The New India Assurance Co Ltd vs Rajesh Goud
2022 Latest Caselaw 143 Tel

          THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

                    M.A.C.M.A. No.3518 of 2009

JUDGMENT :

This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company aggrieved of the

order and decree dated 03.09.2005 in O.P.No.355 of 2001 on the file

of I Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar.

2. On 05.11.2000, due to the rash and negligent driving of DCM

Van bearing No.AP-9-W-197 by its driver, it dashed to a stationed

lorry, due to which, the claimant, who was travelling in the said DCM

Van, sustained injuries.

3. The Tribunal, on examining the oral and documentary evidence

on record, partly allowed the O.P., awarding a total compensation of

Rs.55,000/- along with costs and interest @7.5% per annum from the

date of petition till the date of realization. Aggrieved thereby, the

appellant-Insurance Company has filed this appeal.

4. Heard both sides and perused the record.

5. The learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-Insurance

Company contended that the decree of the Tribunal is contrary to law,

weight of evidence and probabilities of the case; that the Tribunal has

not taken into consideration the violation of terms of policy; that the

injured/claimant was travelling in the offending vehicle as an

unauthorized passenger, but the Tribunal has not taken into

GSD, J MACMA.No.3518 of 2009

consideration the said aspect while awarding the compensation.

Accordingly, prayed for setting aside the award of the Tribunal.

6. On a perusal of the material on record, the order and decree of

the Tribunal, I am of the considered view that there are no valid

grounds to interfere with the findings of the Tribunal. The Tribunal,

after taking into account the injuries sustained by the claimant, has

granted the reasonable compensation of Rs.55,000/- and this Court is

not inclined to interfere with the same.

7. However, the grievance of the appellant-Insurance Company is

that in paras 37 to 39 of the Award, the Tribunal has categorically

dealt with the issue of gratuitous passengers and categorically held

that the appellant-Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation

and to recover the same from the insured in the manner provided in

the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pramod Kumar

Agrawal & others v. Mushtari Begum & others1 and in National

Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office, Hindupur v. Sowmya &

others2. However, while drawing the decree, the same was not

mentioned.

8. Since the Tribunal has already directed the Insurance Company

to pay compensation and to recover the same from the insured, it has

to be incorporated in the decree in order to enable the Insurance

Company to recover the same from the insured.

2004 SAR (Civil) 745 (SC)

2004 (3) T.A.C. 94 (A.P.)

GSD, J MACMA.No.3518 of 2009

9. Accordingly, this appeal is disposed of with a direction to

incorporate in the impugned decree that the Insurance Company is

entitled to recover the compensation amount from the insured. There

shall be no order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

____________________ JUSTICE G.SRI DEVI Date: 19.01.2022

ajr