Telangana High Court
United India Insurance Company Ltd.. vs S.Nageswaramma, on 30 August, 2024
Author: P.Sree Sudha
Bench: P.Sree Sudha
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
M.A.C.M.A.No.312 of 2024
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is filed against the Order dated 12.06.2023 in
M.V.O.P.No.778 of 2017 passed by the learned Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal cum II-Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court,
Hyderabad.
2. M.V.O.P.No.778 of 2017 was filed by respondent No.1
herein claiming compensation of Rs.16,00,000/- for the death of
the deceased S.Srinivas Rao, who died in the motor vehicle
accident occurred on 12.07.2017. The trial Court examined
P.Ws.1 to 3 on behalf of respondent No.1/petitioner and marked
Exs.A1 to A5 on their behalf and also marked Exs.X1 to X3.
R.W.1 was examined on behalf of the respondents and marked
Exs.B1 to B6 on their behalf. The trial Court after considering
the oral and documentary evidence of both sides granted
compensation of Rs.18,32,000/-. Aggrieved by the said award,
respondent No.2 therein preferred the present appeal.
3. The brief facts of the case are that on 12.02.2017, the
deceased S.Srinivas Rao, was proceeding on a motor cycle
bearing No.AP 7 CF 6978, towards his home at Sattenapally
from Narasaraopet. When he reached Safe Company in
Muppalla Mandal, one Lorry bearing No.AP 27 W 1458, came in
a rash and negligent manner at high speed and hit the motor
cycle. As a result, he sustained grievous head injury.
Immediately, he was shifted to Government Area Hospital at
Narasaraopet. On 13.02.2017, at about 1:20 AM, while
undergoing treatment, he was succumbed to injuries. The
police, Muppalla PS, registered a case against the driver of the
lorry in Cr.No.18 of 2017 under Section 304-A of IPC.
4. The learned Counsel for the appellant/Insurance
Company mainly contended that the owner of the Lorry bearing
No.AP 27 W 1458, grossly violated the Terms and Conditions of
the policy. As per the Ex.B6-MVI Report, permit is valid up to
08.12.2016. The driver of the lorry had no valid driving license,
but the trial Court erred in fixing the liability against the
Insurance Company and thus requested the Court to set aside
the Order of the trial Court.
5. Heard arguments of both sides and perused the entire
evidence on record.
6. Appellant/Insurance Company has filed the present
appeal disputing their liability on the ground that there is no
valid driving license and permit. The learned Counsel for the
respondents relied upon the decision of the High Court of
Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, in the case of Geeta Bai and others
Vs.Surya Bahadur Yadav and others, 1 in which Insurance
Company contended that absence of valid permit is a
fundamental breach of policy and in case of fundamental breach
direction of pay and recovery cannot be issued, but the Court
held that though there was breach of policy for want of valid
permit, Insurance Company can be directed to pay and recovery
the same from the owner of the offending vehicle and for the
same purport they also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Amrit Paul Singh and another Vs.
Tata AIG General Ins.Co.Ltd. and others 2.
7. The learned Counsel for the appellant/Insurance
Company relied upon the decision of the High Court of
Himachal Pradesh, at Shimla in the case of Yash Construction
Company Vs. National Insurance Co.Ltd. and others, 3 in
which it was held that the offending vehicle has no valid route
2021 ACJ 2613
2018 ACJ 1768
2019 ACJ 833
permit and thus for non-possession of route permit, as it is the
violation of the policy, the insurance company was exempted
from liability.
8. In this case, the trial Court observed that policy was in
force, deceased and respondent No.1 are third parties and thus
directed the Insurance Company, Driver and Owner of the Lorry
to pay the compensation amount jointly and severally to
respondent No.1 with interest at 6% per annum from the date of
petition till realization. Considering the above citations, this
Court finds that it is just and reasonable to modify the Order of
the trial Court, directing the Insurance Company to pay the
compensation amount to the respondent No.1 as granted by the
trial Court and recover the same from respondents No.2 and 3.
9. In the result, M.A.C.M.A.No.312 of 2024 is partly allowed,
modifying the Order of the trial Court dated 12.06.2023 in
M.V.O.P.No.778 of 2017 and the Insurance Company is directed
to pay the compensation amount to the respondent No.1 as
granted by the trial Court and recover the same from
respondents No.2 and 3. 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
