Partly allowed

Br Mngr.,Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,Hyd v. Ghanpur Rajamani , Rajibai and Anr.

Telangana HC27 Jul 2023MACMA/413/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenged an order denying insurance coverage for a gratuitous passenger injured in a goods vehicle. The High Court held that under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the insurance company is not liable, and the vehicle owner must pay the compensation.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed. Insurance company not liable; vehicle owner liable to pay compensation. Amount paid by claimant recovered from owner.

Br Mngr.,Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,Hyd Vs Ghanpur Rajamani… — Insurance | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³²¹⁶ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.LAXMAN

¶6

MOTOR ACCIDEN T CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 413 0F 2010

¶7

Appeal filed Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the order and decree in o.P.No.77 of 1994 dated 1701.2000 on the fib;f {he court Ltli,. chairman Motor Accident craims Tribunar-cum- District Judge, Nizamabad_^-'

¶8

Between:

¶9

The oriental lnsurance co Ltd. Through its Branch Manager, #3-68, Baranagar [/ain Road, Hyderabad.

¶10

...AppellanURespondent No.2

¶11

AND

¶12

1 thglpg^{Rajamani, @ Rajibai Wo Maruthi Occ:agriculture} Labour, R/o Pedda Takkadpally (V) Nizamabad

¶13

2 B. Kumar, Occ: Owner of Lorry bearing No. ATT 36.t0 Rlo 12-54, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad.

¶14

...Respondents/petitioner

¶15

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2000(cM P. NO: 12820 oF 2000)

¶16

Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support.of the petition, it,.-Higt court may be preased t" j*rt stay of all further proceedings including the exEcution of the decree and Jrder passed in oP.No.77l94 dated 17.01 .20o0 on the file of the naACT-cum- Distritt Judge, Nizamabad, pending disposal of the above MACMA.

¶17

Counsel for the Appeilant : Sri K ASHOK RAMARAO

¶18

Counsel for the Respondents : NONE APPEARED

¶19

The Court delivered the following

¶20

: JUDGMENT

¶21

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M. LAXMAN

¶22

M.A.C.M.A No.413 of 2olo

¶23

JUDGMENT:

¶24

This is an appeaL fiLed by the lnsurance Comparry aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 17.01 .2000 passed in O.P.No.77 of 1994 by the Chairman, Motor accident Ctaims Tribuna[ (District Judge) at Nizamabad (for short, ,rhe Tribunat').

¶25

The main grievance of the appettant _ lnsurance Company is that the injured who is the ctaimant it-l thepresent appea[ was travelting in a torry bearing No.ATT 3610 as a gratuitous passenger, as such the poti<:y is riot covered to the gratuitous passenger who travetled irr the lorry.

¶26

Learned counsel for the appettant lnsurance Company retied on the judgnrent of this Court in CMA No.1g8 of 200j dated 1 1.06.2007 which is atso arising out of the same accident with the same vehicte.

¶27

There is no representation on behatf of the respondents.

¶28

I^I

¶29

Mt,t MACMA NO.4l3 2010

¶30

¶31

As seen from Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the requirement of poticy and timits of Liabil.ity are confined to any passenger of transport vehicle except gratuitous passenger of goods vehicte.

¶32

ln the present case, the police record shows that the injured was travelting in a goods vehicle as a gratuitous passenger. Therefore, the insurance company is not liabte to pay the compensation and it is the owner who liable to pay the compensation. However, the amount atready deposited and withdrawn by the ctaimant shatl not be recovered from her, instead the insurance company shatI recover such amount from the owner of the vehicte. The balance amount is tiabte to pay by the owner of the vehicte not by the insurance company.

¶33

With the above observations, the MACMA is disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶34

Miscetlaneous applications, pending if any, sha[[ stand closed.

¶35

SD/-G. SIREESHA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶36

//TRUE COPY//

¶37

SECTION OFFICER

¶38

To, 1. The Chairman^{Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-} District Judge, Nizamabad.(With^{Records, if anY)}

¶39

1. One CC to SRl.^{K ASHOKRAMARAOAdvocate} [OPUC] 3. TwoCD Copies ._>,/

¶40

HIGH COURT

¶41

DATED:2710712023

¶42

<br>o .l i:
(,,
? B r[i
-t.
* a€Eoorcn,t

JUDGMENT

MACMA.No.413 ot 2010

DISPOSING THE MACMA

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶48

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWo THoUSAND AND rwer,rrv iHnii ""-'

¶49

PRESENT

¶50

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.LAXMAN

¶51

MOTOR ACCIDE NT CIVIL MISCE LLANE OUS APP EAL NO: 413 OF 2010

¶52

Between:

¶53

il:fil"f,t:lj;:x*r""^{co Ltd rhroushits Branch Manaser, #3-68,Baranagar} Main

¶54

...Appe lla nURes pondent No.2

¶55

AND

¶56

th?lpyl Rajamani, @ Rajibai W/o Maruthi Occ agriculture Labour, R/o _^{Pedda 1-akkadpaily} @Nizamabad 2. ts. Kumar, Occ: Ownr ATT 3610 Rto 12_54,

¶57

Basheerbagh, Hyoeraoajl^{of Lorry bearing No'}

¶58

...Respondents/petitioner

¶59

Appear fired Under se^ction 173 0f Motor Vehicres Act agarnst the order and decree in o'p'No.77 of '1994 ort"J iz.or-)'600"'", tn" fire of the court of the Chairman Motor Accident Ctalms fri6unai_"-rrJlti"t J udge, Nizamabad.

¶60

ORDER: This appeal "or,Ig -o" for .hearjng and upon perus jng tre grounds of appeat, the Judgment and Decree of the Loiei CoJi ,no tn. material papers in the case and upon hearino.the argrruni. oi' sririilnox RAMA RAo, Advocare for the Appellant and of rvdr.re np"pEnneo, no"r.Jr,!i"r the Respondents.

¶61

This Court doth order and Decree as follows

¶62

'1. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is disposed;'

¶63

2 That the lnsurance Company be and hereby is not liable to pay the

¶64

compensation aM Owner of the vehicle liable to pay the compensation;

¶65

J That the amount arready deposited and witMrawn by the craimant shail not recovered from her, instead the lnsurance company sha{l recover such anrcunt from the owner of the vehicle;

¶66

That the balance amount be and hereby is liable to^{pay by the ownerof the} vehicle not by the insurance company; and

¶67

That there be no order as to costs in this appeal.

¶68

SD/G. SIREESHA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶69

//TRUE COPY//

¶70

SECTION OFFICER

¶71

To, 1. The Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- District Judge, N izamabad.

¶72

Two CD Copies

¶73

SP \ \j*--

HIGH COURT

DATED:271OT12023

DECREE

MACMA.N o.413 of 201O

¶78

DISPOSING THE MACMA

Br Mngr.,Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,Hyd v. Ghanpur Rajamani , Rajibai and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Br Mngr.,Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,Hyd v. Ghanpur Rajamani , Rajibai and Anr.

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

Thota Laxman Vs The State of Telangana

Nekkella Ramesh Vs The State of Telangana

Joga Bhavani Vs The State of Telangana

United India Insurance Company Limited, Hyderabad. Vs Gottemukkala Rajavva , Rajamma and 7 Others

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Y.Venkateswarulu and 2 Ors.

Menugu Balaiah Vs Smt. v. Neeraja