Allowed

The New India Insurance Company Limited, v. Smt. Burugupally Venkatramana

Telangana HC9 Feb 2012MACMA/3845/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Insurance Company appealed an award granting Rs.1,35,000 for the death of an occupant in an 'Act Policy' vehicle. The Court allowed the appeal, holding occupants are not third parties, but directed recovery of the deposited half from the vehicle owner.

What did the court decide?

The Insurance Company is allowed to recover the deposited amount from the owner of the vehicle; no order as to costs.

The New India Insurance Company Limited, Vs Smt. Burugupally… — Insurance | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

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

¶2

M.A.C.M.A.No.3845 OF 2011

¶3

JUDGMENT:-

¶4

The appeal is filed by the Insurance Company against the award in O.P.No.349 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, questioning the liability of the Insurance Company.

¶5

2. A claim for compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- was filed consequent on the death of the deceased Yadava Rao.

¶6

3. The allegations in the petition go to show that on 16.11.1999 the deceased along with his son and others was travelling in the Ambassador Car bearing No.AP I/3025 from Nizamabad to Hyderabad and on the way the driver of the Car drove it in a rash and negligent manner and hit the culvert No.460/1, as a result of which, the deceased received injuries and died. The 1^st respondent, who is owner of the vehicle, remained ex parte. The 2^nd respondent, which is Insurance Company and also appellant herein, filed counter denying the averments in the petition and disputed its liability and also the quantum of compensation. The lower Tribunal after considering the evidence on record, granted a compensation of Rs.1,35,000/-. Aggrieved by that, the present appeal is filed.

¶7

4. The point for consideration is whether the appellant is not liable to pay the compensation?

¶8

5. POINT:

¶9

There is no dispute about the nature of incident and appellant is also not canvassing about the correctness of the quantum of compensation. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the policy is an ‘Act Policy’ and the occupants are not covered under the said policy, but the lower Tribunal without looking into the

¶10

above aspect has granted the compensation and therefore, there is no liability.

¶11

6. Evidently, the lower Tribunal has taken view that the deceased was a third party and therefore, the risk is covered. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, it is not correct and relied upon the decision reported in Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Kamareddy, Nizamabad District Vs. Kondakotla Saroja and others^[1] . It clearly goes to show that the persons travelling in the vehicle are not third parties and under Act Policy there is no liability.

¶12

7. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, the Insurance Company cannot be held liable. The claimants are to proceed for recovery of the balance amount from the owner of the vehicle. But, however, it appears that as per the orders of this Court, the Insurance Company was directed to be deposited half of the amount and the amount was permitted to be withdrawn by the claimants. Therefore, the Insurance Company is entitled to recover the amount already deposited from the owner of the vehicle.

¶13

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶14

___________________________ JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO

¶15

Date:09-02-2012 INL

¶16

[1] 2008(5) ALT 246 (D.B.)

The New India Insurance Company Limited, v. Smt. Burugupally Venkatramana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The New India Insurance Company Limited, v. Smt. Burugupally Venkatramana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Monaraguthi Muni Swamy Vs The State of A.P. rep. by Public Prosecutor

T.Sharada, Vs Dr.v.v.L.N.Sastry

Thuppudu Konda Reddy Vs State of a.P., rep by Public Prosecutor

The Food Inspector,Div-Ii,Medak at Sangareddy,rep. by Vs Thodupunoori Mahesh

The Sub-Inspector, Rpf Adoni Vs Mohd. Noor Ahamed, A2

M. Srinayya Vs M/s. S.R. Drillers