Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The New India Assurance Co.Ltd. vs Pudivalasa Lakshmi, on 1 May, 2023
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AT AMARAVATI
MAIN CASE No.M.A.C.M.A.No.110 of 2021
PROCEEDING SHEET
Sl. DATE ORDER OFFICE
No. NOTE
01.05.2023 BSS, J
I.A.No.1 of 2022
I have heard both sides.
This petition is filed by the
petitioners/respondents 1 to 4/claimants under
Section 151 CPC seeking permission to withdraw
the amount which was deposited by
R3/appellant/insurance company. It is the
contention of the first petitioner that they filed
claim petition for the death of her husband in the
motor vehicle accident vide M.V.O.P.No.739 of
2018 on the file of Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims
Tribunal - cum - XIII Additional District Judge,
Gajuwaka. She submits that lower Tribunal
awarded compensation to them and directed R3-
insurance company to pay compensation to them
and recover the same from the owner of the
vehicle and thereafter, insurance company filed an
appeal along with I.A.No.1 of 2021 seeking stay of
execution of the judgment and decree and then
this Court passed conditional stay order dated
22.02.2021 directing R3-insurance company to
deposit 50% of its liability as determined in the
Contd....
Contn.....
award with proportionate interest and costs within
a period of eight (08) weeks. As per the directions
of this Court, R3 insurance company deposited the
amount before the lower Tribunal. The main
contention of the first petitioner is that in motor
vehicle accident, she lost her husband who is their
sole bread-winner, due to that, she has to maintain
her family, failing which they have to suffer due to
starvation and they are in need of money, they
pray to allow them to withdraw the amount
deposited by R3-insurance company as per the
conditional order passed by this Court.
The respondent-insurance company filed
counter stating that at the time of accident,
offending vehicle (auto-rickshaw) was plying on
NH-16 road without having any permission to ply
with 14 people though seating capacity of vehicle
was 3 + 1. They submit that over loading and
plying the auto-rickshaw on the national high way
is the root cause of the accident and offending
vehicle also was not permitted to ply beyond 60
kms from the residence of owner which also
violated by the owner of the vehicle, which
amounts to fundamental breach of conditions of
policy. They further submit that they have got fair
chances to succeed in the appeal filed by them and
Contd....
Contn.....
if the claimants are permitted to withdraw the
amount, it would become impossible for them to
recover the same. They pray to dismiss the
petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioners/
claimants would submit that the defence raised by
the insurance company was not pleaded in their
counter before the Tribunal. He would further
submit that Tribunal after considering all factors
ordered the insurance company to pay
compensation to the petitioners and then recover
from the owner, which is as per well recognized
ratio laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court. The
learned counsel for R3-insurance company would
submit that when there is fundamental breach of
conditions of the policy, the insurance company is
not liable to pay any compensation which insurance
company able to prove before the Tribunal inspite
of Tribunal ordered pay and recovery. He would
further submit that offending vehicle was
overloaded, plying on National High Way which is
beyond 60 kilometers from the radius of residence
of the owner which all amounts to fundamental
breach of conditions of the policy, due to that,
insurance company is not liable to pay any
compensation to the petitioners/claimants and if
Contd....
Contn.....
claimants are permitted to withdraw 50% of
compensation amount, certainly it would be
difficult for the insurance company to recover the
same in case of their success in the appeal. He
prays to dismiss the petition.
In view of the rival submissions, the point
that emerges for consideration of this Court is
'Whether the petitioners can be permitted to
withdraw the amount deposited by respondent-
insurance company?
POINT: It is settled law that Motor Vehicles
Act is beneficial and welfare legislation, it has to
be interpreted for the benefit of victims of motor
vehicle accidents. The legislature has introduced
Section 149 of the Act, 1988 which made it
mandatory on the part of the insurer to satisfy the
judgments and awards against the persons insured
in respect of third party lis. The purpose of
introduction of Section 149 of MV Act is well
explained by Hon'ble Apex Court in S.Iyyapan Vs.
M/s.United India Insurance Company Ltd. And
Another in Civil Appeal No.4834 of 2013 dated
01.07.2013. In the present case also, there is no
dispute that offending vehicle was covered with
policy of insurance on the date of accident. The
contention of the respondent-insurance company is
Contd....
Contn....
that owner violated terms and conditions of the
policy by entrusting the vehicle and allowing the
driver to ply on National High Way that too beyond
60 kilometers radius from the residence of owner
with overload. The fact remains is that deceased
was said to be one of the passenger in the motor
vehicle who succumbed to injuries which he
sustained in the motor vehicle accident. It is not
in dispute that deceased was sole bread-winner of
the petitioners' family, if they are not permitted
to withdraw some amount of compensation
deposited by the insurance company as per the
conditional stay order granted by this Court,
certainly it will lead to denying their right of
survival which is not the intention of the legislation
while passing Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. After
considering the contention of learned counsel for
R3 - insurance company, in view of the quantum of
amount of compensation deposited by the
insurance company, the first petitioner alone can
be permitted to withdraw some amount out of the
amount deposited by the insurance company.
In the result, petition is allowed in part
permitting the first petitioner/widow to withdraw
a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees four lakhs only) out
of the amount deposited by R3-insurance company
Contd....
Contn....
before the Tribunal without furnishing security
after the petitioners pay Court fee payable on the
petition and they shall also produce Family
Members Certificate along with Cheque Application
to be filed before the Tribunal. No order as to
costs.
______
BSS,J
M.A.C.M.A.No.110 of 2021
Learned counsel for the appellant
Mr.C.Prakash Reddy, represented the case.
Learned counsel Mr.V.Hemanth Kumar,
represented for the respondents 1 to 4.
List the case after eight weeks.
______
BSS,J
Rns
