Partly allowed

D.M. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Gosula Savithramma and 3 Others

Telangana HC29 Oct 2013LPA/427/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Leave Patent Appeal by a motor accident claimant against a Single Judge order dismissing liability. Court held Insurance Company liable to pay compensation to claimants under Section 147, with right to recover from vehicle owner per National Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Baljit Kaur.

What did the court decide?

Appellant ordered to pay compensation apportioned by Tribunal; Entitled to recover said amount from 4th respondent.

D.M. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Gosula Savithramma and 3… — Insurance | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.K. JAISWAL

¶2

LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No.427 OF 2001

¶3

JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice L. Narasimha Reddy)

¶4

One Mr. Krishna Reddy was travelling in a vehicle bearing No.TN 04 3384 on 19.09.1993 from Nandyal to Kadapa along with certain goods. The vehicle was owned by the 4^th respondent and insured with the appellant.

¶5

The vehicle met with an accident and Krishna Reddy died. The mother, wife and minor son of late Krishna Reddy filed M.V.O.P.No.867 of 1995 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kadapa, claiming a sum of Rs.3,92,000/- as compensation. They pleaded that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the vehicle and that the deceased was contributing substantially for the family. The compensation was claimed under several heads.

¶6

The 4^th respondent remained ex parte. The O.P. was contested by the appellant alone. They denied the liability stating that the deceased was not the owner of the goods and at any rate, the law as it stood on the date of the accident did not provide for compensation for the death or injuries to the owner of the vehicle travelling in a goods vehicle. Through its order, dated 17.01.1997, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,26,120/- as compensation and apportioned the same among respondents 1 to 3.

¶7

The appellant filed C.M.A.No.1407 of 1997 before this Court. The plea as to the very liability was raised on the ground that the accident occurred on 19.09.1993, whereas the amendment to Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the Act’) was made by the Parliament only on 14.11.1994. Learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the appeal through order dated 27.06.2001 placing reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Satpal Sing h^[1] . This L.P.A. under Clause 15 of the Letters Patents is filed challenging the order passed by learned Single Judge.

¶8

Heard Sri K. Subba Rao, learned counsel for the appellant, and Sri P.Veera Reddy, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3.

¶9

The 4^th respondent remained ex parte.

¶10

It is no doubt true that the deceased was treated as the owner of goods travelling in the goods vehicle and the accident occurred much before Section 147 of the Act was amended. Before amendment, Section 147 of the Act did not provide for coverage of insurance, much less payment of compensation in the event of injuries to or death of a person travelling in a goods vehicle, be it in the capacity of the owner of goods or otherwise. It was only in the year 1994 the provision was amended to cover the liability towards the injuries to or death of the owner of the goods.

¶11

In Satpal Singh (1 supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court took the view that irrespective of the fact whether the person travelling in a goods vehicle was owner of the goods or not, the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation. That, however, was reversed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

¶12

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani and other s^[2] . Learned Single Judge has based his conclusion upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Satpal Singh.

¶13

Once it emerges that the judgment in Satpal Singh was held to be no longer good law, a different picture emerges altogether. However, recently in National Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Baljit Kaur and other s^[3] , the Hon’ble Supreme Court took the view that if an Insurance Company is absolved of the liability

¶14

based upon its judgment in Asha Rani’s case, the claimants cannot be put to loss and that in such cases the Insurance Company can be made to pay compensation and then recover from the owner of the vehicle. This benefit was restricted to the cases, which were decided before the judgment in Asha Rani’s case was rendered i.e., 03.12.2002. In the instant case, the O.P. itself was decided long prior i.e., in the year 1997 and the judgment of learned Single Judge was rendered on 27.06.2001. Either way, the ratio in Baljit Kaur’s case (3 supra) gets attracted.

¶15

Hence, the appeal is partly allowed modifying the order passed by the Tribunal as well as learned Single Judge to the effect that the appellant herein shall be under obligation to pay the amount, but shall be

¶16

entitled to recover the same from the 4^th respondent in accordance with the procedure and the manner indicated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

¶17

Baljit Kaur’s case (3 supra). There shall no order as to costs.

¶18

The miscellaneous petition filed in this appeal shall stand disposed of.

¶19

L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

¶20

M.S.K. JAISWAL, J.

¶21

29.10.2013 KH

¶22

[1] 2000 (1) ALD 50 SC