Telangana High Court
The National Insurance Company Limited vs Nadipolla Badrugonda, And 3 Others on 29 April, 2025
1
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
*****
M.A.C.M.A.No.291 of 2021
Between:
The National Insurance Company Limited,
Rep by its Branch Manager,
Branch Office, B. Laxmiraj Complex,
Jawahar Road, Nizamabad.
(Policy No.39010231136201778092,
Valid from 21.08.2013 to 20.08.2014)
... Respondent No.2/Appellant
And
1. Nadipolla Badrugonda S/o Narsugonda,
Age: 50 years, Occ: Agriculture,
2. Chikkala Swarupa W/o Bagaiah,
Age: 22 years, Occ: Household,
3. Nadipolla Jaipal S/o Bodrugonda,
Age: 21 years,
All are R/o Gegumpur Village, Now residing
at H.No.10-1-84, Thangally, Nizamabad.
... Claim Petitioners/Respondents
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED : 29.04.2025
Submitted for approval.
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA
1 Whether Reporters of Local newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgments? Yes/No
2 Whether the copies of judgment may be
marked to Law Reporters/Journals Yes/No
3 Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to
see the fair copy of the Judgment? Yes/No
ETD,J
MACMA No.291_2021
2
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA
+ MACMA. No.291 of 2021
% Dated 29.04.2025
Between:
# The National Insurance Company Limited,
Rep by its Branch Manager,
Branch Office, B. Laxmiraj Complex,
Jawahar Road, Nizamabad.
(Policy No.39010231136201778092,
Valid from 21.08.2013 to 20.08.2014)
... Appellants/Claimants
And
1. $ Nadipolla Badrugonda S/o Narsugonda,
Age: 50 years, Occ: Agriculture,
2. Chikkala Swarupa W/o Bagaiah,
Age: 22 years, Occ: Household,
3. Nadipolla Jaipal S/o Bodrugonda,
Age: 21 years,
All are R/o Gegumpur Village, Now residing
at H.No.10-1-84, Thangally, Nizamabad.
... Claim Petitioners/Respondents
! Counsel for the Appellant: Smt. Maamu Vani
^ Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Radhive Reddy
<Gist:
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
1. (2006) 4 SCC 404
ETD,J
MACMA No.291_2021
3
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA
M.A.C.M.A.NO.291 OF 2021
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company, aggrieved by
the Order and Decree dated 21.12.2013 in M.V.O.P.No.914 of 2013
passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I
Additional District Judge, Nizamabad (for short "the Tribunal").
2. For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to
as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. The case of the petitioner before the Tribunal was that on
18.10.2013 while the deceased was travelling as pillion rider on
motor cycle bearing No.AP-25AN-4319 driven by her son and when
they reached Dharmaram Village outskirts, some boulders were
kept on the road, due to which the rider could not see the boulder
and dashed against the boulder, as a result of which the deceased
sustained head injury and while she was being shifted to the
Government Hospital, Nizamabad, she succumbed to injuries. The
claimants sought a compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-.
4. The respondent No.1 remained ex-parte.
5. The respondent No.2 filed counter denying the averments of
the petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident and the
age, avocation and income of the deceased. They further denied
ETD,J
MACMA No.291_2021
that the policy issued by their company does not cover the risk of
pillion rider and that they are governed by the terms and
conditions of the policy.
6. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the
following issues for consideration:-
1. Whether on 18.10.2013 at about 7:30 p.m., at Dharmaram
Village, accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving
of motor cycle No.AP-25-AN-4319 by its rider?
2. Whether Nadipolla Mallavva received injuries in that
accident and died of the injuries ?
3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation ? If so,
to what amount and from which respondent?
3. To what relief ?
7. To prove their case, the petitioner got examined PW1 to 3
and Exs.A1 to A7 were marked. On behalf of the respondents no
oral evidence was adduced, but Ex.B1 was marked.
8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded a
compensation of Rs.5,50,000/-. Aggrieved by the said order and
decree, the present appeal is filed by the Insurance Company.
