Telangana High Court
The Future General India Insurance Co. ... vs S. Narender Reddy on 5 November, 2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
M.A.C.M.A.No.524 of 2022
and
Cross Objections No.21 of 2023
COMMON JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao)
The present M.A.C.M.A. and Cross Objections are being
disposed of by this common judgment since M.A.C.M.A. filed
by the Insurance Company and Cross Objections filed by the
petitioner/claimant are directed against the very same order
and decree dated 18.05.2022 passed in M.V.O.P.No.2621 of
2015 on the file of the IX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil
Court, Hyderabad (for short 'the Tribunal').
2. Heard Sri Rama Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the
appellant-Insurance Company, Sri Jagathpal Reddy, learned
counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri R.Anurag, learned
counsel for respondent No.2.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will
be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.
2 SP,J & RRN,J
M.A.C.M.A.No.524 of 2022 &
Cross Objections No.21 of 2023
4. Brief facts of the case are as follows:-
(i) On 29-3-2015 at about 10.00 p.m., the petitioner
and his family members were proceeding towards Hyderabad
from Bodhan in the Hyundai Santro EGO GLS Car bearing
No.AP-09-CH-6920, and while on the way to Hyderabad, when
they reached the outskirts of Station Masaipet Village, the
driver of the Car drove at high speed, rashly and negligently and
while overtaking DCM van bearing No.HR-38Q 9300, which was
proceeding in front of the Car, hit the DCM from the back side.
Due to the said accident, all the inmates of the car, including
the petitioner, who was on the left side of the driver seat,
sustained multiple fractures and grievous head injuries. As a
result, both the vehicles were damaged. The accident occurred
due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the
Hyundai Santro ECO GLS Car bearing No.AP 09-CH 6920, as
well as DCM Van bearing No.HR 38Q 9300.
(ii) The petitioner sustained injuries of 1) Severe
Traumatic Brain injury 2) Left Fronto-Temporo-Parietal SDH
with mass effect on ½ ventricle, 3) Left occipital contusion 4)
Right Zygoma fracture, 5) Right maxilla fracture, and 6) Right
side frontal bone fracture and other injuries all over the body.
3 SP,J & RRN,J
M.A.C.M.A.No.524 of 2022 &
Cross Objections No.21 of 2023
Immediately after the accident, all the injured were shifted to
Balaji Hospital, Kompally, in 108 ambulance. After immediate
necessary treatment, the petitioner was shifted to Yashoda
Hospital, Secunderabad, and he was admitted as an inpatient
from 30-03-2015 to 06-05-2015. After admission, he was sent
for all medical examinations, including a CT scan of the brain,
and the examination reports revealed that the petitioner
suffered multiple fractures. Immediately, a team of doctors gave
the treatment to the petitioner, where the CT brain plain
revealed left front temporoparietal SDH with left occipital
contusion with mass effect on left temporal born and obliterated
quadrigerminal cistern. CT 3D face reconstruction revealed
right zygoma fracture, right maxilla fracture, right supraorbital
ridge fracture with right frontal bone fracture. A plastic
surgeon's consultation was taken for multiple facial bone
fracture and advised for fixation. Chest and abdominal internal
organ injuries were ruled out by general surgeon. An
orthopedician ruled out long bone injuries. His attendants were
explained about the critical condition of the petitioner and
advised for immediate surgery i.e., decompressive cranietomy.
After pre operative work up and pre anesthetic checkup, he was
4 SP,J & RRN,J
M.A.C.M.A.No.524 of 2022 &
Cross Objections No.21 of 2023
taken up for emergency left fronto temporoparietal
decompressive craniectomy+ left anterior temporal lobectomy
along with ORIF right maxilla and right zygoma with
debridement + soft tissue repair under general anesthesia on
30-03-2015. Intra and immediate post operative periods were
uneventful. Repeat CT brain plain revealed cistern clearly
visible, midline shift decrease and preoperative contusion. As
the condition of the petitioner was neurologically the same, with
no significant improvement, the petitioner needed ventilator
support.
