The Insuring company appealed a compensation award for death resulting from a road accident. The court held that since the deceased was an authorized passenger extracting goods as a coolie, the policy violation regarding unauthorized passengers did not apply, and the appeal was dismissed.
The appeal is dismissed with costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU
C.M.A.No.3221 of 2003
O R D E R:
This is an appeal by the insurance company. The
claimants who are the respondents 1 and 2 herein approached the lower Tribunal for compensation for death of the deceased Kannamma who died in road accident involving tractor and trailor combination bearing Nos.AP-37U-4916 and AP-37-U-7691. The accident occurred when the vehicle was carrying load of stones on which some persons including the deceased was sitting. The tractor and trailor turned turtle and the deceased fell down from the vehicle and sustained injuries and succumbed to those injuries. As against claim of compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-, the lower Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.84,800/-.
The only point urged by the appellant’s counsel in this appeal is that the deceased was traveling in the accident vehicle as unauthorized passenger and that therefore there is violation of terms and conditions of the policy, resulting in disruption of the policy. The appellant’s counsel placed reliance on National Insurance Company Limited v
Kaushalaya Dev i[1] of the Supreme Court on this aspect. Though, there was plea in the counter filed by the insurance company before the lower Tribunal to the effect that the deceased was travelling as passenger in the accident vehicle, no evidence was let in by the insurance company in that regard. The lower Tribunal considered evidence on record and came to the conclusion that there is evidence to show that the deceased was travelling in the accident vehicle as authorized passenger in goods vehicle. There was no dispute in the lower Tribunal that the deceased was travelling in the accident vehicle as cooli intended for loading and unloading the goods being carried in the trailor. When the deceased was travelling in the trailor as loading and unloading cooli, it cannot be said that the deceased was unauthorized passenger in the accident vehicle. The insurance company cannot absolve its liability in this claim. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with costs.
_____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J
Dt.16th August, 2012 PNV
[1] (2008) 8 Supreme Court Cases 246
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the insurance company is liable to pay compensation when the deceased was an authorized passenger/trailer worker and not an unauthorized passenger violating policy terms.
Whether the lower Tribunal's finding regarding the status of the deceased was affected by lack of counter evidence from the insurance company.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
National Insurance Company Limited v Kaushalaya DeviRelied on¶6
National Insurance Company Limited v Kaushalaya Devi (2008) 8 Supreme Court Cases 246
National Insurance Company Limited
claimants (respondents 1 and 2)
SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
