The Oriental Ins Co Ltd., Hyderabad vs K Paramma, Secunderabad And 4 Others
2024 Latest Caselaw 2665 Tel

Telangana High Court

The Oriental Ins Co Ltd., Hyderabad vs K Paramma, Secunderabad And 4 Others on 11 July, 2024

            THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

                     M.A.C.M.A.No.690 of 2015

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the Insurance company aggrieved by

the award dated 02.03.2015 in O.P.No.200 of 2012 passed by the

Additional Chairman, Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XX Addl.

Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, as far as their

liability is concerned.

2. Heard Smt. P. Satya Manjula, learned counsel for the

appellant/Insurance Company and Sri K.K.Kishore, learned

counsel for the respondents/claimants and perused the record.

3. The learned Tribunal in the award found that the

respondent No.1/owner of the offending vehicle and respondent

No.2/Insurance Company are jointly and severally liable to pay

the compensation.

4. The Insurance company is questioning their liability on the

ground that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger.

KS, J MACMA_690_2015

5. According to the claimants, while the deceased was going

in a jeep and the driver of the jeep drove the vehicle at high speed

resulting in losing control; brakes were suddenly applied, for

which reason, the deceased fell out of the jeep and sustained

injuries and two days thereafter died while undergoing treatment.

6. The trial Court found that the jeep was insured, for which

reason, directed both the owner of the vehicle and insurer to pay

the compensation jointly and severally.

7. The learned counsel for the Insurance company submits

that the policy is an Act policy, for which reason, pay and

recovery has to be ordered.

8. It was claimed by the witness RW1 who was examined on

behalf of the Insurance company that additional premium was not

paid for the passengers, for which reason the deceased would not

be covered in the event of accident. However, it is not the case of

Insurance company that the policy is an Act policy.

KS, J MACMA_690_2015

9. The only ground raised by the Insurance company before

the trial Court is that no additional premium was paid. When the

Insurance company did not say that the policy is an 'Act policy'

before the Trial Court, in Appeal, the contention of the learned

counsel for the Insurance company that the policy is an Act policy

and they are not liable to pay the compensation, cannot be

sustained.

10. Accordingly, the Motor Accident Miscellaneous Appeal is

dismissed. No costs.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand

closed.

__________________ K.SURENDER, J Date : 11.07.2024 gvl