United India Insurance Company Limited vs Aegolapu , Pusala Premala , Premala
2025 Latest Caselaw 6686 Tel

Telangana High Court

United India Insurance Company Limited vs Aegolapu , Pusala Premala , Premala on 24 November, 2025

      THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

                       M.A.C.M.A.No.111 of 2020
JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the appellant-Insurance Company under

Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Award and

decree passed by the court of the M.A.C.T-Cum-Principal District and

Sessions Judge, Adilabad (hereinafter referred to 'learned Tribunal') in

M.V.O.P.No.56 of 2017, dated 27.08.2019, wherein, learned Tribunal

has granted compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- to the

claimants/respondents herein.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred

to as they are arrayed before the learned Tribunal.

3. The brief facts of the case are that claimant filed M.V.O.P.No.56 of

2017 under Section 163-A) of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 seeking

compensation on account of death of the deceased i.e., Aegolapu @

Pusala Mahesh Goud. On 27.03.2014, the deceased was proceeding on

motorcycle bearing No.AP-15-AQ-6533 from Chintaguda (K) village to

Indaram as pillion rider along with his rider and when they reached

near Shri Shri Nagar Reliance Petrol Pump, Chunnambattiwada,

Mancherial, the rider of said motorcycle drove it in a rash and negligent

manner with high speed, due to which the deceased fell down on the

road and sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. The rider of

the said motorcycle also died while undergoing treatment. The Police,

Mancherial, registered a case in Crime No.160/2014 under Sections

304-A, 338 of IPC against the rider of motorcycle bearing No.AP-15-AQ-

6533.

4. Due to the said accident, the claimants suffered mental agony,

financial problems and future source of income of the deceased, as

claimants were dependent upon deceased. The claimants claimed an

amount of Rs.6,00,000/- as compensation for the death of the deceased

under various heads.

5. The contention of the claimants before the Tribunal, as on the

date of accident the deceased was aged about 25 years and used to earn

Rs.12,000/- per month as a lorry driver which he used to contribute the

same for the welfare of the family. Due to the sudden death of the

deceased, the claimants No.1 lost her husband and claimant No.2 who

is father of the deceased lost their son and both the claimants lost their

conjugal happiness and lost deceased's company and there is no other

person to take care of the claimants and the petitioners lost their

dependency.

6. Before the learned Tribunal, respondent Nos.1 - Owner of

motorcycle bearing No.AP-15AQ-6533 remained ex-parte. Respondent

No.2 - United India Insurance Company Limited, filed counter-affidavit,

denying all the averments made in the claim petition, including the

manner in which the accident took place, age, avocation and income of

the deceased and contended that rider of the motorcycle is not having

valid and effective license at the time of the accident and the

compensation claimed is excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim

petition.

7. Basing on the pleadings and averments made by both the

counsels, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues which reads

as under:

1. Whether the deceased Aegolapu @ Pusala Mahesh Goud, died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 27.03.2014 at about 07.45 p.m., near Shri Nagar Reliance Petrol Pump, Chunnambattiwada, Mancherial, involving the motorcycle bearing No.AP-15-AQ-6533?

2. Whether there was any insurance coverage for the motorcycle bearing No.AP-15-AQ-6533 and if so, does the policy cover the risk of deceased and if so, was there any breach of policy condition alleged by the respondents?

3. What were the age, avocation and the earnings of deceased?

4. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and against whom?

5. To what relief?"

8. After perusing the oral and documentary evidences and going into

the entire record and the evidences placed by both the parties, the

learned Tribunal allowed the claim petition and come a conclusion that

the claimants would be entitled for an compensation award of

Rs.6,00,00/- along with interest @ 7.5 % per annum.

9. Heard Sri M.Satish Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant-

Insurance Company and Sri S.Surender Reddy, learned counsel for

the respondent No.1 & 2. None appears for respondent No.3. Perused

the material on record.

