Telangana High Court
Beenamoni Iddaiah , Eedaiah vs Sri. Punjab Singh on 5 February, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU
M.A.C.M.A. NO.286 OF 2019
JUDGMENT:
This Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity 'the Act') by the appellant/claimant, being aggrieved by the award dated 20.11.2018 in O.P.No.243 of 2013 on the file of the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- Additional District Judge, Nalgonda (for short 'Tribunal'), by which the claim petition filed by the appellant herein seeking for compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- was dismissed.
2. The appellant has filed O.P.No.243 of 2013 under Section 163A of the Act with a prayer to award a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident. According to the material averments made by him in his petition before the Tribunal, it was specifically alleged that the appellant himself was the driver of lorry bearing No.AP-10U-8624 and on 28.01.2007 while he was on duty on the above said lorry, which was proceeding towards Kondamallepally Village for loading of paddy, on the way, at about 05.00 P.M. while the lorry was passing through the vicinity of milestone No.93/2 at Chennaram 2 Village, he lost the control over the steering and in negotiating a turning at left side and hit to culvert No.94/1 and later hit a Neem tree, which was by the side of the road, as result thereof, the appellant and the cleaner sustained injuries. It seems to that effect a report was lodged before the police, Devarakonda Police Station, basing thereon, a case in Crime No.25 of 2007 has been registered. The appellant herein has filed the above said M.V.O.P. against the owner/respondent No.1, insurer/respondent No.2 and subsequent purchaser of the lorry, who was also present in the same vehicle, as respondent No.3 and sought for an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for his own injuries.
3. Respondent Nos.1 and 3 being owners of the vehicles did not file any counter nor appeared before the Tribunal. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company filed counter and denied the claim on various grounds. The Tribunal having appreciated the oral and documentary evidence came to the conclusion that since the petition was filed under Section 163A of the Act and his claim itself cannot be treated as a third party, therefore, he is not entitled to any compensation and dismissed the claim petition.
4. This appeal has been filed by the appellant/claimant on the ground that the Tribunal ought to have considered that the claim petition was filed under Section 163A and 166 of the Act is 3 maintainable and the Tribunal cannot dismiss such claim. The appellant has also claimed that the Tribunal committed a mistake by holding that the policy obtained from respondent No.2 being a Act policy did not cover the driver of the lorry, which according to the appellant is incorrect. The appellant has claimed that the Tribunal was wrong in taking into consideration of the purport of the policy a copy of which was marked as Ex.B.1 on the ground that such policy covers the risk of the driver. Therefore, the Tribunal ought not to have dismissed the claim petition. The appellant further contended that the Tribunal failed to appreciate even if the insurance company is not entitled, other respondents being owners of the lorry are liable to pay the compensation, thereby, he prayed for an award in his favour.
5. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. None appeared for the respondents. Perused the material available on record. .
6. As could be seen from the impugned Order, the Tribunal has examined the oral evidence and other record minutely and came to the conclusion that the policy obtained by respondent No.1 from respondent No.2 was an Act policy and did not cover the risk of the driver. The Tribunal while relying on various Judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as the 4 erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh including the Judgment between Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited v. Gaddam Swamy Reddy and Raja Reddy 1 held that the appellant herein cannot claim compensation on the policy that was issued by respondent No.2.
7. In the instant case on hand, on perusal of the material averments made in the petition and also the oral and documentary evidence, it is quite clear that apart from the said petition, the appellant has filed another claim petition under the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act,1923 before the Commissioner concerned. The appellant has pleaded before the Tribunal that the appellant had not pressed the said petition. However, he did not place any material evidence to show that he has already not pressed the other claim petition.
8. As per the policy issued by respondent No.2, which is marked as Ex.A.10 (Ex.B.2), it manifests that the policy is a simple Act policy not a comprehensive policy, which can cover the claim in respect of the injuries of the driver. Respondent No.2 may be made liable for compensation in respect of a third party involved in the accident. The claim petition though filed under 1 Manu/AP/1249/2012 5 Section 163A of the Act cannot make the Court to fix the liability on the Insurance Company.
9. After careful analysis of the facts and circumstances of the case and be it viewed from any angle, this Court is of the considered view that the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim as such there are no grounds to interfere with the findings of the Tribunal as well as to direct the insurance company or the owners to pay the compensation. The evidence including the copy of the charge sheet filed by the police clearly shows that the accident occurred due to the own rash and negligent driving. Therefore, he cannot claim any compensation from the owner of the vehicle for his own fault. Accordingly, this appeal is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.
10. Under the circumstances narrated hereinbefore, this appeal is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous application, if any, shall stand closed.
___________________________________ JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU DATED 05.02.2024 YNK