Claimant injured while traveling in a goods auto sought to fasten liability jointly on the insurer along with the owner. The court affirmed the Tribunal's finding that he was a gratuitous passenger and that policy terms were deliberately violated by overloading, exonerating the insurer and dismissing the appeal.
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.
[3253 ]
l I i I
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
MONDAY,THE THIRD DAY OF IVARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVI
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MI SCELLAN EOUS AP PEAL NOi 2192 0 F 2014
Appear fired Under section 173 0f Motor vehicres Act,1988 against the order and decree in M.v.o.p.No.445 0f 2009 aatea. is-.bi2011 0n the fire of the court of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Cfri,,i iri[rn-rt cum Judge, Family Court cum Vtt Addt. District and Sessions J";g; M;J;[of Sangareddy
Between:
AND
...AppellanUcomplaint
...Respondents/Respondent
Counsel for the Appellant : SRl. B.Kondal
Counsel for the Respondents NO.2 :Sri K Ajay Kumar
The Court Delivered the following: JUDGEMENT
'. .tl'
HONOURABLE SMT.JUS TICE M.G.PRTYADARSINI M.A.C.M.A.No.2L92 0F 2014
JUDGMENT:
Aggrieverl by theOrder and Decreedated 19'08'2011 (hereinafter u.i[1 be referredas 'impugned order')passedby the learned Judge.F amily Court -cum -VII AdditionalDistrictand Sessions Judge,Medak atSangareddy(hereinafter willbe referred as "Trrbunal')in O.P.No.445of 2009, the Appellant'who is the claimant,tiled the present Appeal to impose the liability on respondentNo.2to pay compensation to the claLmant along with respondentNo.1 jointiy and severally'
3 Thc brit:f factsof the case as can be seen from the record are as under
a) The petitionerfiled claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehrcle ActclaimingcompensationofRs 2,OO,0O0/- against respondentNos. Iand 2 for the injuries sustained by him in the roacltraffic accidentthat occurred on 11'O7 2003' The petitior-rer allegedin the petitionthat on 1 1'O72008 ivhile he along rvith anotherleft in the trolley auto bearitrg No' AP 25
2
ircPJ
V 7214 with medicines load in order to distribute in retail outlets in the surroundings of Hyderabad; when they were returning on 12.07.2oo8 in the auto with barance medicines at about OO15 hours at the outskirrs of Reddypally Village, the auto hit the divider on the road due to the rash and negligent driving of the auto driver, as a result, the auto over turned and thereby one Ch. Balraj died on the spot and whereas the claimant received grievous injuries. The petitioner/ injured was shifted to Balaji Hospital, Secunderabad, wherein he obtained treatment as inpatient from l2.O7.2OOg to 23.OZ.2OOg. Thereafter, the petitioner got admitted in Jeevadara Hospital, Kamareddy, wherein he was treated as inpatient from 23.O7.2OO8 to 26.07.2008. The peritioner alleged to have incurred Rs. 1,2O,O0O/- towards medicines and frequent visits to the hospital.
b) A case in Crime No.147 of 20Og of Chegunta police Station was registered against the driver of the crime vehicle for the offence under Sections 304-A and 337 of the Indian penal Code. The petitioner prayed to award compensation of Rs.2,OO,OOO/- from the respondents Nos.1 and 2 as the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the
*?-
3
,l a,
driverofther:rimevehicle,whichbelongstotherespondent No. 1 and insuredwith respondentNo'2'
4.BeforetheLearnedTribunal,inreplytotheabovepetitlon averments, tht:respondent No'2 liled counterand whereasthe respondentNc.1 remainedexp(lrteThe respondentNo'2 denied the avermentsof the Petitionincluding the malner of the incorne of theinjured.The accident, ageoccuPation and respondentN,1.2 further contendedthat the accidentoccurred duetooverloaclofautowithunauthorizedpassenger'assuch' therespondentNo.lviolatedtheconditionsoftlrepolicyby allowing unauthorizedpassengerto travel in the crimevehicle and thus,prayed to dismiss the petition'
6 . TI-re learnedTribunalafterconsideringtherival contentions,passed the impugnedorder awardingRs'63'000/- as compensationto the petitioner imposingthe liabilityonly on respondent No.1.Aggrievedby the same, the petitioner filed the
4
present Appeal to direct the respondent No.2 to be jointly and severaily iiable to pay compensation to the claimant along with respondent No. 1
8 It is to be seen that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2/owner and insurer have not preferred any Appeal challenging the impugned order. Further. the present Appeal is not hled seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunai. There is no dispute with regard to subsistence of Ex.B3 insurance policy as on the date of the accident.
