Dismissed

Cheyyeti Babu Rao v. D. Pandavulu

Telangana HC4 Oct 2017MACMA/258/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an appeal against an award of compensation for a motor accident victim. The Court upheld the Tribunal's finding that the vehicle, originally insured as a goods vehicle, was later converted to carry passengers without renewing the insurance policy. Consequently, the insurer was held not liable, and the driver and owner were ordered to pay.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed, confirming the Tribunal's order that the driver and owner pay Rs.38,500 with interest, excluding the insurer.

Cheyyeti Babu Rao Vs D. Pandavulu — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Telangana HC (2017)

¶1

HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER

¶2

M.A.C.M.A. No.258 OF 2006

¶3

JUDGMENT :

¶4

This Appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the Act’), is filed by the appellant, who is the petitioner in M.V.O.P. No.690 of 2000, laid under Section 166 of the Act read with Rule 455 of A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge East Godavari at Rajahmundry (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), aggrieved by the order dated 30.10.2004, whereby the Tribunal while granting compensation of Rs.38,500/-, against the original claim of Rs.1,00,000/-, for the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident occurred on 11.07.2000, directed that the respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the same with interest at the rate of 7% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit and dismissed the claim against the 3^rd respondent.

¶5

Appellant herein is the petitioner; 1^st respondent herein is the driver, 2^nd respondent herein is the owner, and the 3^rd respondent herein is the insurer of Matador van bearing registration No.TN 37 H 3132 (For short, ‘the crime vehicle’).

¶6

Heard Sri N.Vijay, learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner, Sri K.Ashok Rama Rao, learned standing counsel for the 3^rd respondentinsurer and perused the record. Respondents 1 and 2 are not necessary parties.

¶7

The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that on 11.07.2000, at about 09-00 p.m., when the petitioner, who was working in B.S.N.L., along with other employees was returning in the crime vehicle to Kakinada, the crime vehicle, being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed

¶8

Dr.SA, J MACMA No.258/2006

¶9

¶10

a stationed lorry near Super Gas factory on ADB Road near Peddapuram and turned turtle resulting in severe injuries to the petitioner and two others including death to one of their colleagues. Thereafter, a case in Crime No.109 of 2000 for the offences under Sections 304-A and 337 I.P.C. was registered against the 1^st respondent by the S.H.O. Peddapuram Police Station. The petitioner sustained severe injuries and underwent treatment as inpatient in Government Hospital, Kakinada, his left leg and left hand got fractured, also sustained a head injury and underwent surgeries twice, incurred an amount of Rs.30,000/- towards medical expenses. The accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of crime vehicle, filed the petition against the respondent Nos.1 to 3, being the driver, owner and insurer of the crime vehicle, seeking compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-.

¶11

Respondent Nos.1 and 2, driver and owner of the crime vehicle, remained ex parte before the Tribunal.

¶12

Respondent No.3, insurer of the crime vehicle, filed counter and additional counter denying material allegations of the petition inter-alia contending that manner of the accident, age, occupation and earnings of the petitioner, sustaining injuries, undergoing treatment as inpatient and incurring medical expenditure be put to strict proof of the same. It was further contended in the additional counter that the crime vehicle is only a goods vehicle got insured with their Branch Office at Chennai covering the risk of third parties for the period from 03.08.1999 to 02.08.2000 and subsequently the 2^nd respondent-owner changed the permit to carry 5 passengers in the vehicle without putting on information the 3^rd respondent. So, the 3^rd respondent is not liable to indemnify the 2^nd respondent as there was no contract of insurance between 2^nd respondent

¶13

Dr.SA, J MACMA No.258/2006

¶14

¶15

and 3^rd respondent and contended that the compensation claimed is excessive and exorbitant, sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶16

The Tribunal, after framing issues and, considering the evidence of P.W.1, R.Ws.1 to 4 and the documents Exs.A.1 to A.4, Exs.B.1, B.2 and Exs.X.1 to X-9, awarded the compensation of Rs.38,500/- ( i.e., Rs.500/towards transportation, Rs.1,000/- towards extra nourishment, Rs.2,000/towards medical expenses and an amount of Rs.35,000/- towards pain and suffering and discomfort) directed that the respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the same with interest at the rate of 7% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit, dismissed the claim against the 3^rd respondent.

¶17

Learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner would submit that the Tribunal failed to see that the crime vehicle involved in the accident is not a goods vehicle it is a passenger’s vehicle. The principle that a gratuitous passenger travelling in the goods vehicle is not entitled to compensation from the insurer cannot be applied to the facts of the case on hand. There is no dispute from the 3^rd respondent-insurer that the crime vehicle is not a passenger’s vehicle and it is only a goods vehicle. The Tribunal failed to see the purport of ‘ any passenger ’ used in Section 147 of the Act, which includes a passenger travelling in any vehicle. The Tribunal failed to observe that the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Asha Rani and others¹ has no application to the case on hand. The crime vehicle involved in the accident is a Matador van i.e., a passengers vehicle but not a goods vehicle. The Tribunal failed to see that the Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation and ought to have fastened the liability against the 3^rd respondent-insurer also. The main submission of the learned counsel for the appellant-

¶18

1 2003 (2) SCC 223

¶19

Dr.SA, J MACMA No.258/2006

¶20

¶21

petitioner is that the 3^rd respondent-insurer is also liable to pay compensation to the petitioner.

