Dismissed

The National Insurance Company Limited v. Yeraci Venkateswara Reddy

Telangana HC8 Sept 2014MACMA/1719/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award directed an insurance company not to take recovery steps from the vehicle owner. The court held the passenger was authorized and directed the insurer to allow the deposited amount to remain withdrawn by the claimant since by no order as to costs order against costs orders. costs

What did the court decide?

Directed appellant not to take any steps against claimant and recover the compensation amount from the owner of the vehicle.

The National Insurance Company Limited Vs Yeraci… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶2

M.A.C.M.A.No.1719 of 2007

¶3

JUDGMENT:

¶4

Challenging the order and decree dated 26.09.2006 passed in M.V.O.P.No.851 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (IV Additional District Judge), Guntur, the National Insurance Company Limited, preferred the present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the Act”).

¶5

For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed in O.P.

¶6

The facts in issue are as under:

¶7

The claimant, who was aged about 62 years at the time of the accident filed a claim-petition under Section 166 of the Act, claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a road accident that occurred on 15.09.1991. It is stated that on that day the petitioner contracted a lorry for transportation of mirchi from his village Thammaluru to the Market Yard at Guntur while he was proceeding in the said lorry along with goods and when the lorry reached near Yadlapaud, the driver of the lorry drove it in a rash and negligent manner lost control over it, resulting in lorry turning turtle. As a result of the said accident, the claimant and others sustained injuries. Immediately thereafter, the claimant was shifted to a Government Hospital. In respect of the above incident a case in Crime No.17 of 1991 of Yedlapadun Police Station came to be registered against the driver of the lorry for an offence punishable under Section 338 IPC. It is stated that the petitioner is an agriculturist earning Rs.24,000/- per annum. In view of the injuries sustained, he is not in a position to do the work which he was doing

¶8

prior to the accident. The first respondent being the owner of the crime lorry and the second respondent being insurer of the said lorry, an application was filed seeking compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- or a sum of Rs.25,000/- under no fault liability, by making both the respondents jointly and severally liable.

¶9

First respondent owner of the vehicle remained ex parte, while the second respondent filed counter denying the manner in which the accident took place and also the age, income and avocation of the deceased. In any event it is stated that the claim made is excessive and exorbitant.

¶10

Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:

¶11

1. Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No. ADF 3549, by its driver or not?

¶12

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation and if so, to what amount, from whom?

¶13

3. To what relief?

¶14

In support of his plea, the claimant examined PWs.1 to 4 and also got marked Exs.A1 to A3 and Exs.X1 to X3. On behalf of the respondents, RW.1 was examined and Ex.B1 marked.

¶15

After analyzing the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the lorry and accordingly awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- as compensation with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation. Challenging the same the present appeal is filed.

¶16

While issuing notice to the respondents, this Court granted

¶17

stay on condition of petitioner depositing the entire amount awarded by the Tribunal. By an order dated 19.08.2009 this Court permitted the claimant to withdraw his share from the amount deposited by the respondent/appellant. Since there is only one claimant and as the claim-petition was filed for the injuries sustained by him, the claimant withdrew the entire amount deposited by the appellant. However, the learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company strenuously contends that since the claimant was an un-authorised passenger, the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation.

¶18

The issue as to whether the insurance company is liable to pay compensation even in a case where the injured was traveling as gratuitous passenger in a goods vehicle came up for consideration before the Apex Court as well as this Court in number of cases. Few of those cases which dealt with the said aspect are as under. I n National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Baljith Kaur and [1] other s the Apex Court held that the interest of justice will be subserved if the insurance company is directed to satisfy the awarded amount in favour of the claimant if not already satisfied and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. In subsequent judgments namely New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Tirupati v. G.Sampoorna [2] and other s and in Manager, National Insurance Company [3] Limited v. Saju P.Paul and another also the Apex Court held that insurance company shall satisfy the decree first and then recover the same from the owner of the vehicle, when there is a violation of the conditions of policy.

¶19

In the instant case, the material on record namely the evidence of PW.1 coupled with Exs.A1 and A2 would show that the injured was traveling in the crime vehicle along with chilly bags to be

¶20

sold at Market Yard in Guntur. Therefore, it cannot be said that the injured was traveling in the said vehicle as an un-authorised passenger. Since the quantum of compensation is not disputed, the finding of the Tribunal needs no interference.

¶21

In view of the judgments referred to above, having regard to the fact that the amount involved is Rs.15,000/- and since the entire amount was already deposited and withdrawn by the claimant, it would be appropriate to direct the appellant not to take any steps against the claimant and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle in accordance with law.

¶22

Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is disposed of to the extent indicated above.

¶23

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶24

The miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.

¶25

_____________________ C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J

¶26

08.09.2014 gkv

¶27

[1] 2004 (2) ALT 33 (SC) [2] 2010 (5) ALT 105