Dismissed

National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Mukkandla Rathnamma at Mukkandla Nagalakshmi

Andhra Pradesh HC13 Mar 2020MACMA/2220/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The appellant, an insurance company, filed an appeal challenging compensation ordered to be paid by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The court dismissed the appeal, holding that the company failed to rebut the claim that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger, relying on a prior decision.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand dismissed in consequence.

National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Mukkandla… — Motor Accident Claims | Andhra Pradesh HC (2020)

¶1

SMT. JUSTICE T.RAJANI

¶2

M.A.C.M.A.No. 2220 OF 2009

¶3

JUDGMENT:

¶4

This appeal is preferred by the appellant-respondent No. 2 against the order and decree dated 26-03-2008 in M.V.O.P.No. 252 of 2005 on the file of learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – VII Additional District Judge, Madanapalle (for short, 'the Tribunal), by virtue of which the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.1,62,800/- to respondent No. 3 and directed respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to pay the said amount jointly and severally and however the Tribunal gave liberty to respondent No. 2 to recover the same from respondent No. 1, who remained ex parte , by considering the fact that the petitioner was traveling as a gratuitous passenger in the crime vehicle.

¶5

The appeal is preferred feeling aggrieved by the order of pay and recovery on the ground that the insurance company would not be made liable to pay compensation since the vehicle involved is a goods carrying commercial vehicle.

¶6

Heard.

¶7

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the deceased was traveling as a gratuitous passenger in the crime vehicle. The Tribunal also arrived at the same conclusion but however it ordered

¶8

TR, J. macma_2220_2009

¶9

¶10

respondent No. 2 to pay the compensation and recover the same from respondent No. 1. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Nelluri Sambasiva Rao (died) per L.Rs. Vs. B.Rama Prasadam¹ held that when the insurance company fails to produce investigators report to rebut the contention of the claimants that the deceased was travelling in a mini truck along with goods, it follows that by virtue of non-rebuttal of the claim of the claimants, insurance company cannot be exonerated. What can be understood from the record is that in this case also, no evidence was produced by the appellant to rebut the contention of respondent No. 3 that the deceased was not travelling as an unauthorized passenger.

¶11

Hence, in view of the above, the appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, in this appeal shall stand dismissed in consequence.

¶12

___________ T.RAJANI, J.

¶13

Date: 13-03-2020 JSK

¶14

1 2006 ACJ 197

¶15

TR, J. macma_2220_2009

¶16

¶17

SMT. JUSTICE T.RAJANI

¶18

M.A.C.M.A.No. 2220 OF 2009

¶19

DATE: 13^TH MARCH, 2020

¶20

JSK

National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Mukkandla Rathnamma at Mukkandla Nagalakshmi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Mukkandla Rathnamma at Mukkandla Nagalakshmi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jalagadugula Madhusudhanarao, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

A.V. Ramana Babu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

A Ranamma Vs the State of Ap

Katta Suneetha, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

C. Venkata Siva, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

S Chinnaiah Vs The District Collector (B.C. W)