M/S Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Hyd v. P.Karuna And 4 Others

I [ 33s71

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICEP.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA MOTOR ACCID ENT ClVIL MISCELLA NEOUS APPEAL NO: 784 OF 2011 Appeal filed under section '173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the order and decree in M.V.o.P.No.162 of 2ooB dated 10.12.2010 on the file court of the chairman Motor Accident claims Tribunal-cum-l Additional chief Judge, city civil Court at Secunderabad.

Between:

M/S lClCl Lombard General lnsurance Company Limited, Reo. bv its Divisional [.r,lrggl, D.No..3-6-365/tuB, Ground Ftoor, Sania Toweri, Obp Sta;z;, LiGrty Circle, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad AND ...APPELLANT/RESpONDENT No.2

1. P.Karuna, W/o late P- Srirama Srinivas, aged 34 years, Occ: House Wife R/o H.No.10-287 11, Vasanthapuri Colony, Kalk-ajgiri, Secunderabad.

2. P.Kalidas, S/o late P.Srirama Rao, aged 67, Occ: R/o H.No.1O-297l1, Vasanthapuri Colony, Kalkajgiri, Secundelabad.

3. P. _Vedavalli, Wo P,Kalidas, aged 60 years, Occ: House Wif,e R/o H.No.1028711, Vasanthapuri Cotony, Kalkajgiri,- Secunderabad.

4. P.Khalvida, D/o late P.Srirama Srinivas Student, aged 4 years, Occ:Student, Minor, rep by her mother Res.No.1 RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS

5. K.R.Yadag.iri, S/o K.R.Kishan, Aged 45 years, Occ: Br.rsiness, H.NO.7-1A6, Ganganpahad, Rajender Nagar, Ranga Reddy District. .,.RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. KOTA SUBBA RAO Counsel for the Respondent NO.l to 4 :SRl J VENKATESWARA REDOY Counsel for the Respondent NO.S: - The Court made the following: JUDGMENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA M.A.C.M.A.No.784 OF 20 1 1 WDGMENT:(per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.SAM KOSHY) The challenge in the present appeal is to the award dated lO.l2.2O1O passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Secunderabad (for short "the Tribunal"), in M.V.O.P.No.162 of 20O8.

2.

Vide tlre impugned award, the Tribunal, in a death case, has awarded compensation of Rs.6O,OO,OOO/- with interest @ 7.5%o per annum.

3.

The present is an appeal liled by the appellant-Insurance Company assailing the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

4.

During the course of hearing,- learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company admitted the fact that, there is no dispute so far as date of accident, the vehicle involved in the accident, the vehicle being insured with the appellant-Insurance Company and the income of the deceased is concerned. The only point of dispute raised by the appellant-Insurance Company is that considering the fact trrat thfficeased was a probationer in service,

'{ it cannot be considered to be a regular employment and therefore, the applicability of 5O%o towards future prospects by the Tribunal, in the light of the decision of Supreme Court in No'tlonol Insurantce Corporatlon Vs. Pranag Sethil, was uncalled for and it ought to had been 3O7o and therefore the impugned award should be interfered to the aforesaid extent. However, on perusal of the pleadings and the evidence which has come on record and which has been discussed by the Tribunal, what is evidently clear is the fact that the deceased in the instant case was working with the Lanco Hills Technolory Park Private limited as a Deput5r Manager (Projects). Ex.A5 is the letter of appointment issued which has been exhibited through the wife of the deceased. Ex.AS also shows that he was appointed with an annual package of Rs.5,OO,OOO/-.

PW-l had also produced the salary slip for the month of March, 2OO8 i.e., the salary slip of the preceding month in which the deceased had died, which would show that there was a gross salar5r of Rs.36,513/- with a net pay of Rs.32,2 13/-. It was this salary which has been accepted by the Tribunal for the quantification of the compensation. Only because the deceased was appointed as a probationer does not mean that the appointment given by the company is not a regular appointment. t l2oL7 Ac.

