Allowed

The Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., v. Smt. Ummeda Godavari

Telangana HC8 Feb 2013MACMA/866/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An insurance company appealed a trial court order making them jointly and severally liable for Rs. 4,00,000 compensation awarded to dependents of a deceased driver. The court held the deceased was not a third party, affirming the quantum but quashing the joint liability and holding only the tractor owner liable.

What did the court decide?

The compensation awarded by the trial court is confirmed but the order imposing joint and several liability on respondents 1 to 3 is set aside. The tractor owner (4th respondent in appeal) alone is li

The Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., Vs Smt… — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR

¶2

M.A.C.M.A.NO. 866 OF 2010

¶3

Date: 08.02.2013

¶4

Between:

¶5

The Reliance General Insurance Company Limited represented by its Branch Manager

¶6

… Appellant

¶7

AND

¶8

Smt. Ummeda Godavari W/o Late Ummeda Gangaram and three others

¶9

… Respondents

¶10

ORDER:

¶11

The second respondent in O.P.No. 681 of 2007 on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC) Nizamabad, preferred the appeal assailing the award granting compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- in favour of the claimants, which is payable jointly and severally by all the three respondents before the Trial Court.

¶12

The claim was laid by two claimants seeking compensation at Rs. 4,00,000/- for the death of Ummeda Gangaram, husband of the first claimant and father of the second claimant in a motor vehicle accident. The deceased was an agriculturist and was earning about Rs. 10,000/- per month according to the claimants.

¶13

On 30.08.2007 the deceased and PW-2 were travelling on Hero Honda Passion motorcycle bearing No. AP-25-P-0259 from Village Pipri to Armoor. At that time the driver of the tractor and trailer owned by the 4^th respondent drove the tractor in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motor cycle on which the deceased and PW-2 were travelling. The deceased sustained multiple injuries in the said accident. He

¶14

however, died on the next day at the Amrutha Laxmi Hospital, Nizamabad while undergoing treatment. It may be noticed that PW-2 was owner of the Hero Honda Passion motorcycle. Consequently he was arrayed as first respondent before the Trial Court. The insurer of the motorcycle was the second respondent before Trial Court and the appellant herein.

¶15

The deceased was driving the motorcycle at the time of accident. Sri Gadi Ramachandra Reddy, learned counsel for the insurer contended that the deceased was not a third party to the motorcycle as he was driving the motorcycle at the time of accident. He also contended that the accident in fact occurred owing to the rash and negligent driving of the Tractor and Trailer by its driver and not on account of rash and negligent driving by the deceased. Ex. A1 is the certified copy of the FIR, Ex. A2 is the certified copy of the Charge Sheet. Both of them disclose that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tractor and Trailer.

¶16

PW-2 lodged FIR complaining that it was the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tractor, which caused the accident. Curiously the Trial Court accepted the claim. It is curious because if the Trial Court agreed that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor and trailer, it could not have tagged the liability to the owner of the motorcycle and insurer thereof.

¶17

Added to it the learned counsel for the appellantInsurer contended that when the deceased was driving the two wheeler he was more like the owner of the vehicle and could not be considered to be a third party to the motorcycle. He also submitted that had he been a pillion rider of the motorcycle at the time of the accident he could have been treated as a third party to the policy. I consider that this contention is sustainable. Where PW-2, owner of the vehicle was travelling as pillion rider with the deceased riding the motorcycle, it shall be considered that the deceased was not a third party to the policy at the time of the accident.

¶18

Be that as it may, it is evident that the claimants themselves averred that the accident was on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor-cumtrailer. The evidence of PW-2 also established the same. In that view of the situation, I am afraid that the owner of the motorcycle would not be liable to answer the case of the claimants.

¶19

Sri A. Eshwar, learned counsel for the claimants inter alia contended that the motorcycle carried comprehensive policy and that where the petition was filed under Sections 163-A and 166(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short ‘the Act’), the involvement of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle is not necessary. The learned counsel for the appellant-insurer

¶20

placed reliance upon APPAJI VS. M. KRISHNA^[1] , where it was observed that even if the claim is laid under Section 163-A of the Act, a claim for compensation for the death of a person who himself was responsible for the accident was not maintainable. In view of this decision of the Karnataka High Court, the contention of the learned counsel for the claimants that the appellant-insurer is liable whether the accident was on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver or owner of the motorcycle or otherwise cannot be sustained. The learned counsel for the claimants also placed reliance upon NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO., LTD., SEC’BAD V. PALAMONI SURESH, where it was held that when the policy covered third party risks arising out of the accident in the use of the insurance vehicle, the insurer is also be liable to satisfy the claim. However, in this case, the liability lies with the owner of the tractor and trailer only as the same was not insured.

¶21

There is no dispute regarding the quantum of compensation. I therefore, do not wish to go to the question of quantum of compensation. With the abovementioned reasons, this appeal is allowed. While the compensation awarded by the trial court is confirmed together with the incidental reliefs awarded by the Trial Court, the order of the Trial Court making respondents 1 to 3 jointly and severally liable to satisfy the claim is set

¶22

aside. The 4^th respondent in the appeal, who is the third respondent before the Trial Court as the owner of the tractor and trailer alone is liable to satisfy the claim of the dependents of the deceased. Without costs.

¶23

__________________________ JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR

¶24

DATE: 08.02.2013 KA

¶25

[1] 2004 ACJ 1289

The Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., v. Smt. Ummeda Godavari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., v. Smt. Ummeda Godavari

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

Balijepalli Venkata Ramana Rao, Vs N.Prabhakar Reddy

Sri Manoj Shankarlal Khushal, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

D. Sainath, Vs M. B. Bhushanam (Died)

M/s.Ap State Road Transport Corporation Vs Smt.P.Suvarna

M.Venkat , Venkat Rathod, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

T.Rajasekhar Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh