Telangana High Court
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.Ltd vs P.Mamatha And 4 Others on 13 March, 2024
1
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
M.A.C.M.A No. 2596 of 2014
JUDGMENT:
1. The insurance company is the appellant questioning granting of compensation to the respondents/claimants mainly on the ground that though petition was filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, unless it is proved that the offending vehicle involved, was driven in a rash and negligent manner resulting in the accident, the victim cannot claim compensation.
2. The case of the claimants/respondents is that on 18.12.2007 the deceased was traveling on Hero Honda Passion Motor cycle bearing No.AP 25N 0866 along with another person Sainath. When he reached near Vijay Nagar Village, a motor cycle bearing No.AP 9Q 4450 coming in the opposite direction dashed against the motor cycle on which the deceased was traveling, resulting in deceased falling down and receiving injuries and consequently died.
3. The Tribunal examined P.W.1, who is the wife of the deceased and marked Exs.A1 to A6 on her behalf. The insurance company examined R.W.1. According to his statement, the police filed charge sheet against the rash and negligent act of the driver of the Suzuki Samurai motor cycle No.AP 9Q 4450 and it was not insured with any insurance 2 company. Further, no case was registered against the deceased who was riding the passion motor cycle No.AP 25N 0866 and the said vehicle on which the deceased was driving is not the crime vehicle as per the police record.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the insurance company would submit that Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act cannot be against own negligence but due to negligence of another. In the present case, when the crime vehicle is the other vehicle, which is AP 9Q 4450 against whom charge sheet was filed, insurance ought to have been claimed from the said vehicle and not from the insurer of the vehicle of which the deceased was traveling which is AP 25N 0866. He relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramkhiladi and another v. United India Insurance Company & another (2020 (2) SCC 550). In the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the driver of the vehicle would step into the shoes of the owner in accordance with the terms of the contract since the deceased was driving the vehicle as the borrower of the vehicle, claim can only be to the extent of Rs.1.00 lakh, for which fee was paid. Learned counsel also relied on the judgment of the High Court of Karnataka in the case of Appaji (since deceased) and another v. M.Krishna and another (2004 ACJ 1289). 3
5. The Three Judge Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shivaji and another v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited and others (2019) 12 SCC 395) held that in a proceeding under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, the insurer cannot raise any defence of negligence on the part of the victim to counter a claim for compensation.
6. In the present facts of the case, the driver of the vehicle Suzuki Samurai was at fault resulting in the accident and consequent death of the deceased who was riding Hero Honda Passion motor cycle. The fact remains that the vehicle on which the deceased was traveling was involved in the accident. According to Section 163-A of the Act for claiming compensation, the claimants have to prove the usage of the vehicle at the time of the accident. Admittedly, the vehicle on which the deceased was traveling was involved in the accident. I do not find any infirmity with the finding of the learned Tribunal in granting compensation.
7. Accordingly, Appeal filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed.
__________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 13 .03.2024.
kvs