Partly allowed

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Bethu Narsaiah and 4 others

Telangana HC7 Aug 2025MACMA/430/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeals against Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awards in two fatal accident claims concerning deceased pillion riders. The Court held that a liability-only policy did not cover pillion riders, but applying the pay-and-recover principle, the insurer must first pay compensation and recover it from the vehicle owner.

What did the court decide?

Insurer directed to pay compensation and recover same from vehicle owner; appeals partly allowed modifying Tribunal order regarding liability; no costs.

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs Bethu… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

t34441

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

THURSDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA^DEVIEADA

¶7

MOTOR ACC! CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO |⁴³⁰ 0F 2021 AND

¶8

MOTOR ACCIDE CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS AP NO:431 OF 2021

¶9

M.A.C.M.A. .430 0F 2021

¶10

Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V.Act, against Order and^Decree dated 18-12-2020^passed in M.V.O.P.No.143 of^{2016 on the file of the court of} the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Chairman-^{cum- Principal DistrictJudge} Warangal.

¶11

Between:

¶12

The Oriental lnsurance Company Limited, rep. by its Branch Manager, Branch Office at 1st floor, Loyala Arcade, Subedari, Han makonda' warangal o'ttl.ltr=LLANT(.)

¶13

AND

¶14

Bethu Narsaiah, S/o. Rangaiah, Aged 54^years, Occ.^Weaver,

¶15

Bethu,Vijaya, Wo Narsaiah,Aged 45^{years.Occ. House wife}

¶16

3: Bethu Devender, S/o.Narsaiah, Aged 27^{years. Om Student}

¶17

All are R/o.ReponiVillage, Narsimhulapet^{Mandal,WarangalDistrict presently} R/o.18-1-9, Oiusu Road, Rangashaipet,^Warannr'....

¶18

,"r,,ioners/Respondents

¶19

Thoorpati Khana, S/o Salaiah, Age^{3O years,} Dee^{Prlv3te employee} R/o.Rilponi Village, Narsimhulapet Mandal,^{Warangal District.}

¶20

Thoorpati Salaish, S/o.Kanakaiah, Aged 6!yeqrs,^{Occ. Business, R/o.Reponi} Vil lasd' N arsi mh ul apet Ma nda'

¶21

.HtgH6'*"riEtll?t *os. 1 & ,/RES^poN DENrs

¶22

lA NO: 2 OF 2021

¶23

Petition under Section 151 CPC^{prayingthat in the circumstances stated in} the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the^{High Court may be pleased to stay} all further proceedings including execution of^{the order dated 18.12.2020 passed} in O.P.No. 143 of 2016 on the file of Motor^{Accidents Claims Tribunal-Chairman-} cum-Principal District Judge, Warangal^{pending disposal of the CMA before this} Honble Court.

¶24

Counsel for the Appellant : SRl. l. MAAMU VANI

¶25

Counsel for tl.re Respondents :

¶26

M.A.C.M.A. No.431 OF 2021

¶27

Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V.Act, against Order and Decree dated 18-12-2020 passed in M.V.O.P.No.142 of 2016 on the file of the court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Chairman- cum- Principal District Judge Warangal.

¶28

Between:

¶29

The Oriental lnsurance Company Limited, Rep by its Branch Manager, Branch Office at 1st flr>or, Loyala Arcade, Subedari, Hanumakonda, Warangal District.

¶30

...RESPONDENT NO.3/APPELLANT

¶31

AND

¶32

Menchrr Yellaiah, S/o. Kattaiah, Aged 55 years, Occ. Toddy taper,

¶33

Mench.r Uppalamma, Wo Yellaiah, Aged 50 years, Occ. House wife,

¶34

Mench.r Venkanna, S/o. Yellaiah, Aged 23 years, Occ. Student,

¶35

All are R/o ReponiVillage, Narsimhulapet Mandal, Warangal District presently R/o1 8-1-9, Orusu Road, Rangashaipet, Warangal

¶36

... . PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS

¶37

Thoorpati Khana, S/o Salaiah, Age 30 years, Occ. Private employee, R/o Reponi Village, Narsimhulapet Mandal, Warangal District.

¶38

5.. Thoorllati Salaish, S/o Kanakaiah, Aged 65 years, Occ. Business, R/o Reponi Village,, Narsimhulapet Mandal, Warangal District.

¶39

.RESPONDENT NOs.l & 2/ RESPONDENTS

¶40

lA NO: 2 OF 2021

¶41

Petiticn under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit'iled in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to STAY all further proceedings including execution of the order dated 1811212020 passed in O.P.No.1,l2 of 2016 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Chairmancum-Princip;rl District Judge Warangal, pending disposal of the CMA.

