Partly allowed

The United India Insurance Company Limited, Khammam v. Pale Ramesh and Another

Telangana HC28 Aug 2023MACMA/802/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court partly allowed an appeal by an insurance company challenging a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal order. The Court held the insurer liable to pay the awarded compensation despite the victim being a gratuitous passenger, exercising its equitable powers under the Motor Vehicles Act to pay first and recover from the insured owner.

What did the court decide?

Insurance company directed to pay Rs. 48,216/- with interest and costs; permitted to recover amount from tractor owner.

The United India Insurance Company Limited, Khammam Vs Pale… — Insurance | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

[³³⁰⁴ I

¶3

I I i I I I I Il I I I I I .

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR^{THE STATE} OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶5

MONDAY ,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR^RAO

¶8

M.A.C.M.A. NO: 802 OF 2011

¶9

Appeal Under SectionlT3 of Motor Vehicles Act against the order and decree in M A T.O.P.No.271 ot 2009 dated 03.03.2010 on the file of the Court of lhe Chairman L4otor Accident Claims Tribunal -cum-ll Additional^{Districtjudge (FTC),} Khammam

¶10

Between:

¶11

The United lndra lnsurance Company Limited, Governorpet, Vijayawada-2. Rep.by rts Local Branch Manager, Wyra Road, Khammam Town,^Khammam District . ...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT No. 2

¶12

AND

¶13

1 . Pale Ramesh, S/o Sarvaiah, aged 30^years, Occ: Coolie, R/o Ramnarsaiahnagar, Konijerla Mandal, Khammam District.

¶14

...RESPONDENT/CLAIM PETITIONER

¶15

B.Nagireddy, S/o Madhusudhan Reddy, age^: 50^{years, Occ:Owner} of Tractor No. AP 24 H 3363 Rl/o H.No-2-85, Kothapahad,^{Atmakur, Nalgonda} District - 508101 .

¶16

...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT Nol

¶17

MACMAMP. NO:4306 OF 2010

¶18

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances^stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court^{maybe pleased} grant stay of all further proceedings including execution of the decree passed in OP NO. 271 of 2009, dt. 03-03-2010, on the file of MACT cum^{ll Addl.District} Judge (FTC), Khammam.

¶19

MACMAMP. NO:743 oF 2011

¶20

Pale Ramesh, S/o Sarvaiah, aged 30^{years,Occ:Coolie, R/o} Ramnarsaiahnagar, Koniierla Mandal,^{Khammam District.}

¶21

...PETITIONER/^{1 ST} RESPONDENT

¶22

AND

¶23

The United India lnsurance Company Limited, Governorpet,^{Vijayawada-2.} Rep.by its Local Branch ll4anager, Wyra Road, Khammam Town, Khammam District ...RESPONDENT/ PETITIONER

¶24

B Nagireddy, S/o lr,4adhusudhan Reddy, age: 50^years, Occ: Owner of Tractor No. AP 24 H 3363 R/o H.No.2-85, Kothapahad, Atmakur, Nalgonda District - 50810'l.

¶25

...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT

¶26

(Respondent No. 2 is not necessary party to this petition)

¶27

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim stay granted in MACMAMP.NO. 4306 of 2010 in MACIvlA.SR.No. 36594 of 2010 dt. 08/10/2010.

¶28

Counsel for the Appellant : SRl. A S. BHAVANI SHANKER

¶29

Counsel for the Respondent No. 1: SRI KADARU PRABHAKAR RAO

¶30

The Court made the following:

¶31

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU^{RAJESTIWARRAO}

¶32

M.A.C.M.A No.8O2 of 2011

¶33

JUDGMENT:

¶34

This M.A.C.M.A is frled by the appellalt/Insurance Company aggrieved by the Order and decree dt.03.03.2010 in M.A.T.O.P No.271 of 2OO9 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- II Additional District Judge(FTC), Khammam (for short, 'the Tribunal').

¶35

For convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.

