Reliance General Insurance ... vs Lalan Vishawakarma,
2022 Latest Caselaw 3731 Tel

     HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY

                    M.A.C.M.A.No.2810 of 2018

JUDGMENT :

This appeal is arising out of the order dated 11.04.2018, in

MVOP.No.1045 of 2012 on the file of XV Additional Chief Judge,

City Civil Court, Hyderabad. For the sake of convenience, the

parties are referred to as arrayed in the OP.

2. The appeal is filed by the Insurance Company, who is the 2nd

respondent in the O.P. The O.P. was filed before the Tribunal by

the claimants under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles

Act r/w. Rule 475(1)(b) of the Motor Vehicle Rules, claiming

compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- with costs and interest for the

accident occurred on 06.01.2012 at 1.30 p.m. resulting in the death

of the deceased Rokthima Vishwakarma. The petitioners in the

O.P. are the parents of the deceased.

3. It is the case of the claimants before the Tribunal that on

06.01.2012 at about 1.30 p.m., while the deceased and claimant

No.2 were walking from the hospital in Bhavani Nagar towards

their house, a mini water tanker bearing No.AP-23-V-990, driven

GAC, J MACMA.No.2810 of 2018

by its driver in rash and negligent manner at a high speed, hit the

deceased, due to which, the deceased received fatal injuries and

died on the spot. Basing on the information, a case was registered

against the driver of the Mini Water Tanker vide Crime No.8 of

2012 on the file of Cyberabad Police Station.

4. In spite of receiving notices, respondents 1 to 3 did not made

their appearance before this Court either in person or through

counsel. Therefore, this Court treated the arguments on behalf of

respondents as 'Nil'.

5. It is the contention of the learned counsel for appellants that

the alleged crime vehicle is having registered No.AP-23-V-990.

Though the 2nd respondent was made as a party to the claim

petition contending that Policy was issued to the Mini Water

Tanker, their records show that the Policy bearing

No.180541234000446 was issued to a tractor and trailer bearing

registered Nos.AP-15-U-9795 and AP-15-U-9796 and the period of

insurance covered was from 10.15 hours on 30.03.2011 to 23.59

hours on 29.03.2011, in the name of the 1st respondent and the said

GAC, J MACMA.No.2810 of 2018

fact was stated in the written statement of the 2nd respondent and

also the same was reiterated in the oral evidence of RW-1 before

the Tribunal, and inspite of it, there is no finding by the Tribunal as

to the said aspect. It is further contended by the learned counsel

for the appellants that the crime vehicle is not covered under

insurance policy of the 2nd respondent-Company but the tribunal,

without considering the said aspect, have came to the conclusion

that the vehicle of the 1st respondent is insured by the 2nd

respondent and fixed liability jointly and severally to both the

respondents, and therefore, prayed to set aside the orders of the

Tribunal.

6. Perused the record. As the appeal is filed disputing the

liability of the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company, this Court is not

going into other aspects of the case, except the said issue.

7. The contents of written statement of the 2nd respondent

disclose that the crime vehicle is not insured by the 2nd respondent

and the tractor and trailer of the 1st respondent are insured with the

2nd respondent and as the tractor and trailer are not involved in the

GAC, J MACMA.No.2810 of 2018

accident, the 2nd respondent is not liable to pay the compensation.

Even the affidavit in lieu of chief examination of RW-1, who is the

Executive (Legal) of the Reliance General Insurance Company,

also reiterates the same fact. Surprisingly, there is no issue framed

by the Tribunal as to the involvement of the crime vehicle and

without looking into the documents i.e. Ex.B-1/insurance policy,

the tribunal fixed the liability on the 2nd respondent. On perusal of

Ex.B-1, it is evident that insurance was being made to Mahindra

and Mahindra Company's tractor and trailer 275-D1 NBP for the

engine/chassis No.DLA2022, bearing registration No.AP-15-U-

9795 and not to the mini water tanker i.e. the alleged crime vehicle.

On perusal of Ex.A-1 i.e. the FIR, it is evident that the complaint is

made against the driver of the water tanker bearing No.AP-23-V-

990, but not against the driver of tractor and trailer, which is

corroborated with the documentary evidence i.e. Ex.A-6/charge

sheet. The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial Legislation and the

rights of the claimants cannot be ousted.

8. Therefore, this appeal is allowed, setting aside the orders of

the Tribunal in MVOP.No.1045 of 2012, dated 11.04.2018 on the

GAC, J MACMA.No.2810 of 2018

file of VI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

The matter is remanded back to the Tribunal with a direction to

frame an issue with regard to insurance of the crime vehicle and to

decide the matter afresh by duly impleading the Insurance

Company of such vehicle. The Tribunal shall issue notices to the

claimants to implead the necessary party i.e. the Insurance

Company of the crime vehicle involved in the accident, and after

duly recording the evidence, shall dispose of the O.P. afresh within

Six months from the date of receipt of this order.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

closed.

________________________________ G.ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY, J Date: 15.07.2022

ajr