(iii) The petitioner was about 33 years old and healthy at
the time of the accident. Before the accident, the petitioner
worked as a Senior Software Engineer in Hash Technoligies
Private Limited, and earning Rs.13,00,000/- per annum. The
petitioner is a permanent income tax payee. Due to the
accident, the petitioner was totally bed ridden and unable to
attend his duties. Therefore, the petitioner filed the claim
petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for
short 'the Act') and Rule 455 of M.V.Rules read with Section
140 of the Act seeking compensation of Rs.4,00,00,000/-.
5. Respondent Nos.1 and 3 remained ex-parte.
5 SP,J & RRN,J
M.A.C.M.A.No.524 of 2022 &
Cross Objections No.21 of 2023
6. Respondent No.2 filed a counter affidavit before the
Tribunal denying the averments made in the claim petition
and stated that the petition is not valid in the eye of the law,
since Smt. D. Sindhu Rani, wife of the petitioner, is not
competent to sign the application on behalf of the petitioner.
The owner and insurer of DCM Van bearing No.HR-38Q-9300
are proper and necessary parties for the complete
adjudication of the claim, otherwise the petition is liable to be
dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties. The petitioner
clearly admitted in the petition that there was negligence on
the part of the driver of the DCM Van bearing No.HR 38Q
9300, as such, the owner and insurer of the said vehicle are
to be impleaded. The petitioner did not implead the owner and
insurer of the DCM Van bearing No. HR 38 Q 9300
intentionally, even though he admitted the negligence of the
driver of the said vehicle.
7. It is further stated that the allegation of the petitioner
that he cannot identify his own family members, and there is
no eye contact and sensation to the limbs is not correct, since
the police recorded the statement of the petitioner. The
examination of the petitioner by the police itself clearly
6 SP,J & RRN,J
M.A.C.M.A.No.524 of 2022 &
Cross Objections No.21 of 2023
establishes that the petitioner is competent to sign and he is
not in agitate state. The 2nd respondent has issued policy
bearing No.2015-W0009242-FPV covering the risk of the
accident subject to Section 64 VB of the Insurance Act, 1938,
compliance and terms and conditions of the policy from
02.01.2015 to 01.01.2016 concerning Car bearing No.AP 09
CH 6920. As per Section 134(c) of the Act, it is the mandatory
duty of the insured/first respondent to furnish the particulars
of policy, date, time and place of accident, details of driving
license and the name of the driver and particulars of the
driving licence, but the insured/first respondent has not
complied with the statutory demand. Hence, the 2nd
respondent is not liable to pay any compensation and the
case is liable to be dismissed against the respondent for non-
compliance of the statutory demand. The driver of the Car
was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the
time of the accident. Therefore, the 2nd respondent is not
liable to compensate the petitioner.
8. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the
following issues :-
7 SP,J & RRN,J
M.A.C.M.A.No.524 of 2022 &
Cross Objections No.21 of 2023
1. Whether the accident occurred on 29.03.2015 was
due to rash and negligent driving of Car bearing
No.AP-09-CH-6920 by its driver ?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation,
if so against whom ? To what quantum ?
3. To what relief ?
9. On behalf of the petitioner, examined P.Ws.1 to 16 and
Exs.A1 to A53 were marked. On behalf of the 2nd respondent-
Insurance Company, none examined, but marked Ex.B-1
Copy of the Insurance Policy.
10. After considering the oral and documentary evidence
available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident
occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the
offending vehicle's driver and accordingly awarded an amount
of Rs.4,17,05,962/- without any interest. Challenging the
same, M.A.C.M.A.No.524 of 2022 is filed by the Insurance
Company and Cross Objections No.21 of 2023 is filed by the
petitioner.
11. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-Insurance
Company contended that the trial Court grossly erred in
fixing the liability on the 2nd respondent. It ought to have
seen that the present claim petition itself is not maintainable
8 SP,J & RRN,J
M.A.C.M.A.No.524 of 2022 &
Cross Objections No.21 of 2023
under the provisions of the Act for the reason that the claim
petitioner/injured is none other than the son of the
owner/insured of the crime vehicle. He does not fall under
the category of "third party".
12. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-Insurance
Company further contended that the the trial Court ought to
have seen that the petitioner/injured was travelling in the
capacity of son of the owner of the car and he does not come
under the meaning of third party as per the M.V.Act. The
judgment of the Hon'ble Court in New India Assurance Co
Ltd, Vs. Sadanand Mukhi and others (Civil Appeal No.7402
OF 2008) squarely covers the subject matter of the present
case. Wherein the Apex Court held that the relationship
between the owner and deceased i.e., father and son, is not a
third party relationship as contemplated under section 165 of
the Act. In view of the said judgment, since the
petitioner/injured is none other than the son of the owner of
the crime vehicle, the petitioner is not entitled to any
compensation from the 2nd respondent.
13. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-Insurance
Company, further contended that the trial Court ought to
9 SP,J & RRN,J
M.A.C.M.A.No.524 of 2022 &
Cross Objections No.21 of 2023
have seen that Chapter XI of the Act relates to the Insurance
of Motor Vehicles against third party risks and Section 149 of
the Act clearly mentions about the duty of insurers to satisfy
judgments and awards against persons insured in respect of
third party risks and it does not include about the claims
made by the owner/Insured or his legal heirs.
14. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-Insurance
Company further contended that the trial Court while
calculating the compensation erroneously did not deduct the
TDS and failed to note that the salary of the petitioner was only
Rs.8,50,008/- per annum, out of which, the Professional Tax
and Income Tax shall be deducted, but the trial Court in the
absence of any salary certificate erroneously relied on Ex.A53-
Form No.16 and took the salary at Rs.89,780/- Per month and
calculated the compensation on that amount, which is highly
excessive and contrary to the settled principles of law.
15. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-Insurance
Company further contended that the trial Court failed to note
that as per the Income Tax slab for the A.Y 2015-16 i.e., for
Financial Year 2014-2015 upto Rs.2,50,000, the Income Tax is
Nil and from Rs.2,50,001 to Rs.5,00,000 it is 20%. As per the
10 SP,J & RRN,J
M.A.C.M.A.No.524 of 2022 &
Cross Objections No.21 of 2023
said slab, after deducting the TDS and Professional tax, the loss
of dependency shall not be more than Rs.1,68,58,416/-. But
the learned judge, in the absence of any disability certificate by
the medical board or any authority only relying on the self-
interested witnesses, treated the petitioner's disability at 100%
and erroneously arrived at Rs.2,41,32,864/- which is highly
excessive and contrary to the settled principles of the Apex
Court. Under all heads, the trial Court erroneously granted an
amount of Rs.4,17,05,962/-, which is excessive. Accordingly,
the respondent prayed to set aside the order and decree passed
by the trial Court and allow the present appeal.
16. Sri R.Anurag, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent
relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in
SANKARANARAYANAN POTTI Vs. K.SREEDEVI AND
OTHERS 1 and the judgment of the High Court of Andhra
Pradesh at Hyderabad in UNITED INDIA INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED Vs. GANGISETTI NAGA LAKSHMI 2 with
regard to the comprehensive policy and its effects and who are
(1998) 3 Supreme Court Cases 751
MACMA 2411 OF 2008 AND CROSS OBJECTIONS (SR)
33730 OF 2007 DATED 05.03.2014
11 SP,J & RRN,J
M.A.C.M.A.No.524 of 2022 &
Cross Objections No.21 of 2023
eligible for compensation when the accident takes place and
also with regard to the guidelines issued by I.R.D.A.
17. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner contended that the trial Court ought to have
awarded interest @ 7.5% per annum and the trial Court failed
to discuss with regard to non-awarding of interest. The trial
Court failed to consider the income of the petitioner at
Rs.1,49,743/- for the month of March 2015. The Tribunal
erred in considering the petitioner's income at Rs.89,780/-
per month. Therefore, it may modify the impugned order
passed by the Tribunal and enhance the compensation
accordingly.
18. Insofar as the 1st issue is concerned, the trial Court held
as follows :-
"..... On the contrary, the respondents No.1 and 3
remained exparte and respondent No.2 filed counter that
the driver of the DCM drove the vehicle in Zig Zag manner
due to which the accident occurred. The insured and
insurer of the DCM are proper and necessary parties to
the proceeding to decide the case as per law. Without
prejudice to either parties, mere filing of the charge sheet
on the driver of the car in which the petitioner was
travelling does not mean that the entire cause of the
12 SP,J & RRN,J
M.A.C.M.A.No.524 of 2022 &
Cross Objections No.21 of 2023
accident was due to the negligence of the driver of the car
only. As per the averments of the police records, the
cause of the accident was due to negligence of the driver
of the DCM also. When two vehicles are involved in the
accident and there was negligence on the part of the both
drivers for the cause of the accident, the compensation
should be imposed on the both vehicles. In order to rebut
the case of the petitioner, no oral evidence adduced and
marked Ex.B1 attested copy of insurance policy.