5
was paid apartfrom covering the risk of owner/driver;the claimant comesunder definitionof 3'd party, as such' the respondent No.2ought tohave been made liable topay compensationalong with respondentNo'1'
lO. Admitte.lly,the petitioner/ claimant has not filed any documentto establish that the goodsin the crimevehicle belong to him. Thepetitioner has not fi1edany scrap of paper to cstablish thathe is the partnerof Sai Krishna Medical Agencies' The petitionerdid not evenhle any document in connectionwith supply or distributionof medicinesin the auto either before the learned Tribunalor beforethis Court' [n the absenceof any such material, thelearned Tribunalarrived to a conclusion that the petitioneris a gratuitous passenger' Usually the insurance policies forg,toclscarrying vehicles do not covergratuitous or unauthorizedpassengers and thereby insurers are absolved from liability insuch cases.Allowingunauthorize<lpassengers in a goods-carryingvehicleconstitutes aviolation ofthe insurancepoticy terms, leading to the insurer's exemption from liability. Horvever, it is thecontention of thc petitioner/ claimanl tha1, therespondent No.2 /InsuranceCompanydid not take any steps toexaminethe driver of the crime vehicle to establish thattheinjured was traveling asgratuitous/
6
ll
ii
unauthorized passenger. But it is rerevant to note that the burden of proof is on the person who wants the court to believe in the existence of a fact. In the instant case, it is the petitioner/claimant who asserted that he is working partner of Sai Krishna Medical Agencies. Once, the petitioner establishes that he is working partner of Sai Krishna Medical Agencies, he is no longer a gratuitous passenger. In such case the burden is on the petitioner to establish that working partner of Sai Krishna Medical Agencies. Moreover, it is the petitioner/ claimant who alleged to have traveled in the crimc vehicle for distribution of his medicines and thereby, the burden is caste upon the petitioner/claimant to examine the driver to establish his contention. Thus, in the absence of any material and having no other option, this court is incrined to affirm the hnding of the learned Tribunal that the petitioner/ claimant and his relative Balraj were traveling as gratuitous passengers. Thus, the owner of the crime vehicle has violated one of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy deliberately.
li Now coming to the seating capacity of the crime vehicle, a perusai of Ex.B3 discloses that the carrying capacity of the crime vehicle is 'one Further, in the third point shown in columrl of limitation as to use, of Ex.B3 it is clearly mentioned
e!r'.-t.=r,
7
that hse for carryingpassengers in the vehicles;except employees(othe rthan the driver not exceedingt he number permitted in l.heregistralion document and comingunderthe purview of Workmen'sCompensationAct, 1923''In the present case, the numberof the passengerstraveling inthe crime vehicle)r,ere threei.e., driver, petitioner/injuredancl his relative Balraj / deceased.Thus, the criinevehicle was not only carrying the goods butalso three passengers and therebythe crime vehicle was overloaded,u'hichresultedin accidentThus'the owner ofthe crime vehicleviolatedthe terms and t:onditions of the insurancepolicy by allowingmore than thr: prescribed capacity inthe crimevehicle.