¶42

Counsel for the Appellants : SRl. I MAAMU VANI

¶43

Gounsel for the Respondents:

¶44

The Court nrade the following: COMMON JUDGMENT

¶45

¶46

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

¶47

.NOs.430 & 431

¶48

COMMON JUDGMENT:

¶49

Both these appeals arise out of the Order^{and Decreedated} 18.12.2020 in tVl.V.O.P.Nos. 142 and¹⁴³ of 2016^{passed by the} Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal^District Judge, Warangal (for short^"the Tribunal").

¶50

For convenience and clarity, the^{parties herein are referredto} as they were arrayed before the Tribunal

¶51

The case of the^petitioners before the^{tribunalwas that on} 09.12.2009, while the respondent^{No.1 was driving Honda Achiever} bearing No.AP-24 -P-5270, the deceased^{and another person were} going as pillion riders on the said vehicle and when they^reached near Gannepalli Village bus stop at about^{7:00 p.m.,the respondent} No.1, has driven the motor bike in a rash^{and negligent mannerand} hit the Tractor coming from the opposite^{direction in a rash and} negligent manner, as a result the deceased^{along with other pillion} rider and the rider of the motor bike,^{fell down and sustainedinjuries.} The deceased sustained fatal injuries^{and died. The petitioners} sought a compensation of Rs.12,25,0001-.

¶52

The respondent Nos.1 and2 remained^ex-parte

¶53

-]l

¶54

ETD,J MACMA Nos.430 &43L_2O2I

¶55

2 5' The respondent No.3 fired counter denying averments of the petition rruith regard to the occurrence of the accident, age, avocation and inccme of the deceased. rt is further contended that as per the charge sheet the accident occurred due to the rash and negrigence of the driver of an unknown tractor, but not due to the negrigence of the rider of the motor bike. rt is further contended that the respondent No' 1 ha:; viorated the terms and conditions of the poricy as he allowed triple riding on his bike

¶56

6 Based on the above preadings, the Tribunat has framed the

¶57

following issues for consideration:_

¶58

1 Whether on 09.12 20Og .at about 7:00 p.m., near Gannepaili vilase Bus sfase, rr::::!-r!iiJ"irrrrZ,, waransat District, the d'ver of the Honda Achiev.er obrririinirip-24-p-5270 drove the same in a rash and negtigerr, ,ir'ii", and caused accident resuttins in death ot the dle&a,ria E'iii'i"itrnrnz

¶59

1. Yl:iiilr,l; petitioners are entiiled for compensation. tf so, at 3 To what relief ?,'

¶60

7 ' To crove their case, the petitioners got examined pws 1 & 2 and Exs'rrl to A7 were marked. on beharf of the respondents no oral evidet.tce was adduced, but Ex.B1 was marked .

¶61

8 Bas'-'d on the evidence on record, the Tribunar has awarded a compensation of Rs. 19,44,4001_ Aggrieved by the said order and

¶62

ETD,J MACMA Nos.43O &43L 2O2L

¶63

¶64

¶65

decree, MACMA.No.430 of 2021 is filed by the claim petitioners, while MACMA.No.431 of 2021 is filed by the lnsurance Company.

¶66

Heard the submissions of Smt. Maamu Vani, learned counsel for the appellants. No representation on behalf of the respondents.

¶67

Learned counsel for the lnsurance Company has argued that the rider of the motor bike has violated the terms and conditions by allowing two other persons on his bike and that the^policy does not cover the pillion rider. She further contended that there was an unknown vehicle involved in the accident and thus, the liability^is fixed on their company and that the policy is an Act Policy, thus their liability is limited, which does not cover the risk of^pillion rider.^She therefore, contended that their company is not liable to^{pay any} compensation

¶68

11 Based on the above rival contentions, this Court^{frames the}

¶69

following points for determination

¶70

1 Whether the deceased was a^pillion rider. lf so,^{to what} extent is the insurance company liable^{to pay} compensation?

¶71

Whether the order and"decree of the Tribunal^need any intefference?

¶72

To what relief?

¶73

¶74

MACMA Nos.430 - &431, _2OZ ETD,Jl

¶75

¶76

Point No.1:

¶77

a) Trre contention of the appeilant counser is that since they have issued "r-iabirity onry poricy,,to the two wheerer bearing No.Ap_24_p_ 5270 they are not riabre to pay any compensation to the pirion riders.

