The United lndia lnsurance Company.Ltd v. 1. Achugatla Pentaiah

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings including execution of the order and decree dated 0911012015 passed in MVOP.No.431 of 2O1O on the file of the Nrlotor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge Court at Me habubnagar, pending MACMA. No. 3034 of 2016 on the file of the High Court. Counsel for the Appellant: SRI G PURUSHOTHAM RAO, ADVOCATE Counsel forthe Respondents: SRI KVENKATESH GUPTA AOVOCATE The Court made the following: ORDER w THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI M.A.C.M.A.No.3034 OF 20L6 JUDGMENT: 1. Aggrieved by the order dated 09.1O.2015 passed in M.V.O.P.No.431 of 2010, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum- the Court Principal District Judge, Mahabubnagar, the 2"d respondent/ Insurance Company in the said M.V.O.p. preferred the present Appeal seeking to set-aside the order of the learned Tribunal.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter be referred as they were arraycd beforc the learned Tribunal.

3. The brief facts o[ the case are that initially, petitioner No.1 hled a petition under Section 166 ot the Motor Vehicles Act, 19gB and Rule 455 of A.P.M.V.Rules, 1989 claiming compensation of Rs.5,OO,0O0/- and later on, he got amended the claim amount from Rs.5,00,O00/- to Rs.25,O0,000/- vide orders in I.A.No.293 of 2014, dated 25.03.2014. During pendency of O.p., petitioner No.1 died and petitioners 2 to 5 came on record as Legal heirs vide I.A.No.401 of 2O15, dated 23.04.20I5. It is stated by petitioners 2 to 5 that petitioner No.l purchased an open plot to an extent of 266 Sq.yards, situated on main road leading from Mahabubnagar to Raichur near Milk cooling Centre, Bamdameedipally sivar, Mahabubnagar vide registered Sale Deed dated 22.12.1925 and, l 2 Map,t M,1a.MA.No.)0)4 ol 2016 later on, he constructed a residential house, twc shops towards road facing. Petitioner No.1 Ieased out the shops and residing in the house behind the shops. On 1O'O3.2010 a1 rrbout 23.3O hours, one Lorry bearing No.AP-27V- 1469 which \\'as proceeding towards Raichur and driven by its driver in a ras'-t ilnrl negligent manner at high speed, lost control over thc ste lrir-Ig and wtrnt towards right side o[ the road, crossed road divider and dashed the house of ,5" 1st petitioner, due to which, the housc trnd tu'o shops of the pctitioner wcre got damaged, the cntire RCO rool of the housc collapsed, the walls of 4 corners, shutters of shops, electrification system, doors and window's of t'vc, rooms and household articles were totally damaged. Due to the above accident, the petitioner lost his monthly rent of Rs.3.00O/-.

4. Based on the complaint given by petitioner No- I , Police of Mahabubnagar Rural Police Station registered a c.rse in Crime No.50 of 2O1O under Sections 337 and 427 IPC. Since the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of thl drivcr of the crime Lorry, therefore, he filed a petition against the respondents 1 & 2, being the ou,ner and insurer of the crime lorry.

5. Before the Tribunal, Respondent No.1/Owncr of Crime Lorry bearing No.AP-27-V- 1469, remained ex-parte.

6. Respondent No.2/lnsurance Company filec its counter denying the averments made in the claim petit on including, MGP,J MACMA No-3034 ol2016 manner of accident, quanlum of damage etc. and contended that if the owner of the vehicle has not paid any premium to cover the risk of third party property damages, the statutory liability of insurance company will only be upto Rs.6,000/- and that the claim of compensation is excess and exorbitant and therefore prayed to dismiss the claim against it. 7 . Based on the pleadings made by both parties, the learned Tribunal had framed the following issues for conducting trial:- (4 Whether the accident hod occurred on account of rash and negligent diuing of the Long beaing No.AP-27-V- 1469 bg its diuer resulting the domages of house of petittoner? (iil Whether the driuer of the offending uehicle uas hrtuing effectiue diuing license at the time of alleged accident? (iii) Wrcther the compensation claimed bg the petitioner is proper and just? (iu) Whether the petittoner is entitled to compensation? If so, from u-thom and to lLhaL extent?

8. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the petitioners, PWs 1 & 2 were examined and Exs.A I to A9 were marked. On behalf of Respondent No.2/Insurance Company, RW1 was examined and Exs.Bl to 82 were marked.

9. After considering the entire oral and documentary evidence available on record, the learned Tribunal had partly- allowed the claim petition by awarding compensation of \ ! 4 MGP,! MACMA.No.l0)1aJ 2016 Rs.4,O9,000/- along u,ith interest @ 9%o per annurn liorn the date of petition tilt the date of realization payabk by both the respondent Nos.1 & 2 jointly and severaliy. Aggrit vt:d by the said finding, the present Appeal is filed by respondent \o.2/lnsurance Companl. in tl'rc said M.V.O.P.

10. Heard arguments submitted by Sri G.purtLshotham Rao, learned Standing Counsel for appellant/ Insuranc,: Company ils u,ell as Sri K.Venkatesh Gupta, learned cor n sel for the rcspondents/ claimants. Perused the record 1 I . The main con tention raised by the learne I counsel lor appellant/ Insu rarlce Company while submitting arg:rnents is that as thc construction of the building of the pelitioner is an unauthorized one, the pohcy under Ex.B2 does not cover the risk of the unauthorized construction and further contcncled that the learned Tribunal ought to have confined in awarding interest (a)

7.Soh per annum ir-rstcad of 9%o. 1,2. On the other hand, learned counst l re spondents/ claimants contended that the learned l'riltunal after considering all the aspects, had awarded reasonable c ompensation for which interference of this Court is unwarranted and further contended that if there is any lapse on part of t te petitioner regarding the alleged unauthorized construction, ir ts for the I i 5 MGP,.I MACMA No 3034 ol 2015 municipality to enquire regarding the said issue and not the Insurance Company

13. Now the point that emerges for determination is, Wh.ether the order passed bg the leanted Tribunal suffers from any iregularitg? POINT:-

14. As seen from the evidence of PWs 1 & 2 coupled with the documents marked under Exs.Al to A.3, it can be held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of crime vehicle which finding of the Tribunal attains hnality and requires no interference of the same.

15. The only point that has been urged in the present Appeal is with regard to liabilily of insurance company in paying compensation to an unauthorizedly constructed building

16. As contended by learned counsel for the appellant/ Insurance Company, though the subject building of the petitioner no.1 is termed as an unauthorized construction without leaving mandatory set-backs, it is for the concerned Municipai authorities to look into the said issue and take necessary action, but the Insurance Company cannot absolve its liability to pay compensation for damages caused to the building. 6 MGP,I MACMA.Na lA34 ol2016

17. Further, PW2, Civil Engineer, deposed in his evidence that he visited the damaged house and estimated the value of damage as Rs.4,3O,OOO/ fLlso, as seen from Ex.A5-Photographs, the shop in which therc rvas wood work machine and the middle shuttcr of the building u,hich was being used as entrance 1<l the house of peLitioner rvas totally damaged. Hcnce, the learned Tribunal came to a conclusion that the estimation given by PW 2 in l'ris Ex.A9 report is reasonzrble and awarded a sum of Rs.4,O0,000/- towards damage to building which occurred due to the rash and negli5lent driving of the drive r of crime Lorry. Further cons idering Ex. B 1 - photograph shorving reconsLruction of thc damagerl shop, the learned Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.9,0O0/- orvards loss of rent for six months and awarded a total cotnpensation of Rs.4,09,000/-. This Court finds the said amount to br.r<:asonable and is not inclined to interfere with the same.

18. As far as liability is concerned, a perusal of Dx.B2=Ex.A4- Insurance policy would disclose that the policy was a package policy valid frorn 23.09.20O9 to 22.O9.2O1O coverir:g thc date of accident. Further, the Limits of Liability under Se:tion Il-l(ii) of the said policy i.e., Damage to third party property in respect of one claim or series o[ claims arising out of one even _ is shown as Rs.7,5O,000/-. As the petitioner no.1 sustained drrmage to his shop and the shutter of the building which is bt.ing used as , 7 MGP'J MACMA-N, i0)4 c'[2016 entrance to the house of petitioners, ttlerefore, as a damage to third party property, the 2nd respondent is liable to indemnify the 1"t respondent i.e., owner of crime lorry and thus, both are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.

