This High Court dismissed the appeal filed by an insurance company. The court held that the death of the original vehicle owner did not terminate the insurance policy as premiums were paid and the liability continued until the policy expiry.
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 590 of 2014 dismissed without costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
I
[3258 I
I I
IN THE HIGH COURTFORTHE STATEOF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THURSDAY,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEI\iIBER TWO THOUSAND ANDTWENTY TWO
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICESAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU
c.M.A. NO: 590 OF 2014
Appeal under Section 30 of Workmen'sCompensationAct, 1923,againstthe Order dated 0410312014 in W.C.No.S of2011 passed by the Commissioner for Employees Compensation and AssistantCommissioner of Labour, Nalgonda.
Between:
M/s. Shriram General lnsurance Company Ltd., Rep. by itsLegal Manager,Branch Office 3-6-5'17, lV Floor Sai Datha Arcade Flat No.401 to403 6"'street, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad.
...APPELLANT/ OPPOSITE PARTY NO.2 ....Petitioner (Appellant in CMA 590 of 2014 on the file of High Court)
AND
...RESPONDENTS/OPPOSITE PARTY NO.1
For th9 Appellant : SRI SOMA HARINATH REDDY, Advocate
For the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : SMT S.ANNAPURNA, Advocate
For the Respondent No.3 : NONE APPEARED
The Court delivered the following : JUDGMENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.59O OF 2O1 4
ORDER:
Aggrieved by the order dated 04.03.2014 rn W.C.No"S of 2011 the 2"a opposite party therein preferred this appeal on the grounC that Tribunal failed to see that onus rest on the claimant to plead and establish the Master and Servalt relationship. where as in the instant case the claimants could not substaltiate the same. The Tribunal has passed the impugned order without appreciating the evidence on record.
2 " The Tribunal has failed to appreciate that the registered owner who obtarned policy/Ex.Bl from the 2"a opposite party died as such, the- insurance contract between the orrmer of the vehicle and insurance company terminated. In this case the claimants impleaded the wife of B. Saidulu as the legal representative of owner of the vehicle.
.-
2
ssRlY J c.M.A.No.s9o of 2074
respondents/applicants have claimed that the deceased was workingas driver on the vehicle orvned by lst opposite party and on13.04.2O70 he was on duty and drove the car from Nalgondato Hyderabad. They have also averred in the application that on their way about l:45 arn on l4.O4.2OlO,the driver of the opposite vehicle DCM van bearingNo. AP 29U 8442 drove the vehicle in high speed, in rash aldnegligent matter and dashed TATA Indica car which was driven by the deceased, resulting his death. Therefore, the respondents/ applicalts sought for an arnount ofRs.6,OO,OO0/- as compensation together with interest.
3
ssfr9, J C.M.A.No.s9O oJ 20t4
conrestlng re spondent. But a copy of insurance policy was rna-rked as Ex. B i "
"in order to determine the ertent of liabilitg of insurer terms of insurance contract haue to be stictlg ccnstrued uithout uenturing into extra liberalism that might result tn rewriting of th.e contract or substituting the terms which were not intended bg tte parties',.
t (2oo9) 5 SCC 599
4
ssRx J c.M.A.No.59o o! 2014
ofthevehicle.However,inviewofdeathoftheoriginal policy holder, thecontractbetwecninsurer and insured is terminatedand thereby iusurance company is not required to pay arrycompensation.But this Court isnot in agreement withthe said argument' There is no dispute about thepaymentof premiumfor the entire one year and there is no disputeabout the existence of the policyas on the date of accident.Since the policywas transferredin the name of hiswife and as the insuralcecompanyalready collected thepremium,it cannot be said that the policy was terminated.The learned Commissioner,while deciding the claim hasconsidered this agreement and held that the applicant hereincannot avoidthe liability on the ground that the originalowner died on the ground that the liability to indemnify the insuredcontinues till the expiry of the period of the policy. Thecontract as per the policyis to indemnify the insuredwhoever it may be' The death of original ownerwill not terminatethe said liability' Therefore, in viewof the facts and circumnutates'the appeal is liableto be dismissed.
5 SSRN. J c.M.A.No.59Oof20 l4
i ,\
!I
r : t !i i l I I i
9 In theresult, the appcal is dismissed withoutcosts 10.As a sequel,PendingMiscellaneous APPlications'if anY,shall stand closed' Ed/-K.SRINIVASARAO -- JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUECOPY// SECTIONOFFICER andAssistant Commissioner To 1 toPUCl 2 3 4 i';Tgg$tr,ltitr[*"*i,"#ffi; Kj -\V
HIGH COURT
DATED:.1510912022
i ;e O,^l
'ir 19 $ls Nt
).
.: ..'
ORDER
CMA.No.590 ot2014
DISMISSING CMA WITHOUT COSTS
'D *
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the death of the original policy holder terminates the insurance contract despite pending claim and premium payment.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Vikram Greentech India LimitedReferred¶39
Vikram Greentech India Limited and another vs. New India Assurance Company Limited
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M/s. Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd.
1. Gopagani Bixam
2. Gopagani Dhanamma
3. Bachalakuri Saidulu (Rep. by Smt Bachalakuri Renuka)
SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
