Partly allowed

Tejavath Lalu and Another v. Paladugu Venugoipala Rao and Another

Telangana HC16 Aug 2023MACMA/598/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenged the dismissal of a compensation claim. The High Court held that an owner traveling as an occupant in his own vehicle is covered under a comprehensive policy. It allowed the appeal in part, directing respondents to pay Rs. 2 lakhs with interest.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to deposit Rs. 2,00,000/- with interest @ 7.50% p.a. within two months. Petitioners permitted to withdraw amount in equal shares.

Tejavath Lalu and Another Vs Paladugu Venugoipala Rao and… — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶5

M.A.C.M.A.No.598 of 2011

¶6

Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 19gg against the order dated 10.02.2009 passed in M.V.O.P.No.186 of 2008 on rhe file of the Chairmary Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Khammam.

¶7

Between:

¶8

Tejavath talu, S/o Amar Singtu aged about 41 years, Occ:Agriculture. 2. Tejav_ath Sakku Bai, W/o Tejavath Lalu, aged aboul 39 years, Occ:Coolie.

¶9

Both are R/o Shankaragiri Thanda, Nelakondapally Mandal, Khammam District.

¶10

...Petitioners/Appellants

¶11

AND

¶12

P-ala+gu Venugoipala Rao, S/o Nageswar Rao, aged about48 years, Occ: Driver ofTrolleyAI!9-No.Ap 20 V 8397 R/o ehennaram Vi[age Nelakondapally Mandal, Khammam District.

¶13

National Insurance Company Limited, Rep.by its Branch Manager, Khammam.

¶14

...Respo ndents/ Respondents.

¶15

Counsel for the Appellants: Sri Kiran Reddy Mallarapu.

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: None appears. Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Sri Kota Subba Rao

¶17

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶18

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO M.A.C.M. A.No.59 8 of2O1l

¶19

JUDGMENT:

¶20

Aggrieved bv rhe order and decree dated 10.02.20O9 passcd ln M.V.O.P.No. lU6 of 2OO8 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims'l'ribunal-cum_District Judge, Khammam (for short "the Tribunal,,), the appellants preferred the present ap pr-'al

¶21

2- For co.r'eniencc, the parties hereinafter w r be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.

¶22

Brief facts of [he casc are as lbllows:_

¶23

On 0l C6.2004, one Tej avath Ravi (hereinaftcr referred to as'rhc dcccascdJ and the Ist respondent (paladugu Venugopala Rao). u,hc_, is the drivcr ol^.t'rolley Auto bearing No.Ap_2O_V8387 got engaged for the transportation of Tin Iron Asbestos Stree ts to unload at Kothagudem. When the said Auto reached near Pinaparka Srage, due to heavy pits on the road and the rash ain d negligent driving of the r"r respondenr_, ]e Auto was turned turtle on tl-re road. As a result of which, the owner of the /\uto r.c.. rhe dcceasL.cl fcll clou,n on thc ground, and the Auto fell orr his heacl and surstained grievous injuries, and the

¶24

RRN,J 1 M.A.C.M.A.No^{598 of 2011}

¶25

for Hospital,^Kharnmam' shifted^toCure deceased^u'as treatment,^thedeceased While^undergoing treatment. succumbed^{to injurieson [he same daYThe Police' WYra'} registered^{acase inCr'No'66 of2OO4 against the 1"t} respondent-driver^{of Auto bearing No'AP-20-V-8387for the} offence^{punishable under Section 304-A IPC' At the time of the} accident,^{the deceasedwas aged about 2O years' and he has} his own^{Auto and was doing businessapart frornagriculture} and^{used to earn Rs'1'20'0OO/- per annum' Due to the} sudden^{death of the deceased' the petitioners have lost their} source^{of income'Ttrerefore'the petitionersfiled the claim} petition^{seekingcompensationof Rs' 3'00'0OO/ -'}

¶26

ResPondent^{No'1frleda counter before the Tribunal} denying^{the allegations madein the claim petition'}

¶27

ResPondent^{No'2frleda counter before the Tribunal} denying^{all the allegationsmade in the claimpetition'} 5 On behalf^{of thepetitioners,PW' 1 wasexamined and} Exs.Al^{to A4 were marked'On behalf of therespondents,} RWs. t^{and 2were examinedand Exs.Bl and B-2 were} ma-rked.

¶28

¶29

¶30

RRN,J M. A. C.M.A. No.598 of 2011

¶31

After considering the oral and documentar5r evidence available on record, the Tribunal dismissed the O.p. Aggrieved thereby, the presenr appeal is filed by the petitioners.

