Telangana High Court
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.Ltd vs P.Mamatha And 4 Others on 13 March, 2024
1
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
M.A.C.M.A No. 2596 of 2014
JUDGMENT:
1. The insurance company is the appellant questioning granting of
compensation to the respondents/claimants mainly on the ground that
though petition was filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act,
unless it is proved that the offending vehicle involved, was driven in a
rash and negligent manner resulting in the accident, the victim cannot
claim compensation.
2. The case of the claimants/respondents is that on 18.12.2007 the
deceased was traveling on Hero Honda Passion Motor cycle bearing
No.AP 25N 0866 along with another person Sainath. When he reached
near Vijay Nagar Village, a motor cycle bearing No.AP 9Q 4450 coming in
the opposite direction dashed against the motor cycle on which the
deceased was traveling, resulting in deceased falling down and receiving
injuries and consequently died.
3. The Tribunal examined P.W.1, who is the wife of the deceased and
marked Exs.A1 to A6 on her behalf. The insurance company examined
R.W.1. According to his statement, the police filed charge sheet against
the rash and negligent act of the driver of the Suzuki Samurai motor
cycle No.AP 9Q 4450 and it was not insured with any insurance
company. Further, no case was registered against the deceased who was
riding the passion motor cycle No.AP 25N 0866 and the said vehicle on
which the deceased was driving is not the crime vehicle as per the police
record.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the insurance company would
submit that Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act cannot be against
own negligence but due to negligence of another. In the present case,
when the crime vehicle is the other vehicle, which is AP 9Q 4450 against
whom charge sheet was filed, insurance ought to have been claimed from
the said vehicle and not from the insurer of the vehicle of which the
deceased was traveling which is AP 25N 0866. He relied on the judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramkhiladi and another
v. United India Insurance Company & another (2020 (2) SCC 550).
In the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the driver of
the vehicle would step into the shoes of the owner in accordance with the
terms of the contract since the deceased was driving the vehicle as the
borrower of the vehicle, claim can only be to the extent of Rs.1.00 lakh,
for which fee was paid. Learned counsel also relied on the judgment of
the High Court of Karnataka in the case of Appaji (since deceased) and
another v. M.Krishna and another (2004 ACJ 1289).
5. The Three Judge Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Shivaji and another v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance
Company Limited and others (2019) 12 SCC 395) held that in a
proceeding under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, the insurer
cannot raise any defence of negligence on the part of the victim to
counter a claim for compensation.
6. In the present facts of the case, the driver of the vehicle Suzuki
Samurai was at fault resulting in the accident and consequent death of
the deceased who was riding Hero Honda Passion motor cycle. The fact
remains that the vehicle on which the deceased was traveling was
involved in the accident. According to Section 163-A of the Act for
claiming compensation, the claimants have to prove the usage of the
vehicle at the time of the accident. Admittedly, the vehicle on which the
deceased was traveling was involved in the accident. I do not find any
infirmity with the finding of the learned Tribunal in granting
compensation.
7. Accordingly, Appeal filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed.
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 13 .03.2024.
kvs
