Telangana High Court
Branch Manager, National Insurance ... vs Abhijeeth Awari And 2 Others on 4 April, 2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
M.A.C.M.A.Nos.1112, 1113 of 2010, 3305 and 3318 of 2011
JUDGMENT:
Aggrieved by the award dated 05.11.2008 in O.P.Nos.706 of 2004, 705 of 2004, 707 of 2004 and 708 of 2004 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-V Addl. District Judge (FTC), Nizamabad, the Insurance Company has filed the present appeals.
2. Since the claimants in all these appeals were injured in the very same accident, all the appeals are disposed by way of common judgment.
3. Heard Sri Kota Subba Rao, learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance company and Sri Janardhan Reddy, learned counsel for respondents/claimants.
4. The claimants who are the family members of the owner of the car were proceeding towards Hyderabad from Chandrapur town of Maharashtra State. By the time they reached Adloor, Yella Reddy bus station on NH7, the driver of the Maruthi car drove in high speed and dashed against a lorry which was coming 2 in opposite direction. The claimants in all the cases have filed claim petitions for receiving injuries in the said accident.
5. The main contention of the Insurance company is that Ex.B1 is an act policy and it will not cover the inmates of the car. The claim was made from the insurer of the car, in which they were travelling. Unless, it is a comprehensive policy, the question of covering compensation to the said inmates of the car would not arise. He relied on the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Balakrishnan 1. The Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with similar situation wherein, the inmates of the car filed for compensation. It was held that since it is an act policy, the inmates of the car would not be third parties and accordingly, the compensation was denied.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimants would submit that the trial Court had correctly passed order on the basis of record available. Since inmates of the car are all relatives of the owner, they had to be treated as third parties. 1
(2013) 1 SCC 731 3
7. The said argument of the learned counsel appearing for the claimants cannot be accepted. The act policy would cover only a third party. The third party excludes the driver of the vehicle and the inmates of the vehicle which is insured by way of act policy. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in United Insurance Company Limited vs. Prabha Sarkar 2 also held that the owner of the vehicle cannot be extended the benefits meant for third parties. The finding of the Tribunal that the persons travelling in the car would be third parties is incorrect.
8. Accordingly, all the appeals are allowed and the impugned orders are modified to the extent of liability of appellant/Insurance company. The liability of insurance company is exonerated, however, directed to pay the awarded sum to the claimants. Thereafter, appellant/Insurance company would be entitled to recover the entire paid awarded sum from the owner of the offending vehicle. No costs. 2 2014 SCC 719 4
9. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is modified to the extent that respondent Insurance company is accordingly directed to pay the awarded sum to the claimants. Thereafter, respondent Insurance company would be entitled to recover the entire paid awarded sum from the owner of the offending vehicle. No costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________ K.SURENDER, J Date : 04.04.2024 mmr