19. So far as interest is concerned, the learned Tribunal granted interest @ 9'/" per annum lrom the date o[ petition till the date of realization. This Court finds the same to be excess and hereby reduce the same to 7 .5%o per annum by relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others I . However, the hnding given by the Tribunal rvith rcgard to disentitlement of interest for the period from 15.11.2O12 to 12.06.2O13 shall remain undisturbed.

20. In the result, the Appeal is partly-allowed by reducing the rate of inte rest awarded by the Tribunal from 9ok to 7 .Sok per annum. Except the said hnding, the findings arrived by the Tribunal in all other aspects shall iemain same. There shall be no order as to costs. 2l . Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed ?o)) AcJ lqo3 z Ao)!(!) k1ss SD/. MOHD. ISMAIL EPUTY REGISTRAR 4ot 1 . The Chairman, Motor Accident C laims Tribunal-cum //TRUE COPY// Mahabubnagar (with records)

2. One CC to Sri G Purushotham Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri K Venkatesh Gupta, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies SECTION OFFICER rincipal District Judge at ABK HIGH COURT DATED:06/03/2025 ORDER MACMA.No.3034 of 2016 {:ffiF.n\ a, .:,\\ ,s .-,|' r'. !l r$q :l 'i!: a(f .....' ,.'1, ^ --:. t): --:i \.) PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS I I I I I I I I I [ 32s31 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 3034 OF 2016 Between: The United lndia lnsurance Company Ltd., Hyd, Represented by its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, 15t and 2nd Floor, Crystal Plaza, Hyderabad. (Respondent No.2 in OP.No.431 of 2010) AND 1 Achugatla Pentaiah, Mahabubnagar Dist And Five Others, S/o. Chandraiah, aged 65 years, Occ Business, Rl/o H.No. 3-54, Bandameedipally, lvlahabubnagar, (Died).

2. A. Rajamani,, Wo Late Sri Pentaiah, aged 52 years, Occ Housewife, Rl/o Bandameedipally Village, Mahabubnagar Mandal and District. ...Appe Ilant

3. K. Prema Latha, Wo Sri Nagaratnam, aged 44 years, Occ Govt. Employee, Fi/o Bandameedipally Village, Mahabubnagar Mandal and District 4. A. Bhaskar,, S/o Late Sri Pentaiah. aged 40 years, Occ Business, Rl/o Bandameedipally Village, Mahabubnagar Mandal and District.

5. Smt. Rajeshwari,, Wo Sri Venu Gopal, aged 35 years, Occ Housewife, R:/o Bandameedipally Village, Mahabubnagar Mandal and District. (Petitioners No.2 to 5 in MVOP.No.431 of 2010 Being LRs of Petitioner No.1 in the OP) 6. Yasani Bhupathy Reddy @ Bhupathy,, S/o Y. Narayana Reddy, age 40 years, Occ Owner of Lorry bearing No.AP.27.V.1469, Fl/o Plot No.225, Anupama Nagar, Hasthinapuram, R.R.District. (Respondent No.1 in MVoP.No.431 of 2010) ...Respondents Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the order and decree dated 09.10.2015 passed in M.V.O.P.No.431 of 2010 on the file of the Court of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal Judge at Mahabubnagar. 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 MVOP and upon hearing the arguments of Sri G.Purushotham Rao, Advocate for the Appellant and of Sri K.Venkatesh G rpta, Advocate for the Respondent. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows

1. That the Ir/ACtr/A be and hereby is partly allowed by reducing the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal from 9"/o to 7.5ok pet an nu m.

2. Except the said finding, the findings arrivecl by the Tribunal in all other aspects shall remain same.

3. That save as aforesaid, the decree of the Lcwer Court shall stands confirmed in all other respects; and

4. That there shall be no order as to costs in thir; appeal //TRUE COPY// SD/-MOHD.ISMAIL r'\dEPUTYREGTSTRAR I-.----- I SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-P'incipal District Judge at Mahabubnagar. 2. Two CD Copies W ABK HIGH COURT MGP,J DATED: 0610312025 DECREE MACMA.No.3034 of 20'16 PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA ( b