¶36

Brief facts of the case are that on 16.05.2O07, at noon, while the petitioner and other coolies were^proceeding on a Tractor and Trailer bearing registration No.AP 24H 3363 & 3364 as coolies for unloading of cow dung, after^reachinga near boring wel1, the driver of the Tractor^{drovethe Tractor in a} rash arrd negligent manner, due to which the^{petitioner fell} down from the Tractor and back tire^{of the Tractor ran over the} petitioner. As a result, the petitioner^{fell down and sustained} fracture and crush injuries on the^{spine and right shoulder,}

¶37

¶38

I NI i(^{!r\ \o sol oa:} '(R<sup>li

¶39

fracture injurv^{on the right hip bone, injurv on the Naxillo} region, injurl'^{on the right clbovr, inj ur-v- the on right arrn and} multiple injurics^{ail over the body'The PoliceKonijerla had} registered^{a case in Cr.No.42of 2OO7 underSection 338 of IPC} against the^{driverof thc Tractor and Trailerbearing rc'gistration} No.AP24H3363and3364.Hence,theclaim1letitionis seeking compe^{nsation of Rs'2,0O,O00/-'}

¶40

4 Beforc tl-re^{Tribunal,respondent No' 1 was set ex parte} Respondent^{No.2 filcd a counter-denyingthe allegationsmade} in the claim Pctitiou

¶41

To prove his^{case, the petitionerexaminedPWs' 1 to 3} and got marked^{Exs.A1 to 46' On behalf of respondent No 2'} RW. 1 was^{examined and got markedEx'B1 copy ofthe} Insurance PolicY.

¶42

On considering^{the oral and documentarJ' evidence} availableonrecord,theTribunalawardedcompensationof Rs.48,216/-^{with interest @ 7 'sohper annum to the petitioner'} payable by the^{respondentsAggrieved by the same' the} present appeal^{is filed byrespondent No 2 / Insurance} Company.

¶43

RR\ ] ll( \l \ \i sol ol li ll

¶44

¶45

Heard both sides and perused the record

¶46

B. Learned counsel for respondent No.2/lnsurance Company submitted that the Tribunal erred in making the respondent No.2/Insurance Company liable to pay the compensation as the injured was travelling as a Coolie in tractor and trailer and the risk of coolie is not covered under the terms and conditions of the policy vide exhibit B.1 and Tribunal erred in appreciating EX.Bl and its terms and conditions which reveal that no additional premium was collected to cover the risk of the coolies and the Tribunal ought to have appreciated the evidence of R.W. I who deposed that the risk of the coolies is not covered under the policy. He further submitted that the owners have to pay additional premiums for insurance to the coolies or other passengers Accordingly, prayed to allow the appeal.

¶47

Per contra, learned counsel for petitioner had contended that the order of the Tribunal suffered no infirmity and, prayed to dismiss the appeal.

¶48

Learned counsel for the respondent No.2/Insurance Company relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme

¶49

¶50

RR,] 11 ( \l \ \o 8{)2 0lllltl

¶51

¶52

Court in United India Insurance Co,Ltd., us Tilak Singh and Orst. In the said .;udgment, the Hon,ble Supreme Cour[ discussed one case Dr.T.V.Jose V. Chacko p.M. Alias Thankachan and others.,2 and stated as folloq,s:

¶53

"...had an occasion to surueg the laut with re:gard to the liability of insurance compantes in respect of gratuitous passengers. After refernng to a number of decisions of this Court the learned Judqe obseruc_d (uide para 20),' the laut on this subject is clear, a third_-partg policy d.oes not couer liability to gratuitous pa.ssengers u,lto are not carrted

¶54

for^{hire or reutard." The} insurer compdnA utcls helci not liable to reintburse the appellant" .

¶55

1 1 . He further relied upon the judgment in Manuara

¶56

Khatun and. Ors us Rejesh Kr. Sitrgh and. arss and the

¶57

relevant portion reads as foliou,s:

¶58

" ...This question aLso feLL for consideration recentlg in Manager, Nationai Insurance Compang Limited us. Saju P.Paul & Anr., (supra) uh,erein this Court took note of entire preuious cose la u.t on the subject mentioneri aboue and examined the question in tlrc context of Section 147 of the Act. While allou-ting the appeal filed bg the Insurance Company bg reuersing the judgment of the High Court, it u.tas held on facts that since the uictim uas trauelling in offending uehicle as 'gratuitous passenger, and hence, the Insurance Compang cannot be held liabte to suffer the liabilitg aising out of accident on the strength of the insurance policy. Hou_teuer, tltis Court

¶59

'^{I Lews(sc)-2006-4+rr}

¶60

(r998) I SCC 744

¶61

'^{Laws1sc.1-zor :--:-+t}

¶62

RRN.I Irr(^\l \ <sup>,:rl u i l(rl

¶63

¶64

( (

¶65

keeping in uieut the beneuolent object of the Act and other rele uant factors arising in the case, isszed the directions against the Insurance Compang to pag the awarded sum to the cloimants and then to recouer the said sum from the insured in the same proceedings bg applying tLrc pinciple o_f "paA and recouer".