From the evidence present on record and on the
back ground of rival contentions raised by both parties, it
is to be seen whether there is any substance in the claim
made by the petitioner or to the contra whether the stand
taken by the respondent No.2 has been vindicated. On
behalf of the petitioner, the mother of the petitioner was
examined as PW1 as the petitioner was not in a position
to give evidence and she elicited during cross
examination that she is not eye witness to the accident.
She cannot say due to the negligence, the accident
occurred and DCM van dashed the car. She admitted that
she had not filed documents to show that they incurred a
sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards transportation, Rs
20,00,000 towards physiotherapy, Rs.15,000/- per
month towards private attendant charges, Rs.6000/- per
month towards ward boy expenditure, Rs.3000/- per
month towards nursing charges, Rs. 12,00,000/-
towards damages to the clothes and mobile phone. She
further admits that the medical bills are reimbursed by
CM Relief Fund and insurance through employment."
............
13 SP,J & RRN,J
M.A.C.M.A.No.524 of 2022 &
Cross Objections No.21 of 2023
"...... When the contesting respondent had taken various
pleas, the burden of proving some of them is on the
opposite party. But as noticed, no evidence is forthcoming
in support of his version except placing relevancy on
Ex.B1 policy which in fact is in-force as on date of
accident. Except mere and vague denials nothing could
be elicited from oral testimony of PWs 1 to 16. Unless
contrary is proved, the petitioner cannot be non-suited. As
noticed, the accident occurred due to sole negligence of
the driver of the car bearing No. AP 09 CH 6920, which
hit the DCM vehicle bearing No.HR 38Q9300. So the
decision relied on by the learned counsel for respondent
No.2 MACMA No.3074/2007 and 2007 (6) ALD 261 with
regard to rash and negligence is not applicable to the
facts of the present case. So, the case of the petitioner
was established positively with regard to issue No.1 and,
thus answered in favour of the petitioner."
19. In our view, in issue No.1, the trial Court admitted that
the crime car hit the DCM van and also mentioned the DCM
vehicle number. Then, who prevented the petitioner to make the
owner and insurer of the DCM Van as party respondents. With
regard to the said aspect, there is no discussion by the trial
Court while deciding the issue.
20. Coming to issue No.2, the trial Court fixed the monthly
income of the petitioner at Rs.89,780/- as per Ex.A-53 and
awarded a sum of Rs.2,41,32,864/- towards future prospects.
14 SP,J & RRN,J
M.A.C.M.A.No.524 of 2022 &
Cross Objections No.21 of 2023
The trial Court awarded a sum of Rs.20,10,715/- towards
medical bills, Rs.7,75,900/- towards physiotherapy bill,
Rs.75,000/- towards speech trophy, Rs.29,400/- towards house
maid, Rs.4,67,200/- towards maid servant, Rs.6,700/- towards
house rent, Rs.5,00,000/- towards extra nourishment,
Rs.90,000/- towards transport bills, Rs.5,00,000/- towards
pain and suffering, Rs.10,00,000/- towards loss of amenities in
life and Rs.10,00,000/- towards marital life under the head of
loss of future earning and disability. In total, it comes to
Rs.64,54,915/-, but the trial Court wrongly calculated the total
as Rs.64,94,318/- instead of Rs.64,54,915/-. Further, the trial
Court granted an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards future
medical expenses, Rs.10,00,000/- towards future
physiotherapy, Rs.2,00,000/- towards future speech,
Rs.2,00,000/- towards future housemaid, Rs.10,00,000/-
towards future maidservant, Rs.10,00,000/- towards future
extra nourishment and Rs.6,00,000/- towards future transport
i.e., in total a sum of Rs.65,00,000/-. The trial Court also
awarded an amount of Rs.45,78,780/- towards loss of earnings.