/ The order of appointment itse[ speaks that he was offered with a regrrlar employment and that was the reason his initial services was kept under probation, which is not otherwise available in the case of temporary employees. Therefore, the contentions raised by the. appellant-Insurance Company do not find force so far as the status of employment and future prospects is concerned. 5.

For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any sufficient grounds calling for any interference with the impugned award. The appeal thus fails and is accordingly rejected. 6.

The appellant-Insurance Company is directed to ensure that the balance amount payable to the claimants in terms of the award, dated 10.12.2O10, is deposited within a period of four (O4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

Consequently, miscellaneous applications, if any pending shall stand closed.

sd/ JAY REE //TRUE COPY// AssrsrANr H2R* SECTION OFFICER To t lne Qfqlqnan, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-l Additional Chief Judge ^ City C^ivil Court at Secunderabad (With Records if any) ? One CC to SRt. KOTA SUBBA RAO, Advocate tOptjit 9 9n" CC to SRl. J VENKATESWARA REDDY, Rivocat6 [OPUC]

4. Two CD Copies SNJ/PR LRt-

Lt, r#

q HIGH COURT DATED:221'1212023 o T (') - v- ;?

'i$i\ \t'ttt\S C)

JUDGMENT

.J MACMA.No.784 of 2011 \ .-t, 'q.3:-.-;.-.

REJECTING THE MACMA o o*-l$

I

IN THE HIGH COTJRT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BT{€EMAPAKA MOTOR ACCIDE NT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 784 oF 2011 Between:

-- r,ift-l'crcr Lombard General lnsurance company Limited, Rgo. b, rts Div.isional il;-#;;. o.rlo.g-o-36slA/8. ciorna Ftoor, Sania Towers' opp stanza' Liberty circte:Himayathnagar, Hyderabad ...APPELLANT/RESpoNDENT No.2 AND

1. P.Karuna, W/o late P. Srirama Srinivas-, aged 34years',O"-"J-1o*" Wife Rl/o n.No.tO-ZAZI1, Vasanthapuri Colony, Kalkaigiri' Secunderaoad'

2. P.Kalidas, S/o late P.Srirama Bao,994 67' Occ: R/o HNo10-287/1' - Visintnaburi Colony, Kalkajgiri , Secunderabad'

3. P. Vedavalli, Wo P Kalidas, aged 60 yqars, Occ: House Wife R/o H No'10- - zai n, iZiiirtnapuri Colony, Ka-lkajgiri, Secunderabad'

4. P.Khalvida, D/o late P.Srirama Srinivas Student, aged 4 years, occ:student, Minor, rep by her mother Res No l RESPONDENTS/PETIT|ONERS

5. K.R.Yadagiri, S/o K.R.Kishan, Aged 4S-years, Occ: Business' H NO T-1-B6' - c;d;p;had, Rapnder Nagar, Ranga Reddv District' ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS Appeal filed under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against lhe order and decreeinM.V'o.P.No.162of2oo8dated10.,t2.2010onthefileCourtofthe chairman Motor Accident claims Trilcunal-cum-l Additional chief Judge, city civil Court at Secunderabad.

ORDER: This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the groundsof appeal,theJudgmentandDecreeoftheLowerCourtandtlrematerialpapersinthe case and upon hearing the arguments of SRI KOTA SIJBBA RAO' Advocate for the AppellantsandofSRlJVENKATESWARAREDDY,AdvocatefortheRespondent No.1 to 4

This Court doth Order and Decree as follows 't. That the MACMA be and hereby is rejected;

2. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. SECTIV oMornceR Sd/. T JAYASREE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// To

1. The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum.l Additional Chief Judge City Civil Court at Secunderabad. (With Records if any)

2. One CC to SRl. KOTA SUBBA RAO, Advocate tOpUCI

3. One CC to SRI J VENKATESWARA REDDY, Aitvocat6 tOpUCl

4. Two CD Copies SNJ/PR t$s

\ t HIGH COURT DATED: 2211212023 DECREE MACMA.N o.784 of 2011 REJECTING THE MACMA 0sf,.+x