LawSphereX

The Reliance General insurance Company Ltd v. Kundanan Sena Kumar

Court: High Court for State of Telangana

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

Judgment date:

Case summary

High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2025-12-08. The Reliance General insurance Company Ltd v. Kundanan Sena Kumar. Read the judgment and case...

Judgment text

[ 32e6 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD [/ONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF DECEIVIBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C. V. BHASKAR REDDY MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MI SCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 639 OF 2019 Between The Reliance General insurance Company Ltd, Rep by its Deputy Manager (Legs) D. No 4-3-327 to 33y, Sagar Ptaza, 4rh Ftoor. Abidj, Hydera baij -5OO0O] ... AppellanURespondent No. 2 AND 1 Kundanan Sena Kumar, S/o E Lrngamaiah. 7 Aged 30 years. Occ Technician, R/O H NO. 5-3-390/2/1 , Hyderbasthi, Secunderabad ... Respondents/Petitioner 2. Mr. PFsad Reddy Vennapusa, S/o V. Venkatewarutu Reddy, Aged. Ma1or. Occ. Owner of tipper lorry bearing No. AP-05-TR-086S, R/o'plo[ No. 1 54, Nagarlun_a^Colony, Hasthinapuram, Vanasthalipuram, Hayathnagar, Ranga Reddy - 500 070. 3 _ Saga Linga Reddy, S/o S. Satti Reddy Aqed. Maior. Occ. Driver of the crime vehicle R/O H. No. 1-7-17915, Kamalanagar, Kusharguda, Keesara, R. R. District 500062 ...

RespondenURESP. Nos. 1& 2 Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, aggrieved by the Decree and Judgment passed in M. V. O. P. No. 678 of 2015, dated 2jt1Zl2OjB. on the frle of the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Trrbunal-cum-l Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad. Counsel for the Appellant : Sri. A Ramakrishna Reddy Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 :Mr. Jagan Mohan Reddy The Court delivered the following: --'q*55F+! ri**i! r' JF/ IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TET {NGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C. V. BHASKAR I EDDY M. A. C. M. A. No. 639 of 2Ol9 DATE: 08. 12-2o25 Between: Thc lleliance Ciencrzil Insurancc Cornpany Ltd. , -. Appellzu-rt AND kttrrrlrtnan Scnir I\rtntrLr and trro olhcrs Respondcnts JUDGMENT This appcirl. urtrle r Sectiol. r 173 oi the Motor Ve h i tt:s i\ct, l(lgg, is filcd by the a ppcllarr t- Insurancc Company, challenli tg the aiv:rrd and decre'e dated 21. t 2. 2019 passed in M. V. O_p. No. 6?

3 of 201i; by the N,lotor Accident Claims Tribunal_Cum_I Additionai Ohlef Jurllc, C ity Civil CourL, Secunderabad (hereinafter referrcc ,,the to as Tribunal"), rvhr:rc,lr,r thc Trit>utrzrl awarded conLt ensation ol Rs. 10,01,7207- logcrller u. rth intcr. esr ii) 7. 5% per z rnum to bc payable bl the os. ucr ol the vchicle and the Insuranr__r, Jompany lor the inlurics susLaincd b5. one Kunclanam Sena Kunr,r {hereinal. tcr refcrrcd t() as "thc (. lautlant,') in a motor vehicle accident 2. The br-ief facts of the case arc that on |T. OT. 2( 15 at about 10.. 15 I']. M. , ruhilc rhc claimanr rvas pr. occeding on mot() _. ;rkc bear ng No. AP-2gAA. 3532fromBowenpallytoBalan:rgarandreachedncar HAL Gate-I, in front of Sudha Hotcl' Balanagar' tipper lorry beanng No'AP05TU0865,bcrngd. rivcntlyitsdrivcrirtllighspcedandina fcll dashcd the clairn:tl.

tt ciue to whlch hc rash and ncgligcnt milnner, o[ the police of Baiatragar fracture inlurtes and dorvn ancl rcceived the oflencc No 214 of 2015 lor a case in Crime Cyberabad registered the aforcsaid claim The claimant Illed 337 of IPC undcr Section thc on account o[ of Rs'8'00'0007'-petilion claiming compensation him' injures rcceived bY vehiclc o'"r'ner and clrivcr of thc crtme the Tribunal, thc 3. Bclore Company filcd cotltltcr appe llant-lnsurar-rcc remained ex parTe' The or-r appreciatron o[ the The Tribunal' the clarm petition and opposed at 357. ,' hxcd assessed the disability oral and documentary etrdence' 407. , towards future per month' added at Rs'9,00O/-the incomc <i[ compensaLion arvardcd toLal multrplier 16' and prospects, applied thc same thc various heads Aggrievcd b1' Rs. 1 O,O I ,720 - under / rance Company' the appellant-lnsu present appeal is frled by Counsel for thc of the learned Stan<ling the 4.

