Telangana High Court
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs Bethu Narsaiah And 4 Others on 7 August, 2025
1
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA
M.A.C.M.A.NOs.430 & 431 OF 2021
COMMON JUDGMENT:
Both these appeals arise out of the Order and Decree dated
18.12.2020 in M.V.O.P.Nos.142 and 143 of 2016 passed by the
Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District
Judge, Warangal (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 petitioners before the tribunal was that on
09.12.2009, while the respondent No.1 was driving Honda Achiever
bearing No.AP-24-P-5270, the deceased and another person were
going as pillion riders on the said vehicle and when they reached
near Gannepalli Village bus stop at about 7:00 p.m., the respondent
No.1, has driven the motor bike in a rash and negligent manner and
hit the Tractor coming from the opposite direction in a rash and
negligent manner, as a result the deceased along with other pillion
rider and the rider of the motor bike, fell down and sustained injuries.
The deceased sustained fatal injuries and died. The petitioners
sought a compensation of Rs.12,25,000/-.
4. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained ex-parte.
ETD,J
MACMA Nos.430 &431_2021
5. The respondent No.3 filed counter denying averments of the
petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident, age, avocation
and income of the deceased. It is further contended that as per the
charge sheet the accident occurred due to the rash and negligence
of the driver of an unknown tractor, but not due to the negligence of
the rider of the motor bike. It is further contended that the respondent
No.1 has violated the terms and conditions of the policy as he
allowed triple riding on his bike.
6. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the
following issues for consideration:-
"1. Whether on 09.12.2009 at about 7:00 p.m., near Gannepalli
Village Bus Stage, Narsimhulapet Mandal, Warangal District, the
driver of the Honda Achiever bearing No.AP-24-P-5270 drove the
same in a rash and negligence manner and caused accident,
resulting in death of the deceased-Bathu Naresh?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation. If so, at
what relief?
3. To what relief ?"
7. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PWs 1 & 2
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.18,44,400/-. Aggrieved by the said order and
ETD,J
MACMA Nos.430 &431_2021
decree, MACMA.No.430 of 2021 is filed by the claim petitioners,
while MACMA.No.431 of 2021 is filed by the Insurance Company.
9. Heard the submissions of Smt. Maamu Vani, learned counsel
for the appellants. No representation on behalf of the respondents.
10. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has argued that
the rider of the motor bike has violated the terms and conditions by
allowing two other persons on his bike and that the policy does not
cover the pillion rider. She further contended that there was an
unknown vehicle involved in the accident and thus, the liability is
fixed on their company and that the policy is an Act Policy, thus their
liability is limited, which does not cover the risk of pillion rider. She
therefore, contended that their company is not liable to pay any
compensation.
11 Based on the above rival contentions, this Court frames the
following points for determination:
1. Whether the deceased was a pillion rider. If so, to what
extent is the insurance company liable to pay
compensation?
2. Whether the order and decree of the Tribunal need
any interference?
3. To what relief?
ETD,J
MACMA Nos.430 &431_2021
12. Point No.1:
a) The contention of the appellant counsel is that since they have
issued "Liability Only Policy" to the two wheeler bearing No.AP-24-P-
5270 they are not liable to pay any compensation to the pillion riders.
b) A perusal of the record reveals that the deceased in the
present case was going as a pillion rider on the motor bike driven by
accused No.2 i.e., Thoorpati Khana S/o Salaiah. The insurance
policy further discloses that the owner of the bike who is the insured
is none other than the father of the accused No.2 and the policy
shows that it is the "Liability only Policy" and the premium collected
is to cover the risk of the third party and also the risk of P.A coverage
for owner and driver. There is no premium collected to cover the risk
of pillion rider. Therefore, the insurance company cannot be held
liable to pay the compensation to the pillion riders.
c) In United India Insurance Company Limited., Shimla Vs.
Tilak Singh and Others 1 it was held that "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
(2006) 4 SCC 404
ETD,J
MACMA Nos.430 &431_2021
that it owed no liability toward the injuries suffered by the deceased-
Rajinder Singh who was a pillion rider, as the 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."
d) In Manuara Khatun and Ors Vs. Rajesh Kr. Singh and
Others 2; wherein it is found that the deceased was a gratituous
passenger not covered under the Insurance Policy, insurer was
directed to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants and to
recover it from the insured.
e) In Anu Bhanvara Etc., Vs. Iffco Tokio General Insurance
Company 3, the Apex Court had discussed Manuara Khatun Vs.
Rajesh Kr.Singh and Others, Puttappa Vs. Rama Naik 4,
Manager, National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Saju P.
Paul 5, New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Vimal Devi 6,
National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Challs Upendra Rao 7,
New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. C.M. Jaya 8 and
(AIR 2017 SC 1204)
AIR 2019 SC 3934
(2013) 2 SCC 41
Civil Appeal Nos1578/1579 of 2004
(2004) 8 SCC 517
(2002) 2 SCC 278
ETD,J
MACMA Nos.430 &431_2021
Amrit Lal Sood Vs. Kaushalya Devi Thapar 9; and held that "the
Insurance Company be made liable for the payment of
compensation to the appellants and in turn they would have the right
to realise/recover the same from the owner and driver of the vehicle.
The insurance of the vehicle, though as a goods vehicle, is not
disputed by the parties. The claimants in the present case are young
children who have suffered permanent disability on account of the
injuries sustained in the accident. Thus, keeping in view the peculiar
facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the considered view
that the principle of "pay and recover" should be directed to be
invoked in the present case."
f) In the light of the above cited decisions, and in view of the
above held discussion, it is held that the insurance company shall
pay the compensation and then recover from the owner of the motor
bike.
Point No.1 is answered accordingly.
13. Point No.2:-
In view of the findings arrived at Point No.1 the order and
decree do not need any interference with regard to quantum of
compensation, but with regard to liability, the appellant-Insurance
(1998) 3 SCC 744
ETD,J
MACMA Nos.430 &431_2021
Company shall pay compensation to the petitioner and then recover
from the insured.
Point No.2 is answered accordingly.
14. POINT NO.3:
In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed modifying the
order and decree of the Tribunal with regard to the liability fastened
on the appellant. It is held that the appellant-Insurance Company
shall pay compensation and then recover the same from the owner
of the vehicle. No costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appeal, shall
stand closed.
_____________________________
JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA
Date: 07.08.2025
ds
