Allowed

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, v. D.Ramulamma

Telangana HC3 Feb 2012MACMA/3642/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The apex court allowed appeals filed by an insurance company against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the court held that insurers are not liable to pay compensation if there is no liability on the owner regarding gratuitous passengers. The award directing the insurer to pay was set aside. Claimants must recover compensation from the vehicle owner.

What did the court decide?

The award directing payment by the appellant insurance company was set aside. Claimants are directed to recover compensation from the vehicle owner. Amount deposited by appellant, if any, is to be wit

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

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

¶2

M.A.C.M.A. Nos. 1733, 1780 & 2000 of 2005;

¶3

1420 of 2009; 3642 of 2011 and

¶4

M.A.C.M.A. No. 410 of 2012

¶5

COMMON JUDGMENT:

¶6

All these appeals arise out of a common judgment dated 03.11.2004 by the IV Additional District Judge-cum-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kurnool for compensation for death and injuries.

¶7

The allegations in the petitions go to show that on 11.12.1994 the deceased persons and the injured were traveling in the lorry bearing No.AP-21-T-1863 to attend a marriage near Eklaspuram and at about 10.00 p.m. when the said lorry reached the outskirts of the village, the driver of the lorry drove it in a rash and negligent manner, as a result of which the lorry turned turtle and the injured persons and the deceased persons received injuries and subsequently the claim applications were filed.

¶8

The details of the claims in the above appeals are as follows:

¶9

MACMA No.	M.V.O.P. No.	Name of the deceased/injured	Amount of compensation claimed/granted(Rs.)
1420 of 2005	123 of 1995	D.Vijaya Lingama (deceased)	50,000/ 50,000
1733 of 2005	122 of 1995	D.Sanjeeva Reddy (deceased)	50,000/ 50,000
1780 of 2005	90 of 1995	Smt.D.Ramulamma (injured)	18,000/ 18,000
2000 of 2005	121 of 1995	K.Gopal Reddy (deceased)	50,000/ 50,000
3642 of 2011	74 of 1995	D.Pulla Reddy (deceased)	50,000/ 50,000
410 of 2012	120 of 1995	B.Bhaskar Reddy (deceased)	50,000/ 50,000

¶10

Originally, the 2^nd respondent was shown as the insurance company of the lorry owned by the 1^st respondent and the petition against the 2^nd respondent was dismissed and the 3^rd respondent is said to be the insurance company with which the lorry was insured.

¶11

The 3^rd respondent, who is the appellant in all these claims, has disputed the liability.

¶12

The lower Tribunal after considering the evidence on record has accepted the claims of the claimants and granted compensation accordingly and also held the appellant liable for payment of the said compensation.

¶13

Now the point that arises for consideration is whether the appellant herein is liable to pay the amount of compensation?

¶14

POINT:

¶15

So far as the nature of the incident and the cause of death of the deceased persons and injured are concerned, there is no dispute. The learned counsel for the appellant also is not seriously disputing about the quantum of compensation.

¶16

The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the claimants by their own showing are gratuitous passengers as they were traveling in the lorry, a goods vehicle, as passengers to attend the marriage.

¶17

The above fact is also admitted by the lower Tribunal. But, however, the lower Tribunal relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Baljit Kaur v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. [2004 (1) SCALE 124], which is said to have been followed in other cases, found that the insurer has to pay and recover the same.

¶18

The above view is not correct in view of the subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court reported in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Ran i^[1] and also National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Bommithi Subbhayamma^[2] , the insurance company cannot be directed to pay the money when there is no liability.

¶19

Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, there is no liability to the appellant and the award of the lower Tribunal in so far as its direction in fixing the liability to the appellant, has to be set aside. The claimants shall recover the amount of compensation from the owner of the vehicle. If any amount was deposited, the appellant is entitled to withdraw the same.

¶20

Accordingly, the appeals are allowed. No costs.

¶21

N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO, J

¶22

DATE: 03-02-2012 MR

¶23

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

¶24

M.A.C.M.A. Nos. 1733, 1780 & 2000 of 2005; 1420 of 2009; 3642 of 2011

¶25

and