Heard submissions lnspite of perused the record company and appetlant- Insurance for the rcpresentation there is no opportunitres' granLing several heard the matier is appeal is of the year 2019' respond. ents. Since the on record' basis of material meriLs on the and decided on 5. Thc learnerl Standing Counsel for the appr I ant-lnsurancc 'rot Company contcnde(i that the claimant admittedly dic produce a driving liccnc. -. ancl rhcrefore contributory negligerLr t should have been inlt:rlcci, ihat i'\\r. 2 issued a disability ccrliltcatc ,! thoul treilting the claimrrnl :rrrrl tilc assessrnent o[ 35o1, rs exc,-'; ive: lhat [he Tribunal erred rn tiLkrng the incomc as Rs. 9,000/- ,r r I adding 40% futurc prospecls. 6- Cornrng tr. l thi' flrst contcnlion regarding drtvi r 1 ltcence, the Tribun:rl rtcorclccl ir c,rtcgoric:rl lLnding. on thc basis o1 [ rs. A-1 to i\ 5, that the zrccidcnt or:r'rrr r ed solclv due to the rash ancl nt gligent driving -( of thc Lipl;cr Lorn' dlrr er.

Therc is no rnatcrial on rec() to show that the abser-rcc o{ licencc contribu tcd rn any way lo thr: i ccident. lv4ere non-production of lrr:cnce by the claimernt, that cirrr rot, by itself, establish colrtrillutorv negligcnce. The i. rppellant drl r-tot exarnine either thc rlrivcr or irny r,vitness to rebut the pohce rt't t rd. I{encc the finding on nc-gLLgcrrcc \\'arrants iro inlcrlcrcnce. 7. On ti'rc issuc of disability, PW. 2 deposed thr,r. the clainrant suffered fracturcs of right thigh and right leg witL restriction of tcrminal degrces of trip and kncc movements, contractic r deformity of the left palrn, and diificulry in pcrforn. ring skilled worl. I W. 2 assesscd permanent partial clisability at 35% on McBride's scal,: Even though PW. 2 was not thc trcating surgeon, he cxamine<l he claimant, revicrtecl rncdical rccords, and issucd Ex. A-lO.

Thcrr: i; no cvidcnce from the insurer to discredit tllis medical assessment' The Tribunal's acceptance of 35% disability is thercfore justihed' 8. Thc Tribr-rrral, hor't'cvcr. adrled 40'% futurc prospcc[s to the mollthlyincomeofRs,g. 0Ot]l_Tlreciairnal-ltfailcdtol]f()\ciliSStatcd mor. rthly incomc tlf Rs 18,O0O/- PW. 3. the purPortcd crnplover' admittcd duriug cross cxamina[ion that he mair-rtained no rcgistcrs' issued no appointmenr lettcrs, ancl had no liccncc for runlring the u,orkshop. The Tribunal rightll'rejcctcd the claim ol Rs'l8'00O/- and fixed notronal income at Rs. 9,0OO/-per mollth' But :tdclrrlg '{0-lo fulurc prospects for a sctf-cmployed person ir. t au ittlury case ls irnpermissible unless the claimant demonstrates a stablc and proven income structurc. In rhe abscnce of crcdiblc proof. futurc l)rospects cannotbeaclcled'Thereforc'thcaddrtionof4ool'luturcprospcctslS sct aside.