¶32

7 Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the deceased was travelling in the Auto Trolley as the owner of the goods, and as such, the 2.d respondent is liable to pay compensation. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. The Tribunal erred in dismissing the M.V.O.p. Therefore, the appeal may be alrowed by settrng the order of the Tribunar and also award just compensation to the petitioners.

¶33

Leamed counsel for the 2,d respondent contended that the trolley auto cloes not permit any person to travel in the goods vehicle other than the driver. In support of his contention, the 2"d respondent examined its Assistant Branch Manager as RW. l. R. Narayana, Assistant Branch Manager, filed his a_ffidavit in lieu of his chief examination and stated that the [r company issued a policy to cover the vehicle for goods carrying commercial vehicle policy B package. As per B- Register, an exract issued by the Additional Licensing

¶34

RRN,J 4 M.A.C.M.A^{No.598of 2011}

¶35

Authority,^{the seating capacity of the Auto is one'The} deceased^{was the owner of the crime vehicle' and he was not a} third party.^{Admittedly, the case of the petitionersis that the} first respondent^{was the driver of the crime vehicle' and the} deceased^{was sitting by the side of the driver'Therefore'the} deceased^{does not come under the definition of owner-cum-} driver and^{the risk of the deceased is not covered' Therefore'} the Tribunal^{rightly concluded that the ownerhimselfhas} committed^{breach of contractand violated the terms and} conditions^{of the policy, and he died in the said accident' as} such, the^{petitioners are not entitled for any compensation'} Therefore,theTribunalwasjustifiedindismissingtheclaim petition

¶36

9 l,earned^{counsel for the 2'd respondent relied uponthe} judgment of the^{Hontrle Apex Court tn RAMKILADIVs'} UMTED^{I]\IDIAIMURANCE COMPAIVYTand contendedthat} the deceased,^{who is the owner of the crime vehicle' does not} come under^{the category of owner of goods'Therefore' the} claimants^{are not entitled to any compensation' as the}

¶37

'^{2o2o(z) sccsso}

¶38

¶39

RRN,J M. A. C. M. A. No.598 0f 2011

¶40

¶41

deceased himself has committed a breach of contract and violated the terms and conditions of the policy.

¶42

Le arned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are entitled for a compensation of a sum of Rs.2,OO,OOO/- on account of the death of the deceased. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment of the Honble Apex Court in ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE IITXSUREIVCE COMPANY LIMITED, SECUNDERABAD Vs. VEMAVARAM SUDHDER BABU AND OTHERS2, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows :-

¶43

ln this case, there is no dispute that owner had a valid driving licence and the driver was engaged to drive the car, while he was travelling in the car. Whether he was travelling as a co-driver or not is not evident from the material on record. But, if, he being capable of driving, travels in the car along with the driver, he would be capable of acting as a substitute driver. The terms used under Section iii are of wide connotation. ln our opinion, they do not exclude the owner, who is travelling in the car. Such interpretation meets the requirement of a beneficial enactment.

¶44

The Madras High Court in The National lnsurance Co. Ltd., vs. Krishnan in C.M A.No 30OG ot 2012 in M.p.No.1 of 2012 daled 15.03.20 13 observed that the counsel for the respondent therein, by placing reliance on catina of decisions,

¶45

2019 (2) ALD l4-r (DB)

¶46

6 RRN,J M.A.C.M-A.No.598^{of 2011}

¶47

submitted that the^{petition can be maintainable against the} insurer, as^{premium towardsthe personal accidentcoverage} policy, to cover the bodily^{iniuries or the deathof the theowner} cum driver^{and even assuming that he was not actuallydriving} the vehicle,^{which met with an accident' yet having agreed} under the^{Contract of lnsurance,to indemnifythe owner'the} lnsurance^{Companyisliable topay the compensation'} irrespective of^{the fact, as to whether the owner traveHedas an} occupant or^{driventhe vehicle. lt is the specificcontention of} the learned^{counselthat the lnsuranceCompany cannot} repudiate its^{liability to pay compensation, whenadditional} premium has been^{received, to cover the ownerof the vehicle} Same^is the^{contention of the claimant's counselbeforeus}