9. Heard Smt. Maamu Vani, learned counsel for the appellant
and Sri Radhive Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the
Tribunal ought to have seen that the accident has not occurred
due to any negligence on part of the driver of the insured vehicle
ETD,J
MACMA No.291_2021
and that the Insurance Company is not at all liable to pay
compensation. It is further argued that the order and decree
passed by the Tribunal is against the law and weight of evidence.
She further argued that even according to the claimants, the
accident has occurred due to the negligent act of one Bachepally
Ramulu who had placed some boulders to dry maize on the road,
which has caused obstruction on the road and that there is no
negligence of the bike rider. Thus, the learned counsel has prayed
to set aside the order and decree of the Tribunal.
11. The learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand
has submitted that the Maxim of res-ipsa-loquitur applies to the
case on hand and that since the accident occurred when the motor
bike went and hit against the boulder, the rash and negligence of
the motor bike itself is proved. Hence, a just compensation has
been awarded by the Tribunal and has prayed to uphold the same.
12. Based on the above rival contentions, this Court frames the
following points for determination:
1. Whether the risk of pillion rider is covered under the
Insurance Policy issued to the motor bike bearing
No.AP-25-AN-4319?
2. Whether the order and decree of the Tribunal need
any interference?
3. To what relief?
ETD,J
MACMA No.291_2021
13. Point No.1:
a) The contention of appellant counsel is that the Policy does
not cover the risk of pillion rider. A perusal of the Insurance Policy
under Ex.B1 reveals that it covers the risk of owner-cum-driver
and no premium was paid towards un-named passenger or pillion
rider and a premium was collected for own damage i.e., for the
vehicle damage, thus a total premium of Rs.11,026/- was
collected. Since, the premium was not paid to cover the risk of the
pillion rider, and as elicited by the recitals of Ex.B1, the policy
cannot be held to cover the risk of the deceased. It is pertinent to
mention here that the son of the deceased was riding the bike and
he is the owner of the bike. The bike is covered under the Act
policy, which covers the risk of owner-cum-driver, but there is no
liability towards pillion rider.
b) In United India Insurance Company Limited., Shimla Vs.
Tilak Singh and Others 1 it was held as; "in our view, although
the observation made in Asha Rani's case were in connection with
carrying passengers in a goods vehicle, the same would apply with
equal force to gratuitous passengers in any other vehicle also.
Thus, we must uphold the contention of the appellant-Insurance
Company that it owed no liability toward the injuries suffered by
the deceased-Rajinder Singh who was a pillion rider, as the
(2006) 4 SCC 404
ETD,J
MACMA No.291_2021
insurance policy was a statutory policy, and hence it did not cover
the risk of death of or bodily injury to gratuitous passenger. For
the aforesaid reasons, the appellant-Insurance Company is not
liable to pay the compensation awarded to the claimants."
c) In the light of the above cited decision, and in view of the
above held discussion, it is held that the Insurance Company is
not liable to pay any compensation.
Point No.1 is answered accordingly.
14. Point No.2:-
In view of the finding arrived at Point No.1, the Order and
Decree dated 21.12.2013 need to be modified with regard to the
aspect of liability. It is held that the Insurance Company is not
liable to pay any compensation, while it can be recovered from
owner of the crime vehicle. Respondent No.1 who is the owner of
the motor bike bearing No.AP-25AN-4319 is alone liable to pay
compensation. It is borne out by record that 50% of the decreetal
amount was already deposited by the Insurance Company and
withdrawn by the claimants. Thus, it is observed that the amount
that is already deposited by the Insurance Company shall be
recovered by it from the owner of the crime vehicle. The remaining
amount shall be recovered by the petitioners from the owner i.e.,
respondent No.1 before the Tribunal.
Point No.2 is answered accordingly.
ETD,J
MACMA No.291_2021
15. Point No.3:-
In the result, the appeal is allowed, exonerating the
Insurance Company from its liability while the owner/respondent
No.1 is held liable to pay compensation. However, with regard to
the amount of compensation that is already deposited by the
Insurance Company, it shall recover the same from the owner of
the crime vehicle. No costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appeal, shall
stand closed.
_________________________________
JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA
Date: 29.04.2025
ds
