Telangana High Court
Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd. vs Gavuru Buchamma And 2 Others on 12 February, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
HYDERABAD
****
M.A.C.M.A.No.571 OF 2022
Between:
Reliance General Insurance Company Limited
Appellant
Vs.
Gavuru Buchamma and two others
Respondents
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 12.02.2025
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgments? :
Yes
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be
Marked to Law Reporters/Journals? :
Yes
3. Whether His Lordship wishes to
see the fair copy of the Judgment? : No
_______________________________
JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI
2
MGP,J
MACMA.No.571 of 2022
* THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI
+ M.A.C.M.A.No.571 OF 2022
% 12.02.2025
# Between:
Reliance General Insurance Company Limited
Appellant
Vs.
Gavuru Buchamma and two others
Respondents
! Counsel for Appellants : Mr. Kondadi Ajay Kumar
^ Counsel for Respondents : Mr. Ch. Shashi Bushan
<GIST:
> HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred :
1. (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 417
2. 2007 (6) ALD 306
3. AIR 2007 Supreme Court 1054
4. 2019 SCC Online TS 1385
5. 2012 AIR SCW 6286
6. LAWS (TLNG) 2019-9- 127
7. (2004) 8 SCC 553
8. 2013 ACJ 1403 = 2013 (4) ALT 35
3
MGP,J
MACMA.No.571 of 2022
HONOURABLE SMT.JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A.No.571 OF 2022
JUDGMENT:
Aggrieved by the Award dated 31.03.2022 (hereinafter will
be referred as 'impugned award') passed by the learned Motor
Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - VIII Additional
District Judge, Jayashankar - Bhupalpally (hereinafter will be
referred as 'Tribunal') in M.V.O.P.No.1096 of 2016, the
Insurance Company/respondent No.3 has filed the present
Appeal to set aside the impugned award.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are
referred as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. The brief facts of the case as can be seen from the record
are as under:
a) The petitioner filed claim petition claiming compensation
of Rs.7,00,000/- against the respondent Nos.1 to 3 for the death
of her son by name 'Gavuru Ranjith Reddy' (hereinafter will be
referred as 'deceased'). The reason assigned by the petitioner
for the death of the deceased is that on 06.08.2016 at 5.30 PM
while the deceased along with respondent No.1 were moving on
a Tractor bearing No. TS 03 EA 5990 (hereinafter will be referred
MGP,J
as 'crime vehicle'), the wheels of the crime vehicle got stuck in
the mud; when the deceased got down the vehicle, tried to
remove the wheels from the mud, due to rash and negligent
driving of the crime vehicle by respondent No.1, the crime
vehicle turned turtle and fell over the deceased, who sustained
fatal injuries and died while undergoing treatment.
b) A case in Crime No.176/2016 was registered for the
offence under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code against
the respondent No.1 and subsequently after completion of
investigation, charge sheet was filed.
c) The deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- per month by
doing agriculture and at the time of death, he was aged about
22 years, hale and healthy. The deceased used to contribute his
salary to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner claimed
compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- under Section 166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 against the respondent Nos. 1 to 3, who are
the driver, owner and insurer of the crime vehicle respectively,
for the death of the deceased.
4. Before the learned Tribunal, the respondent Nos.1 to 3
filed counters. They denied the manner of the accident, age,
income, avocation and health condition of the deceased. It is
MGP,J
further contended that respondent No.2 is the father of the
deceased, as such, deceased cannot be treated as a third party.
As per the version of respondent No.3, if there is any
compensation payable, it is only respondent Nos.1 and 2 are
liable. Therefore, on the above grounds the respondents
assailed the liability to pay any compensation amount and
prayed for dismissal of the case.
5. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the
following issues:
i) Whether the death of the deceased was caused on
account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of
the crime vehicle?
ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled for
compensation amount, if so, to what extent and from
whom?
iii) To what relief?
6. On behalf of the petitioners, PWs 1 and 2 were examined
apart from relying on documentary evidence under Exs. A1 to
A4. On behalf of the respondents, RW1 was examined apart
from exhibiting Ex. B1.
