8 years, Occ: Student,Minor, Rep by Respondent No.1 .Minor, Rep by Respondent No.1 .

4. Vegolapu Shankaraiah, S/o Banaiah, .Occ: Nil (Died) L.R's are Resp No_1 to 3and 5.and 5.

5. Vegolapu Laxmi, D/o Shankaraiah, Occ: Household, Fl/o H.No.8-33,Kalvacherla Vilalge of Kamanpur Mandal, Karimnagar Dist.Kalvacherla Vilalge of Kamanpur Mandal, Karimnagar Dist.

.....Respondents/ Petitioners

6. Vemulla Kanakaiah, S/o Bakkaiah, Occ: Driver of Trolley No. Ap-1S-X-641 5,R:/o Kalvacharla Village of Kamanpur Mandal, Karimnagar District.R:/o Kalvacharla Village of Kamanpur Mandal, Karimnagar District.Z. Qy1_da_Qnglkaralingam,, S/o Lachaiah, Occ: Owner of Trolley No. Ap-15-X-641 5, Fl/o Kalvacherla Vilage of Kamanpur Mandal, Karimnalar District....RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS641 5, Fl/o Kalvacherla Vilage of Kamanpur Mandal, Karimnalar District....RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS

Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles.Act against the Order and decreein MVOP No.52 of 2012 dated 0810812013 on the file of the Court of the Chairman,Motor Sccidents Claims Tribunal -cum- Vl Additional District and Sessions Judge,Godavarikhani.

ORDER: This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds ofappeal, the Judgment and decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in thecase and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Kota Subba Rao, Advocate for theAppellant and of Sri Ramachandra Rao Vemuganti, Advocate for the RespondentNos.'t, 3 to 5 and for the Respondent Nos.6 & 7 not appeared either in person or byAdvocate.

This Court doth Order and decree as follows

1. That the l\lACIr/A be and hereby is dismissed confirming the award passed bythe Tribunal to the extent of fixing the liability joinfly and severally upon theinsurance company; andthe Tribunal to the extent of fixing the liability joinfly and severally upon theinsurance company; and

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

Sd/-A.V.S.PRASADASSISTANT REGIST//TRUE COPY//SECTION OFFICER

To1. The chairman, Motor Accidents claims Tribunal -cum- VI Additional Districtand Sessions Judge, Godavarikhani.1. The chairman, Motor Accidents claims Tribunal -cum- VI Additional Districtand Sessions Judge, Godavarikhani.2. Two CD CopiesKj \

HIGH COURT

DATED:3Ol1212022

DECREEMACMA.No.2805 [of ][2014]

DTSMISSING [MACMA WITHOUT COSTS.]