Branch Manager vs Mrs. Avitha Awari
2024 Latest Caselaw 1430 Tel

Telangana High Court

Branch Manager vs Mrs. Avitha Awari on 4 April, 2024

           THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

     M.A.C.M.A.Nos.1112, 1113 of 2010, 3305 and 3318 of 2011

JUDGMENT:

Aggrieved by the award dated 05.11.2008 in O.P.Nos.706 of

2004, 705 of 2004, 707 of 2004 and 708 of 2004 passed by the Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-V Addl. District Judge (FTC),

Nizamabad, the Insurance Company has filed the present appeals.

2. Since the claimants in all these appeals were injured in the

very same accident, all the appeals are disposed by way of

common judgment.

3. Heard Sri Kota Subba Rao, learned counsel for the

appellant/Insurance company and Sri Janardhan Reddy, learned

counsel for respondents/claimants.

4. The claimants who are the family members of the owner

of the car were proceeding towards Hyderabad from Chandrapur

town of Maharashtra State. By the time they reached Adloor,

Yella Reddy bus station on NH7, the driver of the Maruthi car

drove in high speed and dashed against a lorry which was coming

in opposite direction. The claimants in all the cases have filed

claim petitions for receiving injuries in the said accident.

5. The main contention of the Insurance company is that

Ex.B1 is an act policy and it will not cover the inmates of the car.

The claim was made from the insurer of the car, in which they

were travelling. Unless, it is a comprehensive policy, the question

of covering compensation to the said inmates of the car would not

arise. He relied on the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in

National Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Balakrishnan 1. The Hon'ble

Supreme Court was dealing with similar situation wherein, the

inmates of the car filed for compensation. It was held that since it

is an act policy, the inmates of the car would not be third parties

and accordingly, the compensation was denied.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimants

would submit that the trial Court had correctly passed order on

the basis of record available. Since inmates of the car are all

relatives of the owner, they had to be treated as third parties.

(2013) 1 SCC 731

7. The said argument of the learned counsel appearing for

the claimants cannot be accepted. The act policy would cover

only a third party. The third party excludes the driver of the

vehicle and the inmates of the vehicle which is insured by way

of act policy. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in United Insurance

Company Limited vs. Prabha Sarkar 2 also held that the owner

of the vehicle cannot be extended the benefits meant for third

parties. The finding of the Tribunal that the persons travelling

in the car would be third parties is incorrect.

8. Accordingly, all the appeals are allowed and the

impugned orders are modified to the extent of liability of

appellant/Insurance company. The liability of insurance

company is exonerated, however, directed to pay the awarded

sum to the claimants. Thereafter, appellant/Insurance company

would be entitled to recover the entire paid awarded sum from

the owner of the offending vehicle. No costs.

2014 SCC 719

9. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned

order is modified to the extent that respondent Insurance

company is accordingly directed to pay the awarded sum to the

claimants. Thereafter, respondent Insurance company would be

entitled to recover the entire paid awarded sum from the owner

of the offending vehicle. No costs.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand

closed.

__________________ K.SURENDER, J Date : 04.04.2024 mmr