7. The learned Tribunal after considering the oral and
documentary evidence on record, allowed the claim petition in
favour of the petitioner/claimant and making respondent Nos.1
to 3 liable to pay the compensation of Rs.14,37,800/- jointly
MGP,J
and severally from the date of the petition till the date of
deposit. Aggrieved by the impugned Award, the respondent
No.3/Insurance Company has preferred the present Appeal to
set aside the impugned judgment.
8. Heard Sri Kondadi Ajay Kumar, learned Standing Counsel
for the Appellant Insurance Company/Respondent No.3 as well
as Sri Ch. Shashi Bhushan, learned counsel for respondent/
claimant and perused the entire material available on record
including the grounds of Appeal.
9. It is pertinent to note that the claimant has not filed any
appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. There is no
dispute with regard to the manner of the accident as the
Tribunal by relying on the oral evidence of eyewitness (PW2)
coupled with documentary evidence under Exs.A1 (FIR), A2
(charge sheet), A3 (inquest report) and A4 (PME report)
answered issue No.1 holding that the accident occurred due to
rash and negligent driving of the Tractor bearing No. TS 03 EA
5990 and that the deceased succumbed to the injuries
sustained in the said accident. There is no dispute that the
insurance policy (Ex.B1) was subsisting as on the date of
MGP,J
accident. There is also no dispute with regard to the
relationship between the deceased and the petitioner.
10. The first and foremost contention of the learned counsel
for the appellant is that the deceased being son of respondent
No.2/owner of the vehicle becomes owner of the offending
vehicle by stepping into the shoes of the owner and he cannot
be considered as third party for the payment of compensation
and this appellant is not liable to be pay compensation under
Motor Vehicle Act.
11. In this connection, the learned counsel for the
appellant/Insurance Company/respondent No.3 has relied
upon the following decisions:
a) In New India Assurance Company Limited v. Sadanand
Mukhi and others 1 the Honourable Supreme Court observed as
under:
"Contract of insurance of a motor vehicle is governed by the
provisions of the Insurance Act. The terms of the policy as also the
quantum of the premium payable for insuring the vehicle in
question depends not only upon the carrying capacity of the
vehicle but also on the purpose for which the same was being used
and the extent of the risk covered thereby. By taking an `act
policy', the owner of a vehicle fulfils his statutory obligation as
contained in Section 147 of the Act. The liability of the insurer is
either statutory or contractual. If it is contractual its
liability extends to the risk covered by the policy of insurance. If
additional risks are sought to be covered, additional premium has
1 (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 417
MGP,J
to be paid. If the contention of the learned counsel is to be
accepted, then to a large extent, the provisions of the Insurance
Act become otiose. By reason of such an interpretation the insurer
would be liable to cover risk of not only a third party but also
others who would not otherwise come within the purview thereof.
It is one thing to say that the life is uncertain and the same is
required to be covered, but it is another thing to say that we must
read a statute so as to grant relief to a person not contemplated by
the Act. It is not for the court, unless a statute is found to be
unconstitutional, to consider the rationality thereof. Even otherwise
the provisions of the Act read with the provisions of the Insurance
Act appear to be wholly rational."
b) In Jayavarapu Rajamma and others v. Jayavarapu
Laxminarayana and others 2 the High Court for the erstwhile
State of Andhra Pradesh observed that the kith and kin of the
insured for injuries and their legal representatives in the event
of their death in the accident can sustain claims for
compensation as third party claims, provided the relevant policy
of insurance covers such a risk. It was further observed that the
owner of the vehicle/insured driving or traveling in the vehicle
in case of injuries r his legal representatives in case of his death
in the accident can make a claim only if the policy by its terms
covers such risk.
c) In Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Jhuma
Saha and others 3 the Honourable Supreme Court observed that
the liability of the insurer-company is to the extent of
indemnification of the insured against the respondent or a
2 2007 (6) ALD 306
3 AIR 2007 Supreme Court 1054
MGP,J
injured person, a third person or in respect of damages of
property. Thus, if the insured cannot be fastened with any
liability under the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act, the question
of insurer being liable to indemnify insured, therefore, does not
arise.
12. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the
respondent/claimant relied upon a decision of this Court in
Thakur Uma Rani v. Thakur Giridhar Singh 4 it was observed
as under:
"12. In Sadanand Mukhi's case (supra), the Hon'ble
Supreme Court while dealing with the question whether the
insurer is liable to pay the amount of compensation in relation to
the accident occurred by use of the vehicle which was being driven
by the son of the insured, held that the insurance company is not
liable. But, the facts in the present case are
different. In Jayavarapu Rajamma's case (supra), a Division Bench
of this Court held that kith and kin of insured and their legal
representatives in the event of their death in accident can sustain
claim for compensation as third party claims, provided relevant
policy of insurance covers such a risk-existence and extent of
liability of insurer governed by specific terms and conditions of
policy. It also further held that mere nomenclature of the policy as
a comprehensive policy or otherwise is not the guide, but the
specific terms and conditions of the policy govern the existence
and extent of the liability of the insurer. In the present appeals, the
offending vehicles cover by comprehensive/package policies.
Though there are no specific terms and conditions in the policies
with regard to covering of risk of kith and kin of the deceased, the
insurance company is liable to pay the compensation, as per
the ratio laid down in Balakrishnan's case (supra), from which it
can be construed that when the vehicle is covered under a
comprehensive/package policy, the insurance company is liable to
compensate for the death or injury of a pillion rider on a two
wheeler or the occupants in private car."
4 2019 SCC Online TS 1385
MGP,J
13. It is to be seen that the decision in Thakur Uma Rani's
case (supra) was based on the decision of the Honourable
Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited v.
Balakrishnan and another 5, wherein the Honourable Supreme
Court arrived to the conclusion that the "comprehensive/
package policy" would cover the liability of the insurer for
payment of compensation for the occupant in a car and pillion
rider of a two wheeler by relying upon the circulars issued by
the IRDA. However, it is evident from the record that in the
instant case the crime vehicle is a tractor and moreover, the
deceased is not an occupant of the vehicle at the time of
accident. The deceased was not even a paid driver or paid
cleaner. If at all there was any relationship between the
deceased and respondent No.2 to that of an employee and
employer, the dispute will be covered under Workmen
Compensation Act but not under Motor Vehicle Act.
14. In Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company v. Sangam
Vanaja6 this Court observed that the liability of the insurance
company in a third-party insurance policy is limited to
indemnifying the insured (policyholder) against claims made by
5 2012 AIR SCW 6286
6 LAWS (TLNG) 2019-9- 127
MGP,J
third parties for bodily injury, death, or property damage caused
due to the use of the insured vehicle. The insured or their legal
representatives cannot claim compensation from their own
insurer for their own negligence unless the policy explicitly
provides for such coverage.
15. A third-party policy is mandatory under the Act and
covers liability arising from injury or death of third parties or
damage to third-party property. The policyholder, their family
members, or occupants of the vehicle (unless paid passengers in
a commercial vehicle) are not considered third parties under a
standard third-party policy. The policyholder (insured) cannot
claim compensation from their own insurer for their own
negligence under a third-party policy. The insurer's duty is only
to indemnify the insured against claims by third parties, not to
compensate the insured for their own injuries. If the insured
has opted for a personal accident cover, he/she or his/her legal
representatives may be entitled to compensation in case of
death or disability. However, PA cover is separate from third-
party liability and must be expressly included in the policy.
MGP,J
16. In Dhanraj v. New India Assurance Company Limited 7
the Honourable Supreme Court clarified that a third-party
policy does not cover the owner's own injury or death unless a
separate personal accident cover exists. There is no dispute
that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving
of Respondent No.1, he is primarily liable for the accident. The
deceased herein who is the son of the owner of the
vehicle/respondent No.2, is considered to have "stepped into the
shoes" of the owner. The deceased cannot be considered a third
party for the purpose of third-party insurance claims. Since
Respondent No.2 is the father of the deceased and also the
owner of the tractor, his liability as an owner arises vicariously
for the negligence of Respondent No.1.
