United India Insurance Co.Ltd. vs Ameena Begum And 5 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 4612 Tel

                             1



     THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE P. SREE SUDHA

               M.A.C.M.A.No.228 of 2022

JUDGMENT:

This appeal has been filed by the Insurance

Company aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated

28.12.2021 in M.V.O.P.No.1010 of 2016 passed by the

MACT-cum- IV Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy

District.

Learned counsel for the appellant had contended

that the Tribunal has erroneously fixed the liability on

the Insurance Company along with the driver and owner

instead of fixing the liability only on the driver and owner,

as the driver was driving the bus without valid driving

licence and the owner of the bus running the bus without

permit in the Telangana State. RW.2 categorically

deposed that the bus bearing No.AP007/4816/PC/2014

is authorized to ply on the roads of Andhra Pradesh State

as on the date of accident i.e., 23.08.2016. The driver of

the bus filed counter before the Tribunal and he did not

file driving licence before the Tribunal and nowhere in the

counter stated that he was holding driving licence, which

clearly show that the driver drove the bus at the time of

accident without driving licence. The Motor Vehicle

Inspector in his report, dated 24.08.2016, advised the

Investigating Officer to take action against the driver of

the bus under Sections 3 and 181 of MV Act for driving

the bus without holding driving licence and also against

the owner of the bus under Section 180 of MV Act for

allowing the unauthorized person to drive the bus, but

the trial Court, without considering the said aspects,

fixed the liability on the Insurance Company. He further

stated that the Tribunal erroneously awarded

Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium under

conventional heads and also awarded Rs.1,60,000/-

under the loss of filial consortium and thus requested the

Court to set aside the judgment of the trial Court.

Heard the arguments of both the counsel. Perused

the record.

In the instant case, the driver of the vehicle filed

counter before the trial Court on 19.09.2017, in which he

has not stated that he was having valid driving licence at

the time of the accident. But, he filed xerox copy of the

driving licence before this Court and the learned counsel

for the respondents argued that the driver is having valid

driving licence and it was not properly verified by the

Insurance Company. Even, in the MVI report, it was

clearly mentioned that the details of the driving of licence

are not furnished by the Investigating Officer.

Learned counsel for the respondents argued that it

was specifically stated that the details are not furnished

and it was not stated that the driver has no driving

licence, but it is for the claimants to prove that the driver

of the crime vehicle is having valid driving licence and the

policy was in existence as on the date of the accident, but

they failed to do so. RW.1 stated that as per Ex.A-5-MVI

report, the MVI advised the concerned Investigating

Officer to take action against the driver under Section 3

read with Sections 180 and 181 of MV Act as he is not

having valid driving licence to drive the vehicle and also

against the owner of the bus under Section 180 of MV Act

for allowing the unauthorized person to drive the vehicle.

If at all, the driver is having valid driving licence, he

ought to have filed the same before the trial Court and he

ought to have mentioned in the counter, but he failed to

do so. Moreover, he only filed xerox copy of driving

licence, but not the original before this Court. Therefore,

the argument of the learned counsel for the respondents

that the driver of the vehicle is having valid driving

licence cannot be accepted, as the driver of the vehicle is

not having valid driving licence and it amounts to breach

of the terms and conditions of the policy. Another

ground taken by the Insurance Company is that the bus

was plied without valid permit. The permit was issued on

19.05.2014 before bifurcation of the State and the

Telangana State was formed on 02.06.2014 As per the

evidence of RW.2, on the date of accident, i.e.,

23.08.2016, the vehicle is authorized to ply at the State

of Andhra Pradesh only, but in the evidence of RW.1 it

was stated that the vehicle is permitted to ply all routes

except prohibited in the State of Andhra Pradesh. It was

suggested to RW.2 that there is no endorsement on the

permit after the date of bifurcation permitting the crime

vehicle to ply on the roads of Telangana State.

No doubt, the permit was issued in the year 2014

when there was common State for Andhra Pradesh and

Telangana, but the accident occurred in the year 2016

and the owner ought to have obtained valid permit to ply

the bus on the roads of Telangana and he should have

obtained an endorsement to that effect, but he failed to

do so and it clearly shows that there is no valid permit as

on the date of accident and it is in clear violation of the

terms and conditions of the policy.

Learned counsel for the Insurance Company also

relied upon a decision of the High Court of Himachal

Pradesh in YASH CONSTRUCTION COMPANY Vs.

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND

OTHERS1 , wherein it was held that the Insurance

Company cannot be held liable to pay compensation

amount as there was no route permit to ply the vehicle in

the State of Himachala Pradesh and it is in clear violation

of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The

2019 ACJ 833

trial Court, without appreciating the facts properly fixed

the liability on the Insurance Company instead of fixing

the liability only on the owner of the bus. Therefore, the

order of the trial Court is modified to the effect that the

2nd respondent-Insurance Company is not liable to pay

compensation and only the 1st respondent-owner of the

vehicle is vicariously liable for the acts of its driver-R3

and the 1st respondent is liable to pay compensation to

the claimants within eight weeks from the date of receipt

of a copy of this order.

The appellant challenged the filial consortium

granted for four claimants. The claimants are the

parents and the brothers of the deceased. The parents

are only entitled for filial consortium, as such

Rs.80,000/- is awarded to claimants 1 and 2 instead of

Rs.1,60,000/- and to that extent the compensation

amount is modified.

Therefore, the claimants are entitled for a

compensation of Rs.15,78,000/- instead of

Rs.16,58,000/- awarded by the trial Court.

Regarding apportionment, this Court finds that

petitioners 3 and 4 are minor brothers of the deceased

and as their father was alive, they are depending on their

father, but not on the brother. Therefore, petitioners 3

and 4 are not entitled for compensation and parents of

the deceased are equally entitled for compensation

amount and permitted to withdraw the same along with

interest accrued on it.

As the Insurance Company had already deposited

50% of the compensation amount, the Insurance

Company is permitted to withdraw the same.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. No order as to

costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand

closed.

____________________ P. SREE SUDHA, J

Date:14.09.2022

Prv