The total would come to Rs.4,16,66,559/-, but the Tribunal
made a wrong calculation and awarded a sum of
15 SP,J & RRN,J
M.A.C.M.A.No.524 of 2022 &
Cross Objections No.21 of 2023
Rs.4,17,05,962/-. While awarding the said compensation
amount, the trial Court has not awarded any interest.
The findings of this Court are as follows :-
21. Before the Tribunal, in the counter filed by the
Insurance Company, raised some preliminary objections i.e.,
the petition is not valid in the eye of law, since Smt. D.
Sindhu Rani, wife of the petitioner, is not competent to sign
the application on behalf of the petitioner. The owner and
insurer of DCM Van bearing No.HR-38Q-9300 are proper and
necessary parties for the complete adjudication of the claim.
Otherwise the petition is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder
of necessary parties. The petitioner clearly admitted in the
petition that there was negligence on the part of the driver of
the DCM Van bearing No.HR-38Q-9300, as such, the owner
and insurer of the said vehicle are to be impleaded. The
petitioner did not implead the owner and insurer of the DCM
Van bearing No.HR-38Q-9300 intentionally, even though he
admitted the negligence of the vehicle's driver. The contention
of the petitioner that he cannot identify his own family
members and there is no eye contact and sensation to the
limbs is not correct, since the police recorded the statement of
16 SP,J & RRN,J
M.A.C.M.A.No.524 of 2022 &
Cross Objections No.21 of 2023
the petitioner. The examination of the petitioner by the police
clearly establishes that the petitioner is competent to sign and
he is not in an agitated state. The other preliminary
objections are not elaborately discussed in the order passed
by the Tribunal and huge amounts were granted to the
petitioner under various heads without any proper
examination or any evidence and only based on the oral
submissions made by the witnesses, granted the amounts.
May be, some doctors state that some treatments are required
for a lifetime, but there are no particulars and proof as to
which type of treatments are life long required, and there is
no examination to that effect. One of the doctors examined as
PW.11 and in his cross-examination he said that injuries
sustained by the patient are healed and he did not suffer any
fix after 2017 and there is partial improvement. With regard
to the disability certificate-Ex-30, PW.12-Doctor was
examined and he said that petitioner cannot perform his
daily activities as prior to the accident. In his cross-
examination, he stated that the percentage of disability access
in Ex.A-30 may be reduced after three years in reassessment.
17 SP,J & RRN,J
M.A.C.M.A.No.524 of 2022 &
Cross Objections No.21 of 2023
22. In the evidence of PWs.11 and 12, they have not
clarified how much disability the petitioner has sustained
whereas as per Ex.A-30-Disability Certificate, the petitioner
sustained 73% disability and there is no 100% disability.
Moreover, under the impugned order, there is no discussion
with regard to the disability sustained by the petitioner and
the trial Court also did not fix the disability basing on the
Disability Certificate.
23. The main contention of the respondent Insurance
Company is that the petitioner is none other than the son of
the owner/insured of the crime vehicle, and therefore, he does
not fall under the meaning of 'third party' as per the Act.
24. As per the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 145 deals
with the definitions and under Clause (i) "third party"
includes the Government, the driver and any other co-worker
on a transport vehicle.
25. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent contended that
the subject matter of the present case is squarely covered by
the judgment of the Apex Court in NEW INDIA ASSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED Vs. SADANAND MUKHI (Civil Appeal
18 SP,J & RRN,J
M.A.C.M.A.No.524 of 2022 &
Cross Objections No.21 of 2023
No.7402 of 2008), wherein the Apex Court held that the
relationship between the owner and the deceased i.e., father
and son is not a third party relationship as contemplated
under Section 165 of the Act as such, in view of the said
judgment of the Apex Court, since the petitioner is none
other than the son of the owner of the crime vehicle i.e., Car,
the petitioner is not entitled for compensation from the
Insurance Company.
26. Though the Insurance Company has not raised the
above ground mentioned before the Tribunal, the Tribunal
has to examine the policy, such as, whether the petitioner has
any legal right to claim any amount under the policy and
whether the claimant comes under third party or not and
without impleading the driver and owner of DCM Van bearing
No.HR-38Q-9300 and how he is entitled to get compensation
for his own negligence on Ex.B1-insurance policy,. The
Tribunal without doing any exercise, granted a huge amounts
under different heads.
