Telangana High Court
New India Assurance Company ... vs K. Jaya Lakshmi Vijayalakshmi And ... on 16 September, 2022
Bench: G.Anupama Chakravarthy
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY
M.A.C.M.A.No.400 of 2008
JUDGMENT :
The appeal is arising out of the order dated 28.02.2007, in
MVOP.No.82 of 2005 on the file of Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal-cum-III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court,
Hyderabad. For the sake of convenience, the parties are arrayed as
in the OP.
2. The appeal is filed by the Insurance Company i.e. respondent
No.2 in the O.P. The O.P. is filed by the claimants before the
Tribunal under Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act,
claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the death of one
Srikanth Reddy in the accident occurred on 22.09.2004.
3. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary
evidence on record, has come to a conclusion that the claimant is
entitled for a compensation of Rs.5,22,000/- with proportionate
costs and interest @ 7.5% per annum. Aggrieved by the said order,
the insurance Company has preferred this appeal.
4. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the
record.
GAC, J
MACMA.No.400 of 2008
5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant-
Insurance Company that the Tribunal ought to have seen that the
accident occurred due to the collusion of two vehicles, and
therefore, it ought to have considered that there is contributory
negligence on the part of the driver of the 3rd respondent-vehicle
i.e. hired RTC bus. It is further contended by the learned counsel
that as the Bus, which was involved in the accident, is hired with
the RTC, an additional premium amount has to be paid by the
owners of the Bus, but the Tribunal has failed to consider the said
aspect. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the
appellant that as the Bus was hired with the RTC, the Tribunal
ought to have fixed joint and several liability on all the
respondents.
6. In this appeal, the dispute is not with respect to the quantum
of compensation and it is only with regard to the liability of the
Insurance Company. As there is no cross appeal on behalf of
claimant, there is no necessity to discuss about the quantum of
compensation granted by the Tribunal.
GAC, J
MACMA.No.400 of 2008
7. As per the judgment of the Apex Court in U.P.State
Transport Corporation v. Rajenderi Devi & others1, once the
vehicle is insured, the owner as well as any other person can use
the vehicle with the consent of the owner and the Insurance
Company is liable to pay the compensation.
8. In view of the above proposition, though the bus was hired
by the RTC, the appellant/Insurance Company cannot be
exonerated and it is liable to pay compensation to the 1st
respondent/claimant. Therefore, this Court is of the considered
view that there are no merits in the case and the appeal is liable
to be dismissed.
9. Accordingly, the MACMA is dismissed confirming the order
dated 28.02.2007, in MVOP.No.82 of 2005 on the file of Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional Chief Judge, City
Civil Court, Hyderabad. No order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
closed.
________________________________
G.ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY, J
Date:16.09.2022
ajr
2020 LawSuit (SC) 429