¶78

b) A perusar of the record revears that the deceased in the present oase was going as a pillion rider on the motor bike driven by accused No.2 i.e., Thoorpati Khana s/o Saraiah. The insurance poricy further disctoses that the owner of the bike who is the insured is none r:ther than the father of the accused No.2 and the poricy shows that it is the "Liabirity onry poricy,, and the premium corected is to cover the risk of the third party and arso the risk of p.A coverage for owner and driver. There is no premium corected to cover the risk of .pillion rider. Therefore, the insurance company cannot be herd liable to pay the compensation to the pillion riders.

¶79

c) ln ttnited tndia lnsurance Company Limited., Shimta Vs. Tirak singh and others'it was herd that ,,in our view, arthough the observatic'|n made in Asha Rani,s case were in connection with carrying passengers in a goods vehicre, the same wourd appry with equal forcr: to gratuitous passengers in any other vehicle also. Thus, we fff,J3l uphold the contention of the appellant_ln surance Company

¶80

t lzooay4 scc 404

¶81

ETD,J MACMA Nos.430 &43 7 _2027

¶82

¶83

¶84

that it owed no liability toward the injuries suffered by the deceasedRajinder Singh who was a pilliqn rider, as the insurance policy was a ':

¶85

statutory policy, and hence it did not cover the risk of death of or bodily injury to gratuitous passenger. For the aforesaid reasons, the appellant-lnsurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation awarded to the claimants."

¶86

d) ln Manuara Khatun and Ors Vs. Rajesh Kr. Stngh and Others2; wherein it is found that the deceased was a^gratituous passenger not covered under the lnsurance Policy, insurer was directed to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants and to recover it from the insured.

¶87

e) ln Anu Bhanvara Etc., Vs. lffco Tokio General lnsurance Companlf, the Apex Court had discussed Ma nuara Khatun Vs. Rajesh Kr.Singh and Others, Puttappa Vs. Rama Naika, Manager, National lnsurance Company Limited Vs. Saiu P. Paul!, New tndia Assurance Company Limifed Vs Vimal Devi6, Nationat lnsurance Company Limited Vs. Chatts Upendra Rao7, New tndia Assurance Company Limited Vs. C.M. Jayag and

¶88

21RrR 20r7 sc r2o4) t RtR zotg sc 3934

¶89

'Civil^{AppealNo.4397 of 2016} 5 lzor:;2 scc 4l o Civil Appeal Nosl578/1579 of 2004 ' lzoo+18^{scc5 l7} t lzooz; 2scc2zr

¶90

i,l

¶91

E1'D,J 6 MACMA Nos.43O &43r_2021

¶92

Amrit Lat Sood Vs. Kaushatya Devi Thapaf ; and held that ,,the lnsuranc;e company be made riabre for the payment of compen:sation to the apperants and in turn they wourd have the right to rearisr>/recover the same from the owner and driver of the vehicte. The insurance of the vehicre, though as a goods vehicre, is not disputed by the parties. The craimants in the present case are young children who have suffered permanent disabirity on account of the injuries sustained in the accident. Thus, keeping in view the pecutiar facts anc circumstances of this case, we are of the considered view that the principle of ,,pay and recover,, should be directed to be invoked in the present case.,,

¶93

0 rn r:he right of the above cited decisions, and in view of the above herd discussion, it is herd that the insurance company shart pair the compensation and then recover from the owner of the motor bike

¶94

Point No.1 is answered accordingly.

¶95

13. Pofurt No.2

¶96

rn view of the findings arrived at point No.1 the order and decree dc not need any interference with regard to quantum of compensation, but with regard to riabirity, the apperant_rnsurance ' ltseq 3 scc 744

¶97

ETD,J MACMA Nos.430 &43L 2O2t

Company shall pay compensation to the petitioner and then recover

¶102

from the insured.

¶103

Point No.2 is answered accordingly

¶104

POTNT NO.3:

¶105

ln the result, both the appeals are partly allowed modifying the order and decree of the Tribunal with regard to the liability fastened on the appellant. lt is held that the appellant-lnsurance Company shall pay compensation and then recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. No costs.

¶106

Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appeal, shall

stand closed.

SD/.M.OSMAN ALI^BAIG ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 6

¶111

//TRUE COPYI'

¶112

SECTION OFFICER

¶113

To, 1. The Motor Accidents Claims^{Tribunal-Chairman- cum- PrincipalDistrict} Judge Warangal. 2. OndCC to SRl. I MAAMU^VAN|Advocate IoPUC] 3. Two CD Copies GE/PSL

HIGH COURT

DATED:071Ot12025

COMMON Jt,,DGMENT

MACMA.No.430 ol2O21 ANI) MACMA.No.431 ot 2021

¶121

rP-'
B tTB t[lt
c) 1..
+ Lr l-ta-ar: i-..r.

