Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Co. ... vs Ronti Jangaiah Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 2598 Tel

          THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.AMARNATH GOUD

                  M.A.C.M.A. NO.1470 OF 2016
JUDGMENT:

This appeal is preferred by the appellant-Insurance

Company questioning the Order and Decree of the Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I-Additional District Judge,

Rangana Reddy (for short, the Tribunal) in O.P.No.996 of 2011,

dated 16.11.2015.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 01.05.2011, when

the respondent/claimant and another were standing by the side

of the road beside a motor cycle bearing No.AP29BB 6418 at

Kallem Janga Reddy Garden, Bongloor gate, Ibrahimpatnam,

Ranga Reddy District at about 6.30 P.M., a car bearing

No.AP28AD 3434 came at high speed in a rash and negligent

manner and dashed the respondent/claimant and another. As a

result, the respondent/claimant sustained injuries.

Immediately, he was shifted to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad,

where he took treatment as inpatient and he underwent two

surgeries on 03.05.2011 and 07.06.2011. His right leg was

amputated above the knee joint and he was discharged from the

hospital on 15.06.2011. He filed the aforesaid petition against

the owner (respondent No.2 herein) and insurer of the car

(appellant herein), claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for

the injuries sustained by him.

3. Before the Tribunal, the owner of the car, remained

ex parte. The appellant-Insurance Company filed its counter

denying the allegations and contended that the policy was not in

force on the date of accident and that the amount claimed by the

respondent/claimant is highly excessive and that it is not liable

to pay any compensation, therefore prayed to dismiss the claim

petition.

4. After considering the oral and documentary evidence on

record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident

occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of

the car and awarded total compensation of Rs.12,28,000/-

under various heads, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum.

Aggrieved by the said Judgment, the appellant-Insurance

Company filed the present appeal.

5. Sri A.Ramakrishna Reddy, learned standing counsel

appearing for the appellant-insurance company, submitted that

the Tribunal failed to appreciate that the policy was issued to

the car bearing No.AP28AD 3434 for a period of one year

commencing from 03.05.2011 to 02.05.2012, whereas the

accident took place on 01.05.2011 i.e., before commencement of

the policy period, therefore, it is clear that the appellant

insurance company has no liability to indemnify the insured

owner, but the Tribunal relying on the cover note, fastened

liability on the appellant insurance company.

6. Sri Nageswara Rao Repakula, learned counsel appearing

for respondent submitted that the Tribunal has passed a well

reasoned Judgment and therefore sought to dismiss the appeal.

7. Admittedly, the earlier policy was in force from 29.04.2010

to 28.04.2011. The appellant insurance company issued cover

note in respect of the policy for the vehicle is 2300567818 and

as per the cover note, cheque was issued to the agent of the

company on 29.04.2011, but the insurance company has not

mentioned the date of presentation of the cheque for realization.

The appellant insurance company also has not produced the

bank statement to show that on which date the cheque was

issued towards the premium and when it was presented for

realization.

8. The perusal of record reveals that the accident took place

on 01.05.2011 and the proposal for insurance was received on

02.05.2011 and the vehicle was inspected on 02.05.2011 i.e.,

subsequent to the accident. When the accident took place on

01.05.2011, it is not known why the inspection was made on the

next date for issuing the insurance policy and what made the

insurance company to issue the policy from 03.05.2011 to

02.05.2012 when the previous policy was in force from

29.04.2010 to 28.04.2011. It shows that the cheque was

received on 29.04.2011 and cover note was issued on the same

day and when the accident was occurred on 01.05.2011, the

insurance company conveniently issued the policy from

03.05.2011 to escape from the liability and therefore, the action

of the appellant insurance company cannot be accepted. The

appellant insurance company instead of renewing the policy

from 29.04.2011 to 28.04.2012, postponed the renewal from

03.05.2011 to 02.05.2012 for the reasons best known to it.

There are laches on the part of the appellant insurance company

and it approached the Court by suppressing the real facts and

therefore, the relief sought by the appellant cannot be granted.

9. During the course of arguments, this Court has pointed

out with regard to the policy period in the cover note from

29.04.2011 to 28.04.2012, so what made the insurance

company to issue another policy from 03.05.2011 to 02.05.2012.

The learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant

insurance company submitted that some mischief has taken

place in issuing the insurance policy, but he could not convince

this Court with regard to the said mischief. If this is the case,

the entire fault cannot be thrown against the insurer. The policy

will not be issued unless the insurance company officials are

convinced and keeping their eyes wide open, issued the policy.

For the deliberate action of the insurance company officials, the

legitimate claim made by the claimant cannot be denied.

10. The learned standing counsel for the appellant insurance

company has not placed before this Court and also not

submitted that if the subject policy is obtained by playing fraud

and by suppressing the accident, nothing prevented the

insurance company from initiating action against their staff

members who are involved in issuing the policy. It is also not

answered before the Tribunal as well as in the High Court with

regard to the cheque received from the policy holder by the

insurance company on 29.04.2011. No evidence has been

placed before the Tribunal to show that the cheque was issued

ante date with a malafide intention to obtain the policy by

playing fraud. Since the insurance company has not properly

established its case before the Tribunal, it cannot improve the

same at the appellate stage. In view of the same, this Court is

not inclined to consider the contentions of the appellate

insurance company and finds that the judgment passed by the

Tribunal is just and proper and it needs no interference.

11. In view of the above discussion, the Motor Accident Civil

Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and the Judgment dated

16.11.2015 in M.V.O.P.No.996 of 2011 on the file of Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I-Additional District Judge,

Ranga Reddy is confirmed. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if

any, shall stand dismissed. No order as to costs.

________________________ T.AMARNATH GOUD, J Date:15-09-2021 Shr