Telangana High Court
Nadem Nagaiah vs Japathi Thirupathi on 23 June, 2022
Bench: M.Laxman
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. LAXMAN
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1566 OF 2004
&
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1564 OF 2004
COMMON JUDGMENT:
1. The present appeals are disposed of by a common
judgment. Both the appeals are arising out of the orders dated
05.01.2004 passed in O.P.No.387 of 2000 and O.P. No.388 of
2000 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
(District Judge) at Karimnagar, whereunder the Tribunal granted
compensation and directed the 1st and 2nd respondents who are
driver and owner of the crime lorry bearing No.ATT-2682
respectively to pay compensation, and respondent No.3/Insurance
Company was exonerated from the liability.
2. The present appeals are at the instance of the claimants in
the claim applications.
3. For convenience, the ranks of the parties as they were
referred in the claim petition, is maintained.
4. The case of the claimants is that on the date of accident, the
deceased were traveling in the goods vehicle to bring Jammi tree
on the eve of Dassera festival and after cutting the tree, when then
2 ML,J
Common judgment
were coming back, the vehicle met with an accident resulting death
of two persons traveling in the said vehicle, and the claimants are
their dependents. Respondent Nos.1and 2 who are driver and
owner respectively in both the petitions were set ex parte. The 3rd
respondent/Insurance Company contested the case by claiming
that the policy issued by them is an Act policy and the persons
travelling in the goods vehicles were gratuitous passengers and
the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation.
5. The claimants in support of their case examined PWs 1 and
2 and relied upon Ex.A1 to A6. Respondent No.3 examined RW.1
and relied upon Ex.B1 policy.
6. The Tribunal after fixing the compensation, came to the
conclusion that the 3rd respondent is not liable to pay
compensation since the persons travelling in the vehicle were
gratuitous passengers and the policy is Act policy, as such,
ordered the 1st and 2nd respondents to pay compensation.
Aggrieved by the same, the present appeals are filed by the
claimants.
7. The substantial question of law involved in this case is:
3 ML,J
Common judgment
Whether the 3rd respondent is liable to pay compensation to
the claimants under the Act policy?
8. Ex.B1 shows that the premium is paid to cover liabilities
under the Statute i.e. Motor Vehicles Act and there is no evidence
on record to show that policy was covered in respect of labourers
travelling in the vehicle and no premium has been paid for the
labourers so as to fasten the liability on the owner and the
Insurance Company.
9. The learned Counsel for petitioners/appellants has relied
upon the following decisions of the Apex Court:
i) Shivaraj Vs. Rajendra and another1
ii) Anu Bhanvara Vs. Iffco Tokio General Insurance
Company Ltd. 2
Wherein the Apex Court ordered the Insurance Company to pay
and recover even though no policy exists covering the liability and
no premium is paid in respect of the liability of the persons who
claimed to have suffered death or injury in the accident.
[
10. In both the cases above, the liability was fixed on the
Insurance Company and ordered to pay and recover the same
from the owner in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.
AIR 2018 (SCW) 4252
AIR 2019 (SC) 3934
4 ML,J
Common judgment
As seen from the decisions of both cases, pay and recovery was
ordered by the Apex Court even though policy was not in
existence to cover the liability. It appears such powers have been
exercised by invoking Section 142 of the Constitution of India.
Such powers are not vested with this Court while dealing with M.V.
Act policies.
11. Another judgment relied upon by the learned Counsel for the
petitioners/appellants is Manuara Khatun and others Vs. Rajesh
Kumar Singh and others3. That is the case wherein the
deceased and injured were travelling in Tata Sumo, which is a
passenger carrying vehicle and in the facts and circumstances of
the case, the Apex Court ordered pay and recovery even though
they were gratuitous passengers. These facts are distinct to the
facts on hand. In the present case, the vehicle involved is goods
vehicle and not passenger carrying so as to extend the benefit of
views taken by the Apex Court in the above said decision.
Therefore, I do not find any merits in these appeals and they are
liable to be dismissed.
(2017) 4 SCC 796
5 ML,J
Common judgment
12. In the result, both the appeals are dismissed. There shall be
no order as to costs.
13. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any,
shall stand closed.
_____________
M. LAXMAN, J
DATE: 23.06.2022
BDR
