Allowed

The National Insurance Company Limited, v. Bandi Veerender

Telangana HC24 Nov 2015MACMA/1736/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal by the second respondent (claimant's insurer) challenging the Tribunal's direction to deposit compensation and recover it from the claimant. Citing National Insurance Co. v. P.Paul, the Court set aside the pay-and-recover direction for a gratuitous passenger while leaving the compensation量和 intact. The appellant is permitted to withdraw deposited funds.

What did the court decide?

The direction to deposit and recover is set aside; the appellant is permitted to withdraw the deposited amount.

The National Insurance Company Limited, Vs Bandi Veerender — Insurance | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO

¶2

M.A.C.M.A.No.1736 of 2005

¶3

JUDGMENT:

¶4

The second respondent in O.P.No.73 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Nalgonda is the appellant herein.

¶5

The O.P was filed by the first respondent herein claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident that occurred on 03.10.2001. He was an agriculturist earning Rs.3,000/- per month. But, due to the accident he became permanently disabled. The owner of the vehicle remained ex parte before the Tribunal. The second respondent therein was permitted to raise all the contentions that are available to the owner as per Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act in I.A.No.617 of 2005, dated 21.03.2005.

¶6

The Tribunal, on evidence, held that the claimant was travelling as a non fare paid passenger and the insurance company was not liable to indemnify the owner, but however, directed the insurance company to deposit the compensation amount and recover it from the owner. Challenging the latter portion of the said order without challenging the quantum of compensation, the present appeal is filed.

¶7

When the Tribunal recorded a finding that the insurance company was not liable to indemnify the owner, it ought not to have directed the insurance company to deposit the compensation and recover it from the owner by filing E.P.

¶8

In Manager, National Insurance Company Limited v. Saju P.Paul, the

¶9

Supreme Court held that the principle of pay and recover cannot be made applicable in respect of gratuitous passengers.

¶10

In view of the above, the direction given by the Tribunal in the impugned award dated 15.04.2005 in O.P.No.73 of 2002, to the extent of directing the appellant to pay the amount and recover from the second respondent herein, is set aside without disturbing the quantum of compensation awarded to the claimant in O.P.No.73 of 2002.

¶11

The appeal is, accordingly, allowed. In view of allowing the appeal, the appellant is permitted to withdraw the amount deposited before the Tribunal. The miscellaneous petitions pending in this appeal, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶12

(A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J)

¶13

24.11.2015

¶14

The National Insurance Company Limited, v. Bandi Veerender

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The National Insurance Company Limited, v. Bandi Veerender

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bandi Ramulu, Vs Sri R. Shankeraiah, (Major)

Rutthala Srinivas Vs Rutthala Jyothi

M/s Leela Enterprises Vs Smt.Kamar Sultana

T.Venkata Sandeep Kumar Reddy Vs Sri. R.Hanumantha Reddy

Chennapola Rangarao, Vs Dasari Kasi Viswanadha Veera Venkata Satyanarayana (Died).

United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Nagari Vs v.Arunachala Reddy