Telangana High Court
The United India Insurance Company ... vs Achugatla Pentaiah, Mahabubnagar Dist ... on 6 March, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A.No.3034 OF 2016
JUDGMENT:
1. Aggrieved by the order dated 09.10.2015 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 2nd 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 arrayed before the learned Tribunal.
3. The brief facts of the case are that initially, petitioner No.1 filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rule 455 of A.P.M.V.Rules, 1989 claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- and later on, he got amended the claim amount from Rs.5,00,000/- to Rs.25,00,000/- 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 2015, dated 23.04.2015. It is stated by petitioners 2 to 5 that petitioner No.1 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 22.12.1975 and 2 MGP,J MACMA.No.3034 of 2016 later on, he constructed a residential house, two shops towards road facing. Petitioner No.1 leased out the shops and residing in the house behind the shops. On 10.03.2010 at about 23.30 hours, one Lorry bearing No.AP-27V-1469 which was proceeding towards Raichur and driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, lost control over the steering and went towards right side of the road, crossed road divider and dashed the house of the 1st petitioner, due to which, the house and two shops of the petitioner were got damaged, the entire RCC roof of the house collapsed, the walls of 4 corners, shutters of shops, electrification system, doors and windows of two rooms and household articles were totally damaged. Due to the above accident, the petitioner lost his monthly rent of Rs.3,000/-.
4. Based on the complaint given by petitioner No.1, Police of Mahabubnagar Rural Police Station registered a case in Crime No.50 of 2010 under Sections 337 and 427 IPC. Since the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime Lorry, therefore, he filed a petition against the respondents 1 & 2, being the owner and insurer of the crime lorry.
5. Before the Tribunal, Respondent No.1/Owner of Crime Lorry bearing No.AP-27-V-1469, remained ex-parte.
6. Respondent No.2/Insurance Company filed its counter denying the averments made in the claim petition including, 3 MGP,J MACMA.No.3034 of 2016 manner of accident, quantum 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:-
(i) Whether the accident had occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the Lorry bearing No.AP-27-V-
1469 by its driver resulting the damages of house of petitioner?
(ii) Whether the driver of the offending vehicle was having effective driving license at the time of alleged accident?
(iii) Whether the compensation claimed by the petitioner is proper and just?
(iv) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so, from whom and to what extent?
8. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the petitioners, PWs1 & 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A9 were marked. On behalf of Respondent No.2/Insurance Company, RW1 was examined and Exs.B1 to B2 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,J MACMA.No.3034 of 2016 Rs.4,09,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization payable by both the respondent Nos.1 & 2 jointly and severally. Aggrieved by the said finding, the present Appeal is filed by respondent No.2/Insurance Company in the said M.V.O.P.
10. Heard arguments submitted by Sri G.Purushotham Rao, learned Standing Counsel for appellant/Insurance Company as well as Sri K.Venkatesh Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants. Perused the record.
11. The main contention raised by the learned counsel for appellant/Insurance Company while submitting arguments is that as the construction of the building of the petitioner is an unauthorized one, the policy under Ex.B2 does not cover the risk of the unauthorized construction and further contended that the learned Tribunal ought to have confined in awarding interest @ 7.5% per annum instead of 9%.
12. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants contended that the learned Tribunal after considering all the aspects, had awarded reasonable compensation for which interference of this Court is unwarranted and further contended that if there is any lapse on part of the petitioner regarding the alleged unauthorized construction, it is for the 5 MGP,J MACMA.No.3034 of 2016 municipality to enquire regarding the said issue and not the Insurance Company
13. Now the point that emerges for determination is, Whether the order passed by the learned Tribunal suffers from any irregularity?
POINT:-
14. As seen from the evidence of PWs 1 & 2 coupled with the documents marked under Exs.A1 to A3, 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 finality and requires no interference of the same.
15. The only point that has been urged in the present Appeal is with regard to liability 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 Municipal 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,J MACMA.No.3034 of 2016
17. Further, PW2, Civil Engineer, deposed in his evidence that he visited the damaged house and estimated the value of damage as Rs.4,30,000/-. Also, as seen from Ex.A5-Photographs, the shop in which there was wood work machine and the middle shutter of the building which was being used as entrance to the house of petitioner was totally damaged. Hence, the learned Tribunal came to a conclusion that the estimation given by PW2 in his Ex.A9 report is reasonable and awarded a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- towards damage to building which occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of crime Lorry. Further considering Ex.B1- photograph showing reconstruction of the damaged shop, the learned Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.9,000/- towards loss of rent for six months and awarded a total compensation of Rs.4,09,000/-. This Court finds the said amount to be reasonable and is not inclined to interfere with the same.
18. As far as liability is concerned, a perusal of Ex.B2=Ex.A4- Insurance policy would disclose that the policy was a package policy valid from 23.09.2009 to 22.09.2010 covering the date of accident. Further, the Limits of Liability under Section II-I(ii) of the said policy i.e., Damage to third party property in respect of one claim or series of claims arising out of one event is shown as Rs.7,50,000/-. As the petitioner no.1 sustained damage to his shop and the shutter of the building which is being used as 7 MGP,J MACMA.No.3034 of 2016 entrance to the house of petitioners, therefore, as a damage to third party property, the 2nd respondent is liable to indemnify the 1st 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 from the date of petition till the date of realization. This Court finds the same to be excess and hereby reduce the same to 7.5% per annum by relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others 1 . However, the finding given by the Tribunal with regard to disentitlement of interest for the period from 15.11.2012 to 12.06.2013 shall remain undisturbed.
20. In the result, the Appeal is partly-allowed by reducing the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal from 9% to 7.5% per annum. Except the said finding, the findings arrived by the Tribunal in all other aspects shall remain same. There shall be no order as to costs.
21. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
______________________________ JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI Dt.06.03.2025 ysk 1 2013 ACJ 1403 = 2013 (4) ALT 35