Telangana High Court
The New India Assurance Company ... vs Bondadu Nagamani And 6 Others on 15 February, 2021
Bench: B.Vijaysen Reddy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY
MACMA.Nos.2931, 3858 and 4415 of 2012
and
MACMA.No.327 of 2014
COMMON JUDGMENT:
All these appeals arise out of same accident. However, four
different OP's were filed by the claimants of the each deceased before
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Khammam.
2. The facts of the case, as recorded in the respective OP's, are as
under:
OP.No.1354 of 2009:
The claimant No.1 is the wife; the claimant Nos.2 to 4 are minor
daughters and the claimant Nos.5 and 6 are the parents of the
deceased, Bondadu Veerabhadra Rao. On the date of the accident, the
deceased along with one Pirla Bullabbai @ Rambabu engaged a lorry
bearing No.AP-24/W-0318 at Prathipadu cross roads, East Godavari
District, by paying charges, to go to Konijerla in order to sell Tamarind
bags. The driver of the lorry drove the offending vehicle in a rash and
negligent manner at high speed, due to which the lorry turned turtle,
as a result, the deceased and Pirla Bullabbai @ Rambabu sustained
serious injuries to their heads and vital parts and died on the spot.
The deceased was doing tamarind business and earning Rs.8,000/- per
month. Hence, the claimants sought compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-.
The tribunal below awarded compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-.
Hence, aggrieved by the grant of compensation, the insurance
company preferred MACMA.No.3858 of 2012.
OP.No.1355 of 2009:
The claimant No.1 is the wife; the claimant Nos.2 and 3 are the
minor sons and the claimant No.5 is the mother of the deceased, Pirla
Bullabbai @ Rambabu. On the date of the accident, the deceased along
with one B. Veerabhadra Rao, engaged a lorry bearing No.AP-24/W-
0318 at Prathipadu cross roads, East Godavari District, by paying
charges, to go to Konijerla in order to sell Tamarind bags. The driver
of the lorry drove the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner
at high speed, due to which the lorry turned turtle, as a result, the
deceased and B. Veerabhadra Rao sustained serious injuries to their
heads and vital parts and died on the spot. The deceased was doing
tamarind business and earning Rs.8,000/- per month. Hence, the
claimants sought compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. The tribunal below
awarded compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. Hence, aggrieved by the
grant of compensation, the insurance company preferred
MACMA.No.327 of 2014.
OP.No.1356 of 2009:
The claimant No.1 is the wife; the claimant Nos.2 to 4 are the
minor daughters and minor son of the deceased, Sunkara Krishna
Murthy. On the date of the accident, the deceased along with one
Petta Subba Rao, engaged a lorry bearing No.AP-24/W-0318 at
Rajahmundry, East Godavari District, by paying charges, to go to
Sathupalli along with flower plots The driver of the lorry drove the
offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, due to
which the lorry turned turtle, as a result, the deceased and
Petta Subba Rao sustained serious injuries to their heads and vital
parts and died instantaneously. The deceased was doing flower plants
business and earning Rs.8,000/- per month. Hence, the claimants
sought compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. The tribunal below awarded
compensation of Rs.3,59,000/-. Hence, aggrieved by the grant of
compensation, the insurance company preferred MACMA.No.2931 of
2012.
OP.No.1357 of 2009:
The claimant No.1 is the father; the claimant No.2 is the mother
and the claimant No.3 is the sister of the deceased, Petta Subba Rao.
On the date of the accident, the deceased along with one
Sunkara Krishna Murthy, engaged a lorry bearing No.AP-24/W-0318 at
Rajahmundry, East Godavari District, by paying charges, to go to
Sathupalli along with flower plots The driver of the lorry drove the
offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, due to
which the lorry turned turtle, as a result, the deceased and
Petta Subba Rao sustained serious injuries to their heads and vital
parts and died instantaneously. The deceased was doing flower plants
business and earning Rs.8,000/- per month. Hence, the claimants
sought compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. The tribunal below, after
considering the fact that the deceased was a bachelor and after
deducting 50% towards his personal expenses, awarded compensation
of Rs.3,31,000/-. Hence, aggrieved by the grant of compensation,
the insurance company preferred MACMA.No.2931 of 2012.
3. Heard both sides.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant - insurance company
submitted that the deceased persons in all the four appeals have to be
treated as gratuitous passengers on goods vehicle and as such,
the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation for the death
of the deceased. The deceased have boarded the lorry midway.
The tamarind bags and flower plants, as the case may be, cannot be
treated as goods and they can be treated only as luggage as defined
under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. As per Ex.B1, insurance policy,
only owner of the goods vehicle is covered.
5. There is no serious contest by the insurance company as
regards the involvement of the offending lorry in the accident.
The insurance company also did not press the issue as to the rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the lorry, which, ultimately resulted in
the death of the deceased persons.
6. There cannot be any doubt that the deceased persons were
travelling in the lorry on the fateful day. It is immaterial whether the
deceased were gratuitous passengers or owner of the goods.
Even assuming that the owner of the vehicle has violated the terms of
the policy, in view of the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. SWARAN SINGH1 the
insurance company is liable to pay the compensation and recover the
same from the owner of the vehicle, in case, the insurance company is
able to prove that the terms of the insurance policy are violated.
Insofar as quantum of compensation awarded is concerned, as there
was no direct evidence with regard to income of the deceased,
the tribunal below fixed the daily wage prescribed by the Government
as the income of the deceased persons and the basic monthly income
was taken as the notional income, which is just and reasonable.
In view of the above, this Court doest not find any merit in the
civil miscellaneous appeals. Accordingly, they are dismissed.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________
B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J
February 15th, 2021
DSK
2004 ACJ 1
