The Depot Manager, New India ... vs Narsoji And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 3717 Tel

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 3717 Tel
Judgement Date : 8 November, 2023

Telangana High Court

The Depot Manager, New India ... vs Narsoji And Another on 8 November, 2023

Bench: Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

                   M.A.C.M.A.No.2618 OF 2011

JUDGMENT:

This M.A.C.M.A. is filed under Section 173 of the

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the appellant/Insurance Company

aggrieved by the order and decree dated 16.06.2000 passed in

O.P.No.22 of 1996 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims

Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy (for short

"the Tribunal").

2. For convenience, the parties will be hereinafter

referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. Brief facts of the case are as follows:

On 30.12.1993 at about 10.30 p.m., one DCM

Toyota Van bearing No.AET-7775, which the petitioner owns,

started from Chegunta towards Hyderabad and at about

1.30 a.m. during the intervening night of 30/31.12.1993 when

it reached Taidala Banda place on N.H.No.7, one lorry bearing

No.AP-9T-579 came in the opposite direction, driven by its

driver in a rash and negligent manner and hit the said Van, as

a result of which, the said Van fell into a deep pit by the side of

the road near the place of the accident. The Van was in good

condition before the accident, and due to the accident, it was

completely damaged. After the accident, the Van was sent to

the Mechanic Garage for repairs. The first respondent is the

owner of the vehicle and the vehicle is insured with the 2nd

respondent. Therefore, the petitioner filed the O.P. seeking

damages of Rs.50,000/-.

4. Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent remained ex-

parte.

5. The 2nd respondent filed a counter denying the

allegations made in the claim petition.

6. PWs.1 to 4 were examined and marked Exs.A1 to

A9 to prove the petitioner's case. No oral evidence was

adduced, but marked Ex.B1-copy of policy on behalf of the

respondents.

7. After hearing both sides and considering the oral

and documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal

awarded damages of Rs.14,000/- with interest @ 12% per

annum from the date of petition till the date of realization to

be paid by the respondents. Challenging the same, the

Insurance Company has filed the present appeal.

8. Heard both sides and perused the record.

9. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance

Company contended that the Tribunal failed to see that, as per

the settled principles of law, the liability of the Insurance

Company is limited to a sum of Rs.6,000/- only. The Tribunal

failed to see that the subject policy is an Act policy and the 1st

respondent has not paid any extra premium to cover any extra

liability more than the amount of Rs.6,000/- as prescribed by

Section 147(2) (b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The

Tribunal erred in awarding a sum of Rs.14,000/-. Therefore,

the appeal may be allowed by setting aside the order of the

Tribunal.

10. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

contended that the Tribunal, after hearing both sides and after

considering the material on record, rightly awarded damages

and the same needs no interference by this Court.

11. With regard to the quantum of damages, the

petitioner stated that on account of the accident, the DCM Van

was completely damaged and for repairing the same, he has

incurred Rs.50,000/-. To prove the same, the petitioner has

filed Exs.A5 to A9. As per Ex.B1-copy of the Insurance Policy,

the 1st respondent is the lorry's owner and the same is insured

with the 2nd respondent. The Insurance Policy is valid as on

the date of the accident. Learned counsel for the petitioner

contended that the damages can be awarded for more than

Rs.6,000/-. In support of his contention, learned counsel for

the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Rajasthan High

Court in NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs.

GAURI SHANKER SHARMA AND ANOTHER 1, wherein the

Rajasthan High Court held that the statutory liability is fixed

which is the minimum liability for Rs.6,000/- but the liability

of the Insurance Company is more than Rs.6,000/- in respect

of damages to the vehicle. The principle laid down in this case

shows that the liability of the insurance company towards

damages of the vehicle is more than Rs.6,000/-. The Tribunal,

after considering the oral and documentary evidence and also

the aforesaid judgment, awarded damages of Rs.14,000/-.

But, the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company

1985 ACJ 734

submits that as per the conditions of the Insurance Policy, the

liability of the Insurance Company in respect of the damages

towards the vehicle in question is concerned is only to the

extent of Rs.6,000/-. In support of his contention, learned

counsel appearing for the Insurance Company relied upon the

judgment of this Court in UNITED INDIA INSURANCE

COMPANY LTD Vs. R.NARAYANA REDDY 2, wherein this

Court, while modifying the order of the Tribunal, observed as

follows :-

"Accordingly, I modified the order of the Tribunal limiting the liability of the insurance company to pay the damages towards damages caused to the respondent No.1's tractor to an extent of Rs.6,000/- only alone and the respondent No.1 is entitled to recover the remaining amount from the respondent No.2. The order of the Tribunal is accordingly modified. The appeal is allowed as indicated above."

12. In the above judgment, the Tribunal awarded

damages of Rs.27,000/-, but this Court reduced the damages

from Rs.27,000/- to Rs.6,000/-. The present case stands on

the same footing to that of the above case of this Court. In the

LAWS (APH)-2000-2-11

present case also, the Tribunal has erroneously granted an

amount of Rs.14,000/-, and the same has to be reduced to

Rs.6,000/-. Therefore, following the above judgment of this

Court, the Insurance Company is directed to pay the damages

of Rs.6,000/- instead of Rs.14,000/-.

13. The Tribunal has awarded the rate of interest at

12 % per annum, which needs no interference by this Court.