HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY
M.A.C.M.A. No.2700 of 2008
JUDGMENT :
This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company aggrieved of the order and decree dated 21.06.2007 in M.V.O.P.No.279 of 2006 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Karimnagar at Jagtial.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be arrayed as they are arrayed in the O.P.
3. On 27.12.2005 at 11.30 p.m., the claimant sustained injuries in the road accident at Mulkala bridge on National Highway No.16 at Mancherial, for which a petition is filed claiming compensation for Rs.6,50,000/- under Section 166 (1) (a) of M.V.Act. The Tribunal Court after considering the entire oral and documentary evidence (P.Ws.1 to 7, R.W.1 and Exs.A-1 to A-72, Ex.C-1 and Exs.B-1 and B-2) granted compensation of Rs.4,50,000/- to the claimant and fastened liability only on R-1 to R-3 and further gave a finding that R-4 to R-6 are not liable to pay compensation. The appellant before this Court is the 3rd respondent. 2
GAC, J MACMA.No.2700 of 2008
4. It is the specific contention of the appellant that the Tribunal ought to have noted that there is no coverage risk in the policy to the owners of the goods and the inmates of the crime vehicle will not come under the purview of the 3rd parties and ought to have dismissed the claim as the injured is an unauthorized passenger and the premium paid only covers the risk of the 3rd party but not the inmates of the crime vehicle.
5. Heard both sides and perused the record.
6. The learned Standing Counsel for the appellant further contended that the insurance obtained by the owner of the vehicle is an Act policy and under the said policy, 3rd parties risk alone is covered but not others and ought to have exonerated the appellant from fastening the liability.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/claimant contended that the injured is also the 3rd party who was engaged in the goods van and therefore, the claimant is entitled for compensation and the Tribunal have rightly granted compensation and prayed to confirm the orders of the Tribunal. 3
GAC, J MACMA.No.2700 of 2008
8. The appeal is filed only to exonerate the liability of the appellant-Insurance company and not about the quantum of compensation granted to the claimant. Therefore, the appreciation of evidence would be only with respect to liability of the appellant. Ex.B-1 is the policy issued in favour of the van bearing No.AP-1- U-1394. As on the date of the accident i.e., 27.12.2005, the policy is in existence. It is not at all in dispute as to the vehicle in which the claimant travelled on the said day. Admittedly, the van is a goods vehicle. It is the specific contention of the appellant that the claimant was travelling in a goods vehicle as a passenger and therefore, he is not entitled for any compensation.
9. The evidence of P.W.1 clearly reveals that he was travelling in the van along with furniture and house hold articles and he is the owner of the said goods. The evidence of P.W.7/respondent No.2 (owner of the van) corroborates the evidence of P.W.1 that the claimant engaged the van for shifting of his house hold articles from Luxettipet to Mancherial and was travelling along with the goods. On perusal of Ex.B-1, it is evident that the premium is paid towards the risk of 3rd party. Therefore, it can be construed that the 4 GAC, J MACMA.No.2700 of 2008 claimant is no way connected with the crime vehicle and he travelled in the said vehicle as the owner of the goods and he can be treated as a 3rd party and therefore, entitled for compensation. In National Insurance Company Limited vs. Swarna Singh and others1 and in National Insurance Company Limited vs Pranay Sethi and others2, their lordship have held that the Insurance company is liable to pay compensation and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle (pay and recover) in case, there are any violations of the terms of the insurance policy.
10. On perusal of the material on record, the order and decree of the Tribunal, this Court is of the considerable view that there are no valid grounds to interfere with the findings of the Tribunal in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgments.
11. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment of the Tribunal in O.P.No.279 of 2006 dated 21.06.2007 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Karimnagar at Jagtial.
1 2004 3 SCC 297 2 2017 ACJ 2700 5 GAC, J MACMA.No.2700 of 2008 Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________________ G.ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY, J Date: 04.01.2023 dv