Allowed

United India Insurance Company Limited, v. Smt. G.Veenavathi

Telangana HC26 Dec 2011MACMA/3288/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Insurance company appealed against Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award. Tribunal found deceased was unauthorized gratuitous passenger in goods vehicle due to lack of documentary evidence proving payment for transport or exclusive ownership of goods. Appeal allowed; appellant directed to deposit half decree, claimants to withdraw same.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed. Appellant directed to deposit half decretal amount; claimants permitted to withdraw same; appellant can recover half from vehicle owner, claimants can recover balance from vehicle owne

United India Insurance Company Limited, Vs Smt. G.Veenavathi — Insurance | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO

¶2

M.A.C.M.A. No. 3288 of 2011

¶3

JUDGMENT:

¶4

The appeal is filed by the insurance company against the order dated 30.06.2004 in O.P.No.626 of 1997 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar.

¶5

A claim was made for compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- consequent on the death of the deceased G.Dakshana Murthy in a motor accident. According to the claim of the petitioners, on 23.09.1995 at about 9-15 a.m. the deceased, who was employed in the Collectorate, Mahabubnagar, engaged the lorry bearing No.AET-5098 for transporting the stationery and he paid the hire charges for himself and for the stationery and due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry, it hit another lorry bearing No.APD/4554 resulting in the death of the deceased.

¶6

The insurance company, who is the appellant herein, contended that the driver of the vehicle has no licence and the deceased was an unauthorised passenger in a goods vehicle and, therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation.

¶7

After considering the evidence on record, the lower Tribunal granted a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-, though it was found that the claimants will be getting more than that amount. It was also held that the deceased was not a gratuitous passenger and consequently granted the compensation. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed.

¶8

Now the point that arises for consideration is whether the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation awarded by the lower Tribunal?

¶9

POINT:

¶10

So far as the nature of the incident and cause of death of the

¶11

deceased and quantum of compensation is concerned, there is no dispute.

¶12

The only contention that was raised by the appellant is that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger and it was a goods vehicle and, therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay the same.

¶13

On the other hand, it was pleaded by the claimants that the deceased was engaged the lorry for transporting stationery from Collectorate to the office of Mandal Revenue Officer at Kothur and, therefore, he was not a gratuitous passenger.

¶14

On that aspect the lower Tribunal has considered the evidence in para-8 and found that though no official record was produced to show that the deceased was instructed by his office to shift stationery to the M.R.O. office. The assertion made by the petitioners through the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and the material allegations in the charge sheet would go to show that he was not an unauthorised passenger. It is settled law that a casual passenger in a goods vehicle even if carrying some goods cannot claim to be a owner of the goods traveling in the vehicle. It has to be proved that the vehicle was engaged for the purpose of exclusively transporting the goods of the person. It is to be noted that what was said to be transported is stationery from the Collectorate to the M.R.O. office at Kothur, if such is the case, naturally, there should have been payment of transport charges to the driver of the lorry and it should be evidenced by record. There is no material on record as to what was the quantum of stationery that was sanctioned to the M.R.O. office and the necessity of engaging a goods vehicle for transporting such stationery. The particulars of the stationery that was sanctioned to the office of the M.R.O. and the date of its sanction are also silent. Therefore, in the absence of any such material, the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 cannot be taken into consideration. It is fundamental that when a fact can be proved by documentary evidence, the documents have to be produced and that too in case of dealing of government actions they should be

¶15

necessarily supported by document. Therefore, no inferences or reliance in the allegations in the charge sheet can be drawn when the lower Tribunal found that there is no documentary evidence. Consequently, it is to be held that the petitioners have failed to prove that the deceased was traveling in the goods vehicle as owner of the goods. It can only be treated that he was only an unauthorized gratuitous passenger and the insurance company is not liable to pay the same. However, as can be seen from the record, this Court has directed the appellant to deposit half of the decretal amount and the claimants were permitted to withdraw the same.

¶16

Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, the appellant can proceed to recover the said deposited amount from the owner of the vehicle and that the claimants can recover the balance amount of compensation from the owner of the vehicle.

¶17

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. No costs.

¶18

________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO, J

¶19

DATE: 26-12-2011 MR

¶20

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO

¶21

M.A.C.M.A.No. 3288 of 2011

¶22

DATE: 26-12-2011

¶23

United India Insurance Company Limited, v. Smt. G.Veenavathi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

United India Insurance Company Limited, v. Smt. G.Veenavathi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Mohd. Haneef

Sri P.v.Appa Rao Vs Sri K.Jagga Rao

Mote Raji Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

The New India Assurance Company Limited, Vs Pogula Santhosha

Smt. R.Sugunamma, (A2) Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

State, Vs v.D.Rajgopal