¶66

i3. Learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in National Insurance Co.Ltd vs. Prembai Patel and othersa stated as lollows:

¶67

¶68

"The record shou.rs that no stag order was passed in fa.uour^{of the appelLant.In case the appellantInsuronce} Compang has deposited the entire amount anlarded bg the Htgh Court with Motor Accidents Claims Tibunel or has paid the said crnount to the claimants, it will be open to it to recouer the amoun\ uhich exceeds its liabilitg under th-e Workmen's Act, from the ou.tner of the uehicle in accordance uith latu".

¶69

In view of the above, this Court is modifying the order that the petition is partiy allowed with proportionate costs against respondent No.l and respondent No.2 by awarding compensation of Rs.48,216 (Rupees Forty-Eight Thousand two hundred and Sixteen only) rvith costs and interest at 7 .5o/o from the date of petition till the date of realisation.

¶70

'^{(2oos) 6 ssc (r72)}

¶71

\ r',.|: ItliN.l \l ( \r\ \o rilll d! lr)ll^rc

¶72

¶73

¶74

Respondents No.1 and 2 are dirccted to deposit the above-said amount along \vith interest and costs u-ithin tu o rlonths from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Thc petitioner is permitted to u'ithdraw the entire amollnt upon such deposit. The Insurance Companies are at libert_r, to recover Lhe amount from the l"t respondent/ owner oi the vchicle in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶75

As a sequel ol w'hich, miscellaneous petitiorrs, ii any

¶76

pending, shall stand closeci.

¶77

Sd/- MOHD. SANAULLAH ANSARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// r SECTION OFFICER

¶78

¶79

To,t. The Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -cum-ll Additional District^{judge(FTC), Khammam. (With records)}

¶80

One CC to SRl. A.^{S. BHAVANI SHANKER, Advocate [OPUC]} 3. One CC to SRl.^{KADARUPRABHAKAR RAO,Advocate [OPUC]} 4. Two CD Copies

¶81

"4.-

HIGH COURT

RRN,J

DATED:2810812023

-/aL ; 5 :'Ai1- i
.,/'- .,r.1
/t't,,' .:
I
[,, ?.0 ti:i ';'t'1
,t,r,
'r',',

¶86

JUDGMENT

¶87

MACMA.No.802 of 2011

¶88

PARTLY ALLOWINC^'fHE M.A,C.M,A

¶89

MD-
"v)
\o
\1

¶90

[³³⁰⁴ ]

¶91

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶92

MONDAY ,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶93

PRESENT

¶94

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶95

M.A.C.M.A. NO: 802 0F 2011

¶96

Appeal Under sectionlT3 of Molor Vehicres Act against the order and decree in M.A.T.O.P.No.271 ot 2009 dated 03.03.20.10 on the fite of the Court of the chairman Motor Accident claims Tribunal -{um-ll Additional District judge (FTC), Khammam.

¶97

Between:

¶98

The United lndia lnsurance Company Limited, Governorpet, Viiayawada-2. E9p District^{Oy its LocalBranchlrilanager,} -^{WyraRoad, Khammam'} fown,'^(nimmim ...AppELLANT/RESpONOef.ii r,ro. i

¶99

AND

¶100

Pale Ramesh, S/o Sarvaiah, aged 30 years, Occ: Coo e, R/o Ramnarsaiahnagar, Konilerla Mandal,-Khammam Diskici.

¶101

...RESPONDENT/CLAIM PETITIONER

¶102

2 B.Nagireddy, S/o li/adhusudhan Reddy, age: 50 years, Occ: Owner of Tractor No. AP 24 H 3363 R/o H.No.2:85,kothap'ahad, Atmakur, Natgonda Diskict - 508101.

¶103

...RESPONDENT/RESpONDENT No.1

¶104

ORDER: This appeal coming on for hearing 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 SRr. A. s. BHAVANT SHANKER, Advocate for the Appellant and of SRt KADARU PRABHAKAR RAO, Advocate for the Respondent No.1 .

¶105

This Court doth Order and Decree as follows

¶106

That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be^{and hereby is Partly} allowed with proportionate costs against^{respondentNo. 1 andrespondent} No. 2 by awarding compensation of Rs.^{48,2'16 (Rupees Forty} Eight^thousand two hundred and Sixteen only) with costs and^interest at^{7.5 % from the} date of^petition till the date of realization;

¶107

That the Respondents No. 1 and 2 be and hereby directed to deposit the above-said amount along with interest and costs within t',vo months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment;

¶108