Telangana High Court
The National Insurance Company Limited vs Manda Vijaya And 4 Others on 14 February, 2025
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
M.A.C.M.A.No.3533 of 2019
JUDGMENT:
Heard Sri G. Raj Kumar, learned counsel for the
appellant/Insurance Company and Sri K. Rajanna, learned counsel
for respondent Nos.1 to 4 - claimants. Perused the entire record.
2. This appeal is preferred by the appellant/Insurance Company
being aggrieved by the award passed by the learned V Additional
District Judge-cum-Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents Tribunal,
Karimnagar in M.V.O.P.No.746 of 2015, dated 29.06.2018, wherein,
the claim petition filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act
filed by respondent Nos.1 to 4 has been partly allowed awarding
compensation of Rs.4,13,000/- payable by the appellant and
respondent No.5 herein jointly and severally.
3. The claim petition was filed by respondent Nos.1 to 4 following
death of one Manda Veera Reddy in a road traffic accident which
occurred on 18.06.2013 at 10.45 hours near School building,
Deshaipalli Village of Veenavanka Mandal, Karimnagar District,
claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- and the said claim petition
was allowed partly awarding compensation of Rs.4,13,000/- with
interest @ 7.5% per annum. Aggrieved by the said award, the
appellant herein preferred the present appeal challenging their
liability on the ground of driving licence violation and the deceased
stepped into the shoes of the owner and thereby, not entitled
to payment of compensation under Section 163-A of the Motor
Vehicles Act.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the decisions of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases of Ramkhiladi and another v.
United India Insurance Company 1, New India Assurance
Company Limited v. Sadanand Mukhi and others 2 and Oriental
Insurance Company Limited v. Rajni Devi and others 3, wherein
the liability of the insurance company as per policy taken by the
owner of the vehicle was limited to the third party risk. Said cases do
not deal with instances of owner taking comprehensive package
covering personal risk and risk of the driver.
5. On perusal of the record, it is seen that there is no dispute
about the accident occurring when the deceased while riding a
motorcycle, tried to avoid hitting a dog and in the process, the
accident occurred resulting in his death. The police closed the case as
action abated as the accident occurred due to the driving of the
deceased himself and he died due to that accident. In that regard,
there is no dispute by the Insurance Company.
(2020) 2 SCC 550
(2009) 2 SCC 417
(2008) 5 SCC 736
6. The grievance of the Insurance company is on two counts, i.e.
there is a driving licence violation and that the Insurance company is
not liable to pay compensation on the premise that the deceased
stepped into the shoes of the owner and the owner, who is insured is
not entitled to payment of compensation. On the first count, there is
no factual evidence to support the contention of the Insurance
Company about the driving licence violation. Ex.A5/MVI Report
merely leaves a blank space meant for noting the details of the diving
licence of the driver of the offending vehicle. Mere absence of said
details does not mean that the deceased did not possess driving
licence. Coming to the next count of liability of the Insurance
Company to pay compensation, a perusal of the Insurance
Policy/Ex.B1 shows that the same is a comprehensive package
covering the risk of driver as well. The coverage provided to the driver
is extracted and produced below:
"DRIVER: Any person including insured: Provided that a
person driving holds an effective driving licence at the time of
the accident and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining
such a licence. Provided also that the person holding an
effective Learner's Licence may also drive the vehicle and that
such a person satisfies the requirements of Rule 3 of the
Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989".
7. The above clause shows that the insurance coverage is provided
to any person including the insured i.e. even in case, the deceased
was owner of the vehicle itself, the Insurance Company is liable to pay
compensation. In the instant case, the deceased was merely a driver
and not even the insured. Therefore, there is no substance in the
contention of the Insurance Company and the same is not
sustainable.
8. In the result, this Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is
dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this appeal, shall
stand closed.
___________________
RENUKA YARA, J
Date: 14.02.2025
gvl
