Telangana High Court
Beenamoni Iddaiah , Eedaiah vs Sri. Punjab Singh on 5 February, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU
M.A.C.M.A. NO.286 OF 2019
JUDGMENT:
This Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been
filed, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for
brevity 'the Act') by the appellant/claimant, being aggrieved by the
award dated 20.11.2018 in O.P.No.243 of 2013 on the file of the
learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-
Additional District Judge, Nalgonda (for short 'Tribunal'), by which
the claim petition filed by the appellant herein seeking for
compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- was dismissed.
2. The appellant has filed O.P.No.243 of 2013 under
Section 163A of the Act with a prayer to award a sum of
Rs.2,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic
accident. According to the material averments made by him in his
petition before the Tribunal, it was specifically alleged that the
appellant himself was the driver of lorry bearing No.AP-10U-8624
and on 28.01.2007 while he was on duty on the above said lorry,
which was proceeding towards Kondamallepally Village for loading
of paddy, on the way, at about 05.00 P.M. while the lorry was
passing through the vicinity of milestone No.93/2 at Chennaram
Village, he lost the control over the steering and in negotiating a
turning at left side and hit to culvert No.94/1 and later hit a Neem
tree, which was by the side of the road, as result thereof, the
appellant and the cleaner sustained injuries. It seems to that
effect a report was lodged before the police, Devarakonda Police
Station, basing thereon, a case in Crime No.25 of 2007 has been
registered. The appellant herein has filed the above said M.V.O.P.
against the owner/respondent No.1, insurer/respondent No.2 and
subsequent purchaser of the lorry, who was also present in the
same vehicle, as respondent No.3 and sought for an amount of
Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for his own injuries.
3. Respondent Nos.1 and 3 being owners of the vehicles
did not file any counter nor appeared before the Tribunal.
Respondent No.2-Insurance Company filed counter and denied the
claim on various grounds. The Tribunal having appreciated the
oral and documentary evidence came to the conclusion that since
the petition was filed under Section 163A of the Act and his claim
itself cannot be treated as a third party, therefore, he is not
entitled to any compensation and dismissed the claim petition.
4. This appeal has been filed by the appellant/claimant
on the ground that the Tribunal ought to have considered that the
claim petition was filed under Section 163A and 166 of the Act is
maintainable and the Tribunal cannot dismiss such claim. The
appellant has also claimed that the Tribunal committed a mistake
by holding that the policy obtained from respondent No.2 being a
Act policy did not cover the driver of the lorry, which according to
the appellant is incorrect. The appellant has claimed that the
Tribunal was wrong in taking into consideration of the purport of
the policy a copy of which was marked as Ex.B.1 on the ground
that such policy covers the risk of the driver. Therefore, the
Tribunal ought not to have dismissed the claim petition. The
appellant further contended that the Tribunal failed to appreciate
even if the insurance company is not entitled, other respondents
being owners of the lorry are liable to pay the compensation,
thereby, he prayed for an award in his favour.
5. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. None
appeared for the respondents. Perused the material available on
record. .
6. As could be seen from the impugned Order, the
Tribunal has examined the oral evidence and other record
minutely and came to the conclusion that the policy obtained by
respondent No.1 from respondent No.2 was an Act policy and did
not cover the risk of the driver. The Tribunal while relying on
various Judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as the
erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh including the Judgment
between Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited v.
Gaddam Swamy Reddy and Raja Reddy 1 held that the
appellant herein cannot claim compensation on the policy that
was issued by respondent No.2.
7. In the instant case on hand, on perusal of the material
averments made in the petition and also the oral and
documentary evidence, it is quite clear that apart from the said
petition, the appellant has filed another claim petition under the
provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act,1923 before the
Commissioner concerned. The appellant has pleaded before the
Tribunal that the appellant had not pressed the said petition.
However, he did not place any material evidence to show that he
has already not pressed the other claim petition.
8. As per the policy issued by respondent No.2, which is
marked as Ex.A.10 (Ex.B.2), it manifests that the policy is a
simple Act policy not a comprehensive policy, which can cover the
claim in respect of the injuries of the driver. Respondent No.2 may
be made liable for compensation in respect of a third party
involved in the accident. The claim petition though filed under
Manu/AP/1249/2012
Section 163A of the Act cannot make the Court to fix the liability
on the Insurance Company.
9. After careful analysis of the facts and circumstances of
the case and be it viewed from any angle, this Court is of the
considered view that the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim
as such there are no grounds to interfere with the findings of the
Tribunal as well as to direct the insurance company or the owners
to pay the compensation. The evidence including the copy of the
charge sheet filed by the police clearly shows that the accident
occurred due to the own rash and negligent driving. Therefore, he
cannot claim any compensation from the owner of the vehicle for
his own fault. Accordingly, this appeal is devoid of merits and
liable to be dismissed.
10. Under the circumstances narrated hereinbefore, this
appeal is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous application, if any, shall stand
closed.
___________________________________
JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU
DATED 05.02.2024
YNK