27. Though the Motor Vehicles Act itself is a beneficial
legislation and under the guise of that, without doing any
exercise or without any proper examination cannot grant
19 SP,J & RRN,J
M.A.C.M.A.No.524 of 2022 &
Cross Objections No.21 of 2023
such a huge amounts under the beneficial legislation. The
Courts can give the excess amount basing on the injuries
sustained, loss of amenities in life etc., whereas in the present
case, there is no dispute that the injuries sustained by the
petitioner are serious in nature. The Tribunal without
examining the policy and without impleading the owner and
driver of DCM Van, who are also responsible for the said
accident, cannot come to a conclusion that the accident
occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the
driver of the crime vehicle and cannot grant such a huge
amounts.
28. Sri Jagathpal Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner
relied upon the judgment in NATIONAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED Vs. BALAKRISHNAN AND ANOTHER 3,
with regard to the liability of the Insurance Company in
respect of third party risk. The Apex Court allowed the
Insurance Company appeal and remanded the matter to the
Tribunal for the purpose of fresh adjudication. In the said
case, whether the policy is a comprehensive policy or Act
policy, there is no discussion in the impugned order.
2013 ACJ 199
20 SP,J & RRN,J
M.A.C.M.A.No.524 of 2022 &
Cross Objections No.21 of 2023
Therefore, the Apex Court remanded the matter for
adjudication.
29. In the present case, the Tribunal did not discuss
whether the policy is a comprehensive policy or a Third party..
Under Ex.B1-Insurnace Policy, the policy holder paid an
amount of Rs.100/- towards compulsory P.A. to owner-cum-
driver to a tune of Rs.2,00,000/- and he also paid a sum of
Rs.50/- towards legal liability to be paid to the
driver/cleaner/employee (number of persons 1).
30. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent relied upon the
decision in NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs.
SADANAND MUKHI AND OTHERS 4, wherein the Hon'ble
Apex Court held as follows :-
"The first respondent was owner of a motor cycle
which was insured with the appellant Company. The
son of the insured, while driving the motor cycle met
with an accident and died. The respondents herein
filed a claim petition. The appellant herein raised the
specific contention that keeping in view the
relationship between the deceased and the owner of
the motor vehicle i.e., father and son, he was not a
third party and the claimants could not seek
compensation on the basis of the provisions of the
(2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 417
21 SP,J & RRN,J
M.A.C.M.A.No.524 of 2022 &
Cross Objections No.21 of 2023
Act. The Tribunal held the insurer liable to pay
compensation to the claimants. An appeal filed
against the order of the Tribunal was dismissed by
the High Court."
31. With regard to third party, the Apex Court observed as
follows :-
"Before the High Court the appellant raised specific
contentions in its memorandum of appeal, which are
as under :-
"C. For that the learned court below ought to have
considered that as in the present case the deceased
was not a third party rather he was the son of the
insured at the relevant time of accident who was
driving the vehicle rashly and negligently, the insured
cannot claim compensation until and unless negligence
on the part of the insured is established and proved.
D. For that the learned counsel ought to have
considered that the Motor Vehicles Act provides
provisions for compensation for the death of the third
party from the insured vis-à-vis the insurance
company but there is no provision in the Act wherein
an insured may claim himself compensation from
himself."
"..... on a plain reading of Section 147 of the Act, it
appears to be clear that the Insurance Company is
not liable to indemnify the insured in the case on
hand."
22 SP,J & RRN,J
M.A.C.M.A.No.524 of 2022 &
Cross Objections No.21 of 2023
32. With the above observations, the Apex Court allowed the
Appeal.
33. In the present case, there is no discussion with regard
to policy and how owner will claim on his own policy is in
question?
34. The trial Court ought to have discussed the FIR and
charge-sheet with regard to the manner of the accident.
