Telangana High Court
Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd., vs Kotnaka Jalapathi on 30 August, 2024
Author: P.Sree Sudha
Bench: P.Sree Sudha
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
M.A.C.M.A.Nos.452, 453, 464 & 466 of 2023
COMMON JUDGMENT:
M.A.C.M.A.No.452 of 2023 is filed against the Award
dated 30.11.2022 in M.V.O.P.Nos.4 of 2020 passed by the
learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-
Principal District Judge, Asifabad.
2. M.A.C.M.A.No.453 of 2023 is filed against the Award
dated 30.11.2022 in M.V.O.P.No.155 of 2019 passed by the
learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-
Principal District Judge, Asifabad.
3. M.A.C.M.A.No.464 of 2023 is filed against the Award
dated 30.11.2022 in M.V.O.P.No.196 of 2018 passed by the
learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-
Principal District Judge, Asifabad.
4. M.A.C.M.A.No.466 of 2023 is filed against the Award
dated 30.11.2022 in M.V.O.P.No.154 of 2019 passed by the
learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-
Principal District Judge, Asifabad.
M.A.C.M.A.No.452 of 2023:
5. Respondents No.1 to 3/claimants have filed a petition
vide M.V.O.P.No.4 of 2020, against the petitioner and
respondents No.4 to 6 herein, claiming compensation of
Rs.10,00,000/- for the death of the deceased Kotnaka Devu Bai,
who died in the road accident occurred on 18.01.2018. The trial
Court after considering the oral and documentary evidence on
record, directed the appellant/Insurance Company to pay an
amount of Rs.10,78,000/- with costs and interest at 7% per
annum from the date of filing the petition till realization to
claimants and recover the same from respondents No.4 and 5.
Aggrieved by the said award, insurance Company preferred
M.A.C.M.A.No.452 of 2023, seeking to set aside the Award of the
trial Court.
6. The brief facts of the case are that on 18.01.2018,
respondent No.6 herein engaged the deceased Devu Bai and 13
others to work in his field by engaging the Tractor bearing No.
TS 19 T 2027, for transporting them. When tractor reached Vera
Ghat at 8:00 AM, the driver of the tractor drove it in rash and
negligent manner with high speed and lost control over the
tractor. As a result, tractor went outside of the road and turned
turtle with trolley and thus some of the coolies sustained
injuries and some others died on the spot, as such the police,
Thiryani, registered a case in Crime No.3 of 2018 and filed
Charge sheet against the driver of the tractor, under Section
304-II, 337 and 338 of IPC.
7. The main contention of the appellant/Insurance Company
is that the tractor bearing TS 19 T 2027 was not insured with
them as on the date of accident. Ex.B3 was issued only for
trailer, but not for tractor, as such they need not pay the
compensation, but the trial Court directed them to pay the
compensation and recover the same from the owner and driver
of the crime vehicle. Therefore, requested the Court to set aside
the Award of the trial Court.
8. The learned Counsel for the respondents relied upon the
Judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, in the case of
United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Koduru
Bhagyamma and others, 1 in which the Tractor-trailor met
with an accident resulting in the death of a person. The
deceased was travelling in a trailer which was not insured.
However, the tractor to which it was attached was insured. The
Insurance Company contended that it cannot be held liable as
2009 (3) AICJ 641
trailer was not insured, but the Court held that no provisions
requiring trailer to be separately insured to cover third party
risk. When trailer attached to insured tractor, it becomes part of
tractor, as such Insurance Company held liable. For the same
proposition they relied upon another Judgment in the case of
Gunti Devaiah and others Vs. Vaka Peddi Reddy and
others, 2 in which it was held that no separate insurance was
required for trailer. For the same purport they also relied upon
the Judgment of the Allahabad High Court in the case of United
India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Suman. 3
9. The learned Counsel for the appellant/insurance
Company contended that it is for the owner of the vehicle to
take insurance to both tractor and trailer. In this case, though
the insurance was taken for trailer under Ex.B3, there was no
insurance for the tractor, but the trial Court erred in fixing the
liability against the insurance Company. The trial Court
considering the arguments of both sides, held appellant,
respondents No.4 and 5 are liable to pay compensation.
However, directed the appellant to pay and recover the same
from respondents 4 and 5, but in view of the above citations,
2004 (2) LJR 663
2013 (18) R.C.R (Civil) 376
this Court finds that insurance Company cannot be exempted
from paying compensation as they issued policy under Ex.B3 for
the trailer and their contention that there is no insurance for
the tractor cannot be considered.
10. In the result, M.A.C.M.A.No.452 of 2023 is dismissed. The
appellant/Insurance Company alone is directed to deposit the
entire compensation amount granted by the trial Court to the
claimants, within a period of one month from the date of receipt
of a copy of this Judgment. The Order of the trial Court dated
30.11.2022 in M.V.O.P.No.4 of 2020, is set aside to the extent of
directing the appellant to pay the compensation amount and
recover the same from the respondents No.4 and 5 and the
remaining Order holds good.
11. In view of the Judgment passed in M.A.C.M.A.No.452 of
2023, other appeals i.e., M.A.C.M.A.Nos.453, 464 and 466 of
2023, are also dismissed on the very same lines. There shall be
no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
_________________________
JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
DATE: 30.08.2024
tri