B
crime vehicle is bne, and the claimants are also aware of the same. The claimant is aware that it was a goods carriage vehicle and dcspite knowing the same he arong with his relative alleged to have boarded the said goods carriage vehicle along with goods (medicines). The crime vehicle was meant for carrying goods within the meaning of the Motor Vehicles Act. The vehicle permits employees not exceeding the number permitted in the registration document. Even tbr the sake of arguments, if the claimant is considered as working partner of Sai Krishna Medical Agencies, the number of persons permitted to board the said vehicle is limited to the number permitted in the registration document. It is not the case of the petitioner/claimant that his relative was also an employee or working partner of Sai Krishna Medicar Agencies. As stated supra, a perusal of Ex.B3 discloses the carrying capacity .1,. Despite having knowlcdge of the same, the owner/driver of the crime vehicle exceedcd the permissible members/employees to board the vehicle along with the goods. Thus, viewed from aly angle the option of,pay and recover, cannot be invoked in the instant case, more particularly in view of the deliberate violations committed by the owner/driver of the crime vehicle i.e., respondent No.1. The learned Tribunal after considering all
9
these aspects has rightly imposedthe liabilityon the respondent No.1 by cxonerating the respondentNo.2. This Court does not find any merit in imposing theliabilityon the respondent No.2/Insurance Company for thedeliberate violations of the owner/clriver of the crime vehicle.Hence, this courtf,rnds no irregularity or infirmity in the impugnedorder so as to interfere u,ith the [rndings arrived by thelearned Tribunal.
Miscellaneous petitions, il any,pending shali stand
closed.
,33i-yRE8,!'+[ik
\
//TRUECOPY// SECTIONOFFICER
"si
lA
GSA
HIGH COURT
DATED:0310312025
JUDGEMENT
MACMA.N o.2192of 2014
e
tr ,FJ r$tl
"sr',
2;* r,
DISMISSINGOF THE MACMA
WITHOUTCOST
( A-
2 s
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
IVONDAY,THE THIRD DAY OF IMARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
MOTOR ACCID ENT CIVIL MISCELLANEO US APPEAL NO :2192OF 2014
Between:
GALIVADDA NARSIMULU, s/o Rajaiah working partner in Sai Krishna lvredicar Agencies Rl/o Kamareddy.Viilage ind t\4andar,"Nizamabad bi;i.'p;;;;;ii;"Ry" H.No.'1-3-12, Fathenagar, IVIedak Town and Disirict.
...AppellanUClaimant
AND
...Respondents
Appeal filed Under Section 1 73 of Motor Vehicles Act,1 988 against the order and decree in It/l.V.o.P,No.44s of 2oo9 dated. 19.08.20.1 1 on the filJ of the courtof the chairman, Motor Accidents claims Tribunal cum The Judge, Family court ium Vll Addl. District and Sessions Judge [Vledak of Sangareddy
This appeal coming o-n for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Tribunal and the material papers in the IVVoH and rrpon hearing the arguments of sRl B KoNDAL, Advocate for the Appellants ano sRt K AJAY KUtr/AR,Advocate for the Respondent No.2 and of NoNE Aipenneo.
Counsel for the Appellant : SRl. B.Kondal
Counsel for the Respondents NO.2 :Sri K Ajay Kumar
The Court Delivered the following: JUDGEMENT
a'.
This court dothOrder andDecreeas follows: '' '
That there beno order as to costs in this appeal
//TRUE COPY//
SD/.MOHD ISMAIL EPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER
To,
2.Two CD CoPies
GSA
{'P-
HIGH COURT
DATED:0310312025
DECREE
MACMA.N o.2192of 2O14
DISMISSINGOF MACMA
WITHOUTCOST
(t-
g'?) 2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the insurer was liable to pay compensation where the injured traveled as a gratuitous passenger in a goods-carrying auto in violation of policy terms.
Whether the 'pay and recover' principle could be invoked against the insurer despite deliberate policy violations by the owner/driver.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Galivadda Narsimulu
B.Kondal And Another
M/s ICICI Lambard Motor Insurance Company Limited
M.G. Priyadarsini
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