¶22

On the other hand, learned standing counsel for the 3^rd respondentinsurer would contend that though there is subsistence of a valid insurance policy, it relates to goods vehicle. Earlier the crime vehicle was a goods vehicle and the same was converted into a utility van. To cover the risk of passengers travelling by the crime vehicle, no insurance policy was obtained by the 2^nd respondent-owner after conversion. The insurance policy of crime vehicle is only an act policy covering the goods vehicle. The Tribunal has analyzed the entire evidence on record relying on number of decisions and rightly concluded that the respondents 1 and 2, driver and owner of the crime vehicle, are liable to pay compensation to the petitioner and rightly dismissed the claim against the 3^rd respondentinsurer.

¶23

The evidence of R.W.2 reveals that originally the crime vehicle was registered as a light motor goods vehicle. On 17.05.2000, the registration of the crime vehicle was changed from light motor goods vehicle to motor utility van to carry 5 persons. Ex.X-1 – copy of permit extract and Ex.X-2 - copy of C-book extract reveals the same. Therefore, it is clear from the evidence on record that initially the crime vehicle was a goods vehicle. On 17.05.2000, it was converted to utility van permitting to carry 5 persons. Ex.B-1 is the copy of insurance policy of the crime vehicle wherein it is mentioned that the crime vehicle is a goods vehicle; premium was paid to cover the liability of public i.e., to cover the risk of third parties.

¶24

The evidence of R.W.1, Assistant Administrative Officer, working in 3^rd respondent-insurer office, Rajahmundry, reveals the terms and conditions of the policy of the crime vehicle. As per which, the crime

¶25

Dr.SA, J MACMA No.258/2006

¶26

¶27

vehicle is a goods vehicle; there is no mention of change of insurance covering the risk of passengers travelling by the crime vehicle. Respondent No.2 having purchased the crime vehicle brought it to Rajahmundry got changed the permit from goods vehicle to utility van to carry 5 persons. Respondent Nos.1 and 2, driver and owner of the crime vehicle, failed to inform the conversion of crime vehicle from goods vehicle to utility van and 2^nd respondent has not even paid any premium covering the risk of persons travelling by the crime vehicle. The 2^nd respondent only entered into a contract of agreement with B.S.N.L. to provide the crime vehicle for use of its employees on certain terms and conditions. B.S.N.L. is not made a party to the petition before the Tribunal.

¶28

The Tribunal while relying on number of decisions, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, held that the crime vehicle belonging to 2^nd respondent is validly insured with the 3^rd respondent-insurer only as a goods vehicle. Respondent No.2 changed the use of crime vehicle from goods vehicle to utility van to carry 5 persons but he has not intimated the same to the 3^rd respondent-insurer and obtained fresh policy of insurance to cover the risk of passengers, being carried thereby. Ex.B-1 policy of insurance does not cover the risk of employees travelling in the crime vehicle. There is no contract of insurance between respondent Nos.2 and 3 to indemnify the respondent No.2 in case of any accident etc., by 3^rd respondent. For absence of any contract of insurance between respondent Nos.2 and 3, 3^rd respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner, as insurer, and respondent Nos.1 and 2, being driver and owner of the crime vehicle, are alone jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. Admittedly, there is no policy of insurance covering the risk of passengers travelling by the crime vehicle, as on the date of accident. The concerned personnel of B.S.N.L.

¶29

Dr.SA, J MACMA No.258/2006

¶30

¶31

who entered into a contract of agreement with the 2^nd respondent failed to very the records before hiring the crime vehicle for use of their employees. There are laches on their part also in not providing a vehicle having insurance to carry their employees. The persons who are travelling by the crime vehicle met with the accident are not gratuitous passengers. The facts of the case on hand are distinct from facts of the case in Asha Rani (1 supra). In the facts and circumstances of the case, as there is no contract of insurance between 2^nd respondent-owner and 3^rd respondentinsurer to cover the risk of passengers travelling by the crime vehicle, no liability can be fastened against the 3^rd respondent-insurer. The Tribunal has assigned valid reasons relying on number of decisions and rightly directed that the 1^st and 2^nd respondents are alone jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. There is no infirmity in the impugned order and there is nothing to take a different view and tag the liability against the 3^rd respondent-insurer. Hence, the Appeal is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.

¶32

In the result, the Appeal is dismissed confirming the order dated 30.10.2004 passed in M.V.O.P. No.690 of 2000 by the Tribunal.

¶33

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶34

_____________________________ Dr. SHAMEEM AKTHER, J Date: 04.10.2017. Dsh

¶35

Dr.SA, J MACMA No.258/2006

¶36

¶37

HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER

¶38

¶39

04102017

¶40

M.A.C.M.A. No.258 OF 2006

¶41

Date.04.10.2017

¶42

DSH

Cheyyeti Babu Rao v. D. Pandavulu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Cheyyeti Babu Rao v. D. Pandavulu

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

P.Sridhar Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Deepthi Mahanthi Vamshi Abhinav Vs The State of A.P

Garimella Prabhakar Vs The State of A.P

National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Nagisetty Ashalatha

Uppe Nageswara Rao Vs D. Pandavulu

National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Goturi Dasu