Telangana High Court
The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd vs Markale Aruna And 6 Others on 18 September, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
M.A.C.M.A.No.1569 OF 2013
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is filed by the appellant/Insurance company,
aggrieved by the judgment dated 22.02.2013 passed in
O.P.No.755 of 2007, on the file of Motor Vehicle Act-cum-
District Judge at Nizamabad.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned
counsel for the respondents and perused the record.
3. The appellant/Insurance company is questioning the
grant of compensation to the respondents/petitioners mainly
on the ground that the insurance company is not liable to pay
in case of a Motor Vehicle accident in accordance with the
policy issued and secondly the place where the accident has
taken place does not fall within the limits of the contract work.
4. Learned counsel for Insurance company submits that
even if the accident is accepted there should have been
contributory negligence on part of the deceased to an extent of
50%.
5. Briefly the case of the claimants is that the deceased
while he was going on his motor cycle and travelling at night
about 9.00 PM through the construction area, he dashed
against the parked road roller. On account of the impact, he
fell down, received injuries and died.
6. The place where accident has taken place is a
construction of high level bridge across Manjeera river on
Rudrur-Pothangal road, Nizamabad. The said contract was
given by the Government i.e. R and B Department to M/s.
Manikanta constructions of Nizamabad.
7. The Superintendent Engineer, R and B is the 1st
respondent. M/s.Manikanta constructions is the 2nd
respondent and Insurance company is made as 3rd
respondent. The 1st respondent who is R and B,
Superintendent Engineer stated that he was not liable to pay
compensation, since there are no departmental road rollers
plying on the road while executing the work.
8. The 2nd respondent M/s.Manikanta constructions stated
that according to them every part of the construction activity
is covered by the insurance company/3rd respondent.
9. The learned Tribunal Judge has examined PW's 1 to 4
and marked Ex.A1 to A8 and Ex.X1 to X4 on behalf of the
claimants in support of the claim that the deceased owned
agricultural fields and was earning nearly Rs.10,00,000/- per
annum. On behalf of the respondent RW1 from insurance
company was examined and Ex.B1 to B3 were marked.
10. As seen from the insurance policy which is Ex.B1, the
covered areas of risk are material damage, third party liability
and excesses under both material damage and third party
liability.
11. The learned counsel appearing for the insurance
company argued that even assuming that the accident has
taken place, such motor vehicle accident would not fall within
the insurance coverage, cannot be accepted. It is specifically
mentioned that the policy is of risk, "Contractor's all risk
insurance" and nothing is specified regarding accident not
being covered under the said policy. In fact, the learned
Tribunal judge has considered the policy and also the
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court which stated that the
road roller would be a motor vehicle and it would be covered
under the Motor Vehicle Act as held in AIR 2001 SC 835.
12. The manner in which the accident has taken place is not
disputed. Nowhere the respondents have come up with the
evidence to show that where the accident has taken place is
not within the area of construction activity. Admittedly the
road roller which was stationed on the road was for the
purpose of construction and used for the construction activity.
13. I do not find any reason to set aside the order of granting
compensation by the tribunal.
14. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand
closed.
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 18.09.2024
BV