¶48

However, the^{substanceof all the judgments reliedupon} both by the^{claimant's counsel and the respondent'scounsel} seems to be^{that the insureris not obligated to coverthe risks} outside the^{requirements of Section147 of lhe Act policy'but} under a comprehensive^{packagepolicy'the insurer can contract} with the insured^{for wider coverage and the terms can be specified'} The ultimate exercise^{that falls upon us is to interpretthe terms of} the^{policy. Thepolicywould showthat it has covered the risk of the} the the car and^{that of} occupants of owner-cum-driver.^{By looking at the extent of coverage given} by the^policy, the^{intention of the insurercan be gathered'} The terms imply^{that the policywas taken with an intention to} give coverage to all the^{risksarisingout of the use of the} vehicle. ln^{such circumstances,giving a narrow interpretation} to the words^{"owner-cum-driver",to mean tl-le owner, onlywhtle} driving the car,^{would be againstthe spirit of the terms of policy'} Hence, we opine^{that the owner,who was travellingin the caras an} occupant is also^{covered by the terms of the policy'}

l r

RRN,J M.A.C. M.A. No.598 of 2011

¶53

¶54

¶55

But, however, the insurer was conscious in restricting the liability in respect of the owner_cum_driver, only to Rs.2 lakhs. Hence, the liability of the insurer cannot, in our opinion, go beyond Rs.2 lakhs. Hence, the claimants in MA CMA N}.4S2Z of 2008 would be entitled only upto Rs.2 lakhs

¶56

I I . karned counsel appearing for the petitioners further submits that the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation irrespective of the fact as to whether the owner travelled as a driver of the vehicle or not. Therefore, the learned counsel for the 2"a respondent cannot contend that the 2"d respondent is not tiable to pay any compensation.

¶57

12' This court, having considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and also the above judgment of this Court, without going into any of the aspects, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners are entitled to compensation of Rs.2,0O,OOO/_ under all heads and both the respondents are jointty and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.2,OO,OOO/_ to the petitioners.

¶58

\ \

¶59

Hence, the order dated. IO_2_2OO} passed ln M.V.O.P.No.I86 of 2OOg by the Tribunal is hereby set aside.

¶60

{,1 RRN,J M. A.C.M. A. No- 598 of²⁰¹¹

¶61

The petitioners^are entitled^{to cornpensationofRs'2,OO,O0O/-} (Rupees two lakhs only)^{rvith interest (t) 7 '5o/o p'a' from the} date of petition till^{the date of realization. The respondentsare} directed to deposit^{the said amount with costs and interest} within two months from^{the date of receiptof a copy of this} judgment. On such deposit, the^{petitioners are permitted to} withdraw the said^{amount in equal shares.}

¶62

The M.A.C.M.A is^{allowed in part. Thereshall be no}

¶63

order as to costs

¶64

As a sequel, miscellaneous^{petitions, if any are pending,}

¶65

shall stand closed.

¶66

IsD/- V.KAVITHA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

/ /TRUECOPY/ /

SECNON OFFICER

To,

The Chairmary Motor^{AccidentsClaimTribunal-cum-DistrictJudge,} Khammam.

¶71

One CC to Sri Kiran Reddy^{Mallarapu, Advocate} IOPUC] J. One CC to Sri Kota^{Subba Rao,Advocate} [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies ]CK r.l5 .s-

HIGH COURT

DATED:76/08/2023

ORDER+DECREE

:1BE s rt' 6
(
a 14 fiiil rl2{
-.r./
:;'

¶76

MACMA.No.598of 2071,

¶77

Partly allowing the M.A.C.M.A. wirhout cosrs

¶78

)-o

¶79

¶80

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANCANA AT HYDERABAD

¶81

WEDNESDAY, THE SXTEENTH DAY OF AUCUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶82

PRESENT

¶83

THE HONOURABLE SRI IUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAIESHWAR RAO

¶84

M.A.C.M.A.No.5% of 2011

¶85

Between:

¶86

Tejavath l-alu,S/ o Amar Singh, aged about 41 years, Occ:Agricu{ture. 2. Tejavath Sakku Bai, W/o Tejavath Lalu, aged about 39 years, Occ:Coolie.

¶87

Both are R/o Shankaragiri Thanda, Nelakondapally ManrCal, Khammam District.

¶88

...Petitioners/Appellants

¶89

AND

¶90

Paladugu Venugoipala Rao, S/o Nageswar Rao, aged about 48 years, Occ: Driver of Trolley Auto No.AP 20 V 8387 R/o Chennaram Village, Nelakondapally Mandal, Khammam District.

¶91

National Insurance Company Limited, Rep.by its Branch Manager, Khammam.

¶92

...Respondents/ Respondents.

¶93

Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the order dated 10.02.2009 passed in M.V.O.P.No.186 of 2008 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Khammam.

¶94

ORDER: This appeal coming on for trearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the case and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Kiran Reddy Mallarapu, for the Appellants and Sri Kota Subba Rao, Advocate for Respondent No.2 and of the Respondent No.1 not appearing in person or through his counsel.

¶95

This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

¶96

That this appeal be and hereby is partly allowed and are entitled to compensation of Rs. 2,00,000 / - with interest @ 7.5o/o p.a. from the date of petition till the date realization;

¶97

That the respondents are directed to deposit the said amount with costs and interest within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶98