Telangana High Court
The United India Insurance ... vs Padigela Vijayakumar 5 Ors on 4 January, 2023
Bench: G.Anupama Chakravarthy
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY
M.A.C.M.A. No.2700 of 2008
JUDGMENT :
This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company aggrieved of
the order and decree dated 21.06.2007 in M.V.O.P.No.279 of 2006
on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional
District Judge, Karimnagar at Jagtial.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be arrayed as
they are arrayed in the O.P.
3. On 27.12.2005 at 11.30 p.m., the claimant sustained injuries
in the road accident at Mulkala bridge on National Highway No.16
at Mancherial, for which a petition is filed claiming compensation
for Rs.6,50,000/- under Section 166 (1) (a) of M.V.Act. The
Tribunal Court after considering the entire oral and documentary
evidence (P.Ws.1 to 7, R.W.1 and Exs.A-1 to A-72, Ex.C-1 and
Exs.B-1 and B-2) granted compensation of Rs.4,50,000/- to the
claimant and fastened liability only on R-1 to R-3 and further gave
a finding that R-4 to R-6 are not liable to pay compensation. The
appellant before this Court is the 3rd respondent.
GAC, J
MACMA.No.2700 of 2008
4. It is the specific contention of the appellant that the Tribunal
ought to have noted that there is no coverage risk in the policy to
the owners of the goods and the inmates of the crime vehicle will
not come under the purview of the 3rd parties and ought to have
dismissed the claim as the injured is an unauthorized passenger and
the premium paid only covers the risk of the 3rd party but not the
inmates of the crime vehicle.
5. Heard both sides and perused the record.
6. The learned Standing Counsel for the appellant further
contended that the insurance obtained by the owner of the vehicle
is an Act policy and under the said policy, 3rd parties risk alone is
covered but not others and ought to have exonerated the appellant
from fastening the liability.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
respondent/claimant contended that the injured is also the 3rd party
who was engaged in the goods van and therefore, the claimant is
entitled for compensation and the Tribunal have rightly granted
compensation and prayed to confirm the orders of the Tribunal.
GAC, J
MACMA.No.2700 of 2008
8. The appeal is filed only to exonerate the liability of the
appellant-Insurance company and not about the quantum of
compensation granted to the claimant. Therefore, the appreciation
of evidence would be only with respect to liability of the appellant.
Ex.B-1 is the policy issued in favour of the van bearing No.AP-1-
U-1394. As on the date of the accident i.e., 27.12.2005, the policy
is in existence. It is not at all in dispute as to the vehicle in which
the claimant travelled on the said day. Admittedly, the van is a
goods vehicle. It is the specific contention of the appellant that the
claimant was travelling in a goods vehicle as a passenger and
therefore, he is not entitled for any compensation.
9. The evidence of P.W.1 clearly reveals that he was travelling
in the van along with furniture and house hold articles and he is the
owner of the said goods. The evidence of P.W.7/respondent No.2
(owner of the van) corroborates the evidence of P.W.1 that the
claimant engaged the van for shifting of his house hold articles
from Luxettipet to Mancherial and was travelling along with the
goods. On perusal of Ex.B-1, it is evident that the premium is paid
towards the risk of 3rd party. Therefore, it can be construed that the
GAC, J
MACMA.No.2700 of 2008
claimant is no way connected with the crime vehicle and he
travelled in the said vehicle as the owner of the goods and he can
be treated as a 3rd party and therefore, entitled for compensation.
In National Insurance Company Limited vs. Swarna Singh and
others1 and in National Insurance Company Limited vs Pranay
Sethi and others2, their lordship have held that the Insurance
company is liable to pay compensation and recover the same from
the owner of the vehicle (pay and recover) in case, there are any
violations of the terms of the insurance policy.
10. On perusal of the material on record, the order and decree of
the Tribunal, this Court is of the considerable view that there are no
valid grounds to interfere with the findings of the Tribunal in view
of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgments.
11. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed confirming the
judgment of the Tribunal in O.P.No.279 of 2006 dated 21.06.2007
on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional
District Judge, Karimnagar at Jagtial.
2004 3 SCC 297
2017 ACJ 2700
GAC, J
MACMA.No.2700 of 2008
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
closed.
________________________________
G.ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY, J
Date: 04.01.2023
dv