Thc loss o[ luLure carnir-rg capacity must be reca]culated on g,O00/- per month ancl the basis of the established income of Rs disabitity at 3570, applying rnultiplier l6 as per thc decision in Sarla Venna us. Delhl Iransport Corporationl' Thus the cotrpcnsation x under ttte head loss of earntugs comes to Rs 6,04'8OO/- (Rs 9'000 12 t 16 ,. 35%). l i by the Tribul. ral ie' Rs 50'OOO7'- ior 9. The remaining heads au'arded for medicines and investigaLions' pain and suffering, Rs. 75,000/- I Rs 20'OOOi - for extra Rs. 1O,OOO/- for transportation, and 1(20091 6 SCC 121 r.. irast€=aiffi- ' g1, I nourishnrent, arc reasolrable in vicw ol thc nature ol irlj L:-ies' period No intcrference i. s t''r rranted o[ treatlnel-It, and evidt'rtce produr:cd tllt rrnpcnsittron rs lO. In the resttlt. th(l i. tllPeal l;a rtly-allorved and (" i l ; l0'/ 10 bl' ttrc Trillr-ttr:rl ts Icduceci from Rs. I arvardecl rhe impuglrt tl :rvard shall tllalnLt-rg ptrrtton of Rs. 7.

59,800/- The rt as to ('osts' remain ut-raltered. No ordcr As a sequel, thc rniscellar. t co u s petitions pendinll :anv' sherll stand closctl ! 'i{Ji+1H+Ht3'8FRRX i \ /--. , I i I I //TRUE COPY// oFFlcER I J". ,o* I ! I To, Ohief Judge' City Additiorrir ,1 Clarms Tribunal-cum-l ,n" Mo,o, Accidents ' JJ",. o"'ru"o d,"]''i",1"' jy{! ffi"1t'rlcate J _ lopr to Sri' A Ramaknr 2. One CC J )r Reddy Advocate lot' io [rtr. L'g"n Monan : il;; 4. Two CD CoPies DL/PSL \cr I HIGH COURT DATED:08/1 2/2025 -::-'\- . . i{-\. '. -. '\,, - -r- >. S \ "\ -7 ,\r . )'l -, { ;,1 ttlt ir'r$' 1 [ JUDGMENT MACMA. No. 539 of 2019 PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL -t -^d(el6 G \Qr_<. r" -.. P- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C. V. BHASKAR REDDY MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 639 OF 2019 Between: The Reliance General insurance Company Ltd, Rep by its Deputy Manager (Legs), D. No.

4-3-327 to 33y, Sagar Plaza, 4th Floor, Abids, Hyderabad-500001 ... AppellanURespondent No. 2 AND 1. Kundanan Sena Kumar, S/o E Lingamarah 7 Aged. 30 years, Occ Technician, R/O H. NO. 5-3-39A1211. Hyderbasthi, Secunderabad. Res pondents/Petitioner 2. Mr. Prasad Reddy Vennapusa. S/o V. Venkatewarulu Reddy, Aged. Major, Occ. Owner of tipper lorry bearing No. AP-05-TR-0865, R/o Plot No. 154, Nagarjuna Colony, Hasthinapuram, Vanasthalipuram, Hayathnagar, Ranga Reddy - 500 070. 3. Saga Linga Reddy, S/o S. Satti Reddy Aged. I\/ajor, Occ. Driver of the crime vehicle R/O H. No. 1-7-17915, Kamalanagar, Kushaiguda, Keesara, R. R. Diskict 500062 ... RespondenURESP. Nos. 1& 2 Appeal filed under Section 173 of lVlotor Vehicle Act, aggrieved by the Decree and Judgment passed in IV. V. O. P. No 678 of 2015, dated 2111212O18, on the file of the Court of the [Vlotor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-l Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad.

This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perustng the grounds of appeal, the judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the case and upon hearing the argument of Sri. A Ramakrishna Reddy, Advocate for the Appellant and Mr. Jagan Mohan Reddy, Advocate for Respondent No. 2. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: 1. That the Motor Accident Civil N/iscellaneous Appeal be rnd is part;y-allowed and the compensation awarded by the Tribun j is reduced from Rs. 10,01,7201 to Rs 7,59,800! ; 2 That the remaining portion of the impugned award shall t ,main unaltered; 3 That save as aforesaid, the decree of the Tribunal shall stands confirmed in all other respects; and 4. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. SD/- 14 JAWAHAR REDDY ASS I TANT REGISTRAR I /iTRUE COPY// \ ;ECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Motor Accrdents CIaims Tribunal-cum_l Additional ( t ief Judge. City Civil Court, Secunderabad. 2 Two CD Copies DL/PSL [{- HIGH COURT DATED:08/1212025 ..

l{E SI4I1: {) ( o o r{xR z r 5 2ll7[ C) )\ DECREE * * t )l SDaT MACMA. No. 639 of 2019 PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL _t . o('o I^ \}

Source: High Court for State of Telangana. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.