Telangana High Court
Shaik Naseeruddin vs Reliance General Insurance ... on 1 February, 2023
Bench: Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
M.A.C.M.A.NO.3026 OF 2014
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 aggrieved by the order and decree dated
26.04.2014 passed in MVOP.No.656 of 2009 on the file of the
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (VIII Additional District Judge)
at Nizamabad (for short "the Tribunal").
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 09.05.2009 at about
8.00 pm near Odyatpally while the appellant was driving his
auto, he lost control over the auto and the auto turned turtle
and he sustained a fracture left shoulder, fractured ribs left,
injuries to hands, legs, head and other parts of the body. The
police of Makloor registered a case in Crime No.121 of 2009
under Section 338 of IPC and the appellant was shifted to
Tirumala Orthopaedic Hospital, Nizamabad where Dr.T.Narsing
Rao treated him and advised complete bed rest for one year and
follow-up treatment. As such, the appellant herein claimed
compensation of Rs.1 lakh under Section 163A of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 against the respondent.
2 RRN,J
MACMA No.3026 of 2014
3. To prove his case, the appellant got himself examined as
PW.1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A3. Whereas on behalf of the
respondent, no evidence either oral or documentary is adduced.
4. Upon hearing both sides, the Tribunal while dismissing
the claim petition observed as follows:
"6.6. As per Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act,
the owner of the motor vehicle or the insurer is liable
to pay in the case of death or permanent disability
due to accident arising out of the use of the motor
vehicle, compensation, as indicated in the Second
Schedule, to the legal heirs or the victim, as the case
may be.
6.7 In Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs Juhma Saha
(MANU/SC/7047/2007), the Hon'ble Supreme Court
held: "The deceased was the owner of the vehicle.
For the reasons stated in the claim petition or
otherwise, he himself was to be blamed for the
accident. The accident did not involve a motor
vehicle other than the one which he was driving. ...
Liability of the insurer/Company is to the extent of
indemnification of the insured against the
respondent or an injured person, a third person or in
respect of damages of property. Thus, if the insured
cannot be fastened with any liability under the
provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, the question of
the insurer being liable to indemnify the insured,
therefore, does not arise.
3 RRN,J
MACMA No.3026 of 2014
6.9 Since the petitioner himself is the tortfeasor, he
cannot seek compensation from the
insurer/respondent..."
5. In view of the above observations made by the Tribunal,
this Court is of the considered view that the injuries sustained
by the appellant are due to his own act and liability cannot be
fastned on the respondent. As such, this Court is not inclined
to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. Hence, this
MACMA is liable to be dismissed.
6. Accordingly, this M.A.C.M.A is dismissed. There shall be
no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
__________________________________
NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J
Dated: 01-02-2023
CHS/TU
