Dismissed

Bontha Pullaiah v. G.Ghana murthy

Telangana HC30 Aug 2016CMA/2686/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal by the husband of a deceased passenger in a motor accident challenged the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal's award of Rs.50,000. The court dismissed the appeal, holding that prior Apex Court precedents establishing insurer liability for goods carriage passengers without comprehensive policies did not apply prospectively or in this context. Consequently, the Tribunal's dismissal was uphe

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed. No order as to costs against the appellant.

Bontha Pullaiah Vs G.Ghana murthy — Insurance | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO

¶2

C.M.A. No.2686 of 2004

¶3

JUDGMENT:

¶4

The claimant is the husband of deceased maintained the O.P. No.561 of 1994 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ongole, (for short ‘the Tribunal’) under Section 166 of M.V.Act (for short ‘the Act’) for a compensation of Rs.50,000/- for the death of his wife in a motor accident dated 24.05.1994, against the owner and insurer of lorry bearing No.AP 03 T 9468. The Tribunal, on contest, granted Rs.50,000/-as compensation with interest at 12% per annum against 1^st respondent. It is impugning the quantum and fixing liability against respondent No.1 alone instead of joint liability against respondent Nos.1 and 2, the claimant—appellant maintained the present appeal.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for appellant/ claimant and learned standing counsel for insurer. Even notice served on 1^st respondent failed to attend, hence taken as heard. Perused the material on record.

¶6

The very claim petition averments show that the deceased,

¶7

wife of claimant, traveled as a fare paid passenger in the goods carriage of the accident dated 24.05.1994. The three judge bench expression of the Apex Court in New India Assurance Company Limited vs Asha

¶8

Rani¹ reiterated in Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs Devireddy Konda Reddy² and again the same is reiterated in National

¶9

Insurance Company Limited vs Ajit Kumar³ on the ground that unless there is a comprehensive policy covering specifically the risk of the passengers of the goods carriage, the insurer cannot be made liable.

¶10

1 (2003) 2 SCC 223

¶11

2 (2002) 2 SCC 339

¶12

3 (2003) 9 SCC 668

¶13

¶14

Dr.SSRB, J CMA_2686_2004

¶15

The policy in question is not a comprehensive policy specifically covering the risk of passengers. No doubt, the said expression placed reliance upon the three judge bench expression of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs Baljit Kaur⁴ , in fact, what the three judge bench expression in Baljit Kaur (supra) explained is whether from the policy claimants allowed in fastening the liability on the insurer following the earlier expression of the Apex Court

¶16

in New India Assurance Company Limited vs Satpal Singh⁵ . Since the principle laid down in Asha Rani (supra) is to be given prospective operation to the claimants, disposed of basing on the Satpal Singh (supra), the joint liability converted as pay and recovery, for the insurer to pay and recover from the owner of the vehicle/ insured. From the principle laid down have no application to the present facts as the Tribunal itself dismissed the claim, thereby for this Court while sitting in appeal from any of the expressions, there is nothing to interfere as the subsequent expression of the Apex Court reiterating what is laid down in the expressions till date.

¶17