CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench(2022) 06 TEL CK 0093

Reliance General Insurance Co Ltd vs Chinnolla Laxmi Abbavva 3 Ors

Telangana High Court · Decided on 24 June 2022

HON’BLE JUDGES
P. Madhavi Devi, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Motor Accident Civil Miscllaneous Appeal No. 676 Of 2016

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 333 words
1.

This is an appeal filed by the insurance company challenging the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge) at Nizamabad (for short “the Tribunal”) dated 10.11.2014 passed in O.P.No.292 of 2010.

2.

Though the appellant has raised as many as 14 grounds of appeal, the main grievance of the insurance company is that the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident is not possessing valid driving licence. According to the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant insurance company, Sri A. Ramakrishna Reddy, though the driver is having non-transport light motor vehicle driving licence, he drove the transport vehicle and hence, there is violation of policy condition and therefore the insurance company is not liable for any compensation.

3.

However, in the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited (2017) 14 SCC 663, it was held that as long as the driver possesses a licence to drive a category of vehicles, he is eligible for driving a transport vehicle of the same category and therefore, he is entitled to compensation in case of an accident. Hence, it cannot be construed that the driver has violated policy condition. Therefore, the grounds with regard to the said issue are rejected.

4.

As regards the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, though the insurance company has raised various grounds, it is seen that if compensation is awarded under various heads as per the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680 and Sarla Verma (Smt) and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (2009) 6 SCC 121, the compensation would come to the same amount as awarded by the Tribunal and therefore this Court does not see any reason to interfere with the award and the award is accordingly confirmed.

5.

The MACMA is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.

6.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this MACMA shall also stand dismissed.