Telangana High Court
The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd vs Markale Aruna And 6 Others on 18 September, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
M.A.C.M.A.No.1569 OF 2013
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is filed by the appellant/Insurance company, aggrieved by the judgment dated 22.02.2013 passed in O.P.No.755 of 2007, on the file of Motor Vehicle Act-cum- District Judge at Nizamabad.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record.
3. The appellant/Insurance company is questioning the grant of compensation to the respondents/petitioners mainly on the ground that the insurance company is not liable to pay in case of a Motor Vehicle accident in accordance with the policy issued and secondly the place where the accident has taken place does not fall within the limits of the contract work.
4. Learned counsel for Insurance company submits that even if the accident is accepted there should have been contributory negligence on part of the deceased to an extent of 50%.
5. Briefly the case of the claimants is that the deceased while he was going on his motor cycle and travelling at night about 9.00 PM through the construction area, he dashed against the parked road roller. On account of the impact, he fell down, received injuries and died.
6. The place where accident has taken place is a construction of high level bridge across Manjeera river on Rudrur-Pothangal road, Nizamabad. The said contract was given by the Government i.e. R and B Department to M/s. Manikanta constructions of Nizamabad.
7. The Superintendent Engineer, R and B is the 1st respondent. M/s.Manikanta constructions is the 2nd respondent and Insurance company is made as 3rd respondent. The 1st respondent who is R and B, Superintendent Engineer stated that he was not liable to pay compensation, since there are no departmental road rollers plying on the road while executing the work.
8. The 2nd respondent M/s.Manikanta constructions stated that according to them every part of the construction activity is covered by the insurance company/3rd respondent.
9. The learned Tribunal Judge has examined PW's 1 to 4 and marked Ex.A1 to A8 and Ex.X1 to X4 on behalf of the claimants in support of the claim that the deceased owned agricultural fields and was earning nearly Rs.10,00,000/- per annum. On behalf of the respondent RW1 from insurance company was examined and Ex.B1 to B3 were marked.
10. As seen from the insurance policy which is Ex.B1, the covered areas of risk are material damage, third party liability and excesses under both material damage and third party liability.
11. The learned counsel appearing for the insurance company argued that even assuming that the accident has taken place, such motor vehicle accident would not fall within the insurance coverage, cannot be accepted. It is specifically mentioned that the policy is of risk, "Contractor's all risk insurance" and nothing is specified regarding accident not being covered under the said policy. In fact, the learned Tribunal judge has considered the policy and also the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court which stated that the road roller would be a motor vehicle and it would be covered under the Motor Vehicle Act as held in AIR 2001 SC 835.
12. The manner in which the accident has taken place is not disputed. Nowhere the respondents have come up with the evidence to show that where the accident has taken place is not within the area of construction activity. Admittedly the road roller which was stationed on the road was for the purpose of construction and used for the construction activity.
13. I do not find any reason to set aside the order of granting compensation by the tribunal.
14. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
_________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 18.09.2024 BV