When the 2nd respondent and the petitioner has specifically
pleaded about the involvement of DCM, the trial Court ought
to have discussed the said aspect to come to a conclusion
about the manner of the accident, but without such an
exercise, the trial Court came to a conclusion that the
accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving
of the driver of the Car. The trial Court also erred in not
deducting the income tax payable by the petitioner. The
Tribunal ought to have deducted the income tax from the
petitioner's income, but failed to do so. A perusal of the
impugned order with respect to calculation shows that a
mistake was made while calculating the amounts as stated
23 SP,J & RRN,J
M.A.C.M.A.No.524 of 2022 &
Cross Objections No.21 of 2023
supra. The trial Court failed to assign any reason whether the
petitioner is a third party or not.
35. In AMRIT LAL SOOD's case (1 Supra), which is relied
on by the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, the Apex
Court held as follows :-
"The statutory insurance does not cover injury suffered
by occupants of the vehicle who are not carried for hire
or reward and the insurer cannot be held liable under
the Act. But that does not prevent an insurer from
entering into a contract of insurance covering a risk
wider than the minimum requirement of the statute
whereby the risk to gratuitous passengers could also be
covered. In such cases where the policy is not merely a
statutory policy, the terms of the policy have to be
considered to determine the liability of the insurer.
5. In the present case, the policy is admittedly a '
comprehensive Policy'. comprehensive insurance' has
been defined in Black's Law Dictionary 5th edition as
'All risk insurance' which in turn is defined as follows:-
" Type of insurance policy which ordinarily covers every
loss that may happen, except by fraudulent acts of the
insured. Miller v. Boston Ins. Co. 218 A. 2d 275, 278,
420 Pa. 566. Type of policy which protects against all
risks and perils except those specifically enumerated."
24 SP,J & RRN,J
M.A.C.M.A.No.524 of 2022 &
Cross Objections No.21 of 2023
36. In GANGISETTI NAGA LAKSHMI's case (2 Supra),
which is relied on by the learned counsel for the 2nd
respondent, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh held as
follows :-
42. In the recent judgment of the Apex Court in
National Insurance Company Limited v. Balakrishna
and another MANU/SC/0987/2012 : 2012(8)SCJ
492: 2013 ACJ 199, the Apex Court discussed
various guidelines issued by I.R.D.A., which are
extracted as follows:
The above circulars make it clear that the insured
liability in respect of the occupant(s) carried in a
private car and pillion rider carried on two-wheeler is
covered under the Standard Motor Package Police. A
copy of each of the above circulars is enclosed for
read reference."
37. In the above two cases, the Apex Court as well as the
High Court of Andhra Pradesh discussed about the
comprehensive policy and also the guidelines issued by
I.R.D.A.
38. The 2nd respondent has not discussed about the
comprehensive policy and also with regard to the guidelines
issued by I.R.D.A. before the trial Court. Moreover, before the
trial Court, the 2nd respondent did not contest the matter and
25 SP,J & RRN,J
M.A.C.M.A.No.524 of 2022 &
Cross Objections No.21 of 2023
did not file counter affidavit and he remained ex-parte. In the
present appeal only, the 2nd respondent relied upon the said
two judgments with regard to comprehensive policy and also
the guidelines issued by I.R.D.A. In the instant case, the
Insurance Company or the petitioner did not raise any issue
with regard to comprehensive policy and also with regard to
the guidelines issued by I.R.D.A. Therefore, the said two
judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the 2nd
respondent are not applicable to the case on hand.
39. For all the aforesaid reasons, this Court feels that it is
appropriate to remand the matter to the trial Court for fresh
adjudication.
40. Accordingly, M.A.C.M.A.No.524 of 2022 is allowed by
setting aside the order dated 18.05.2022 passed in
M.V.O.P.No.2621 of 2015 on the file of the IX Additional Chief
Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, and the matter is remanded
to the trial Court for fresh adjudication. The trial court is
directed to dispose of the matter within a period of twelve
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
26 SP,J & RRN,J
M.A.C.M.A.No.524 of 2022 &
Cross Objections No.21 of 2023
Cross Objections No.21 of 2023
41. Since the main appeal itself is allowed by setting aside
the impugned order, the question of interference in the cross
objections does not arise. Therefore, the cross objections are
dismissed. No order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any are
pending, shall stand closed.
________________
SUJOY PAUL, J
_____________________________________
NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J
05th day of November, 2024
Prv