¶122

PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA NO.43O OF 2O2l WITHOUT COSTS AND PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA NO.431 OF 2A2l WITHOUT COSTS

¶123

a9 l:t
loL

¶124

134441

¶125

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶126

THURSDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶127

PRESENT

¶128

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

¶129

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 430 OF 2021 AND

¶130

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 431 OF 2021

¶131

M.A.C.M.A. No.430 OF 2021

¶132

Between:

¶133

The Oriental lnsurance Company Limited, rep. by its Branch Manager, Branch Office at 1st floor, Loyala Arcade, Subedari, Hanmakonda. Warangal District.

¶134

...APPELLANT(S)

¶135

AND

¶136

Bethu Narsaiah, S/o. Rangaiah, Aged 54 years, Occ. Weaver,

¶137

Bethu Vijaya, Wo Narsaiah,Aged 45 years. Occ. House wife

¶138

Bethu Devender, S/o.Narsaiah, Aged 27 years. Om Student

¶139

Allare R/o.ReponiVillage, Narsimhulapet Mandal, Warangal District^presently R/o.18-1-9, Orusu Road, Rangashaipet, Warangal.

¶140

. Petitioners/Respondents

¶141

+.' tnoorpati Khana, S/o Salaiah, Age 30 years, Dee. Private employee R/o.Reponi Village, Narsimhulapet Mandal, Warangal District.

¶142

Thoorpati Salaish, S/o.Kanakaiah, Aged 65^years, Occ. Business, R/o.Reponi Vi I I a^g e, N a rsi m h u I a pet M a n d a I, V[ryLgi [ .O_i1t1!gt - . - .RESPONDENT NOS.1 & ZRESPONDENTS

¶143

Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V.Act, against Order and Decree dated 18-12-2020^passed in M.V.O.P.No.143 of 2016 on the file of the court^of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Chairman- cum- Principal District Judge Warangal.

¶144

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 argument of SMT. l. MAMMU VANI, Advocate for the Appellant and none appeared for Respondents.

trll

't oF

Between:

The Oriental tnsurance Company Limited,. .Rep Oy its Branch Manager, Branch Office at 1st floor, Loyala Arcade, Subedari, Hanumakonda, Warangal Di5tri6t.

¶149

...RESPONDENT NO.3/APPELLANT

¶150

AND

¶151

Menchtr Yellaiah, S/o. Kattaiah, Aged 55 years, Occ. Toddy taper,

¶152

Menchu Uppalamma, Wo Yellaiah, Aged 50 years, Occ. House wife,

¶153

Menchu Venkanna, S/o. Yellaiah, Aged 23 years, Occ. Student,

¶154

All are li/o Reooni Villaoe, Narsimhulapet Mandal, Warangal Diskict presenly R/o 1 8-' -s, orusu Roadi RangashiipetJ viii;il;i'''^-"

¶155

..,. PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS

¶156

4 l1g"-r!i!,,[1qna, S/o Sataiah, Age 30 years, Occ.pdvate emptoyee, Rio Kepont VtIage, Narsimhulapet Mandal, Warangal District.

¶157

Ttoorpati Salaish, S/o Kanakaiah, Aged 65 years, Occ. Business, R/o Reponi villase' Narsimhulapet Mandal, wari'Fn6l,B'Ellftro.r

¶158

& 2/ REspoNDENrs

¶159

Appe'al filed under Section 173 of M.V.Act, against Order and Decree dated 18-12-:2020 passed in M.V.o.p.No.142 ol 2016 on the file of the court of the Motor Ar:cidents claims Tribunal-chairman- cum- principal District Judge Warangal.

¶160

This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appear, the judgment and Decree of the Lower court and the materiar papers in the case and upon hearing the argument of sMT. r. MAMMU VANI, Advocate for the Appellant and none appeared for Respondents.

¶161

This Gourt doth Order and D,ecree as follows:

¶162

That 1:he Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeat M.A.C.M.A.No.430 of 2016 be and is hereby parfly ailowed modifying the order and decree of the Triburral with regard to the liability fastened on the appellant.

¶163

That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal M.A.C.M.A.No.431^of 2016 be and is hereby^partly allowed modifying the order and decree^{of the} Tribunal with regard to the liability fastened on the appellant.

¶164