17. As can be seen from the record, the respondent No.2, who
is alleged to be the father of the deceased, also filed counter
denying the claim of the petitioner. It appears that the
petitioner has suppressed the fact of respondent No.2 being the
father of the deceased. It is only in evidence of RW1, the fact of
respondent No.2 (owner of the vehicle) being the father of the
deceased was testified. The learned Tribunal observed at page
No.9 in paragraph No.14 of the impugned Award that the
7 (2004) 8 SCC 553
MGP,J
insurance was paid to cover the risk caused due to the crime
vehicle, as such, the relation must be traced with the crime
vehicle but not with its owner. It was further observed in the
impugned Award that an injured or deceased, i.e., person who
does not have any relation with the crime vehicle as a passenger
or driver or cleaner, but happened to be a relative of the owner
or driver of the crime vehicle is not a ground to disentitle him
seek the compensation as a third party.
18. A perusal of Ex.B1 discloses that the policy is a
package/comprehensive policy. A premium of Rs.3,748/- was
paid to cover the damage to the insured vehicle and does not
cover personal injury to the owner or his family members. The
respondent No.2 has paid premium of Rs.382/- towards third-
party liability, which covers liabilities arising due to
death/injury of third parties. An amount of Rs.100/- was paid
towards 'PA cover to owner-driver', which Provides personal
accident coverage to the registered owner if he was driving. An
amount of Rs.50/- was paid to cover the legal liability to paid
driver/conductor/cleaner and it provides coverage to paid
employees. The insured has paid an amount of Rs.7,800/- in
total to subscribe Ex.B1 Policy. Since the deceased was the son
of the owner, he is not a third party and thereby he third-party
MGP,J
liability coverage under the policy does not extend to him merely
because Ex.B1 is a comprehensive/package policy. The PA
cover (Personal Accident Cover) applies only to the owner-driver,
not to family members. It is not the case of the petitioner that
the owner has paid premium for additional personal accident
cover for family members. Thus, the primary liability to pay
compensation rests with Respondent No.1 (Driver) and
Respondent No.2 (Owner/Father of the Deceased) and whereas
the Insurance Company (Respondent No.3) is not liable to
compensate the petitioner since the deceased is not a third
party under the policy. Had the owner/respondent No.2 had
taken an additional personal accident cover for passengers or
family members, then they would have entitled for
compensation. However, as per Ex.B1, there is no such
additional premium paid to coverage such risk.
19. In view of the principle laid down in the above said
decisions and considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
Respondent No.1 (driver) and Respondent No.2 (owner of the
vehicle/father of the deceased) are jointly and severally liable to
pay compensation to the petitioner and whereas the Insurance
MGP,J
Company /Respondent No.3 is not liable and thereby it is
exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.
20. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the
Insurance Company/Respondent No.3 that the learned Tribunal
ought to have awarded interest @ 7.5% per annum instead of
9%, which is highly excessive. By considering the principle laid
down by the Honourable Apex Court in Rajesh and others v.
Rajbir Singh and others 8, this Court is inclined to reduce the
rate of interest granted by the Tribunal from 9% per annum to
7.5% per annum.
21. In view of the above facts and circumstances, this Court
is of the considered view that impugned Award passed by the
learned Tribunal is required to be modified to the extent of
above observations.
22. In the result, the Appeal is allowed in part to the extent of
reducing the rate of interest on the compensation awarded by
the learned Tribunal from 9% to 7.5%. Further, the respondent
No.3 (Appellant) is exonerated from the liability to pay the
compensation as the respondent No.2 (owner) has not paid any
additional premium under Ex.B1 to cover the personal accident
8 2013 ACJ 1403 = 2013 (4) ALT 35
MGP,J
to his family members. Thus, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 i.e.,
driver and owner are jointly and severally liable to compensation
amount of Rs.14,37,800/- awarded by the learned Tribunal to
the petitioner within two months from the date of receipt of copy
of this Judgment. On such deposit, the petitioner is entitled to
withdraw the entire amount awarded to her without furnishing
any security. The remaining part of the impugned Award
stands undisturbed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand
closed.
_______________________________
JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI
Date: 12.02.2025
Note: LR copy to be marked.
B/o. AS