10. Being aggrieved by the compensation amount awarded by the

learned Tribunal, the present appeal is filed by the appellant/Insurance

Company on the ground that rider of the motorcycle bearing No.AP-15-

AQ-6533 was not having driving license and due to the rash and

negligent driving of the motor cycle, the accident occurred and the

deceased who was sitting as pillion rider fell down and died on spot and

further averred that the Tribunal ought to have appreciate the fact that

the policy was issued with a liability policy and does not cover the risk

of the pillion rider i.e., deceased, however the Tribunal erred in coming

to the conclusion that the deceased being pillion rider was third party.

11. Learned counsel for the appellant further averred that the

Tribunal failed to have appreciate the evidence of RW1--Administrative

Officer and Ex.B1-Charge Sheet and Ex.B2-Insurance Policy and

granted colossal compensation amount to the claimants by fixing the

income of the deceased @ Rs.4,500/- per month. The Tribunal ought to

have dismissed the claim petition or ought to have exonerated the

appellant from liability as the policy was issued in case of liability only

policy, the insurer-appellant is not required to cover the risk of the

pillion rider and pray this Court to set aside the order passed by the

learned Tribunal and allow the present appeal.

12. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 submits that after

considering the entire evidence available on record, the learned Tribunal

has awarded just compensation, which needs no interference.

13. Admittedly, the claimants have not filed cross-appeal against the

Award and decree passed by the Tribunal. As such, the claimants are

deems to be satisfied with the Award and decree and the compensation

awarded by the Tribunal. The only point arose before this Court in this

appeal is that:

"i) Whether the learned Tribunal has rightly fixed the liability on the appellant to pay the compensation

ii) Whether the Tribunal had rightly consider the claimants petition filed under Section 166 (A) Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and awarded just compensation to the claimants."

Point No.1 & 2:

14. The main contention of the appellant-Insurance Company before

this Court is that the deceased was travelling on the two wheeler as

pillion rider and his risk is not covered as per the terms and conditions

of the insurance policy, as the Insurance Policy is only a "Liability on

Policy and Act Policy" and also the rider of the motor cycle was not

having driving license to ride the said drive the motor cycle which is

breach and violation of the contractual condition embodied in the

insurance policy.

15. Admittedly, the deceased was pillion rider on the motor cycle.

Ex.A1-FIR and Ex.A4 clearly reveals the involvement of the crime vehicle

in the accident, Ex.A2-Inquest Report, Ex-A3-Postmortem Examination

report disclosed that the nature of the accident occurred, resulting in

death of the deceased due to the involvement of the motor bearing

No.AP-15-AQ-6533. Ex.B2 disclosed that the policy was in force at the

time of accident, however on keen perusal of the Ex.B2-Insurance

company, it reveals that Insurance Policy is only "Liability only Policy"

and there is no premium paid and no additional premium was paid to

cover the pillion rider.

16. In United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Shimla vs Tilak Singh And

Ors 1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, the risk of the death or

bodily injury to gratuitous passenger does not apply and the relevant

portion of the order is extracted hereunder:

"In our view, although the observation made in Asha Rani's case (supra) 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 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, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment holding that the appellant-insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation awarded to the claimants."

1 2006 AIR SCW 1822

17. In United India Insurance Company Ltd vs Sathish Kumar 2,

the Madras High Court has also held that the Tribunal erroneously held

that the pillion rider is a third party and came to conclusion that the

pillion rider is a gratuitous passenger in case of Act Policy and the

relevant operating portion of the order is extracted for read reference:

11.The contention of the appellant is that the policy in question is only an Act policy and it covers risk and liability in respect of the third parties only and it does not cover the rider and pillion rider of the Motor bike. The 1st respondent has not disputed that the policy issued by the appellant is only an Act Policy. It is not the case of the 1st respondent that policy issued by the appellant is comprehensive policy covering both rider and pillion rider of the Motor bike. The Tribunal fastened the liability of the appellant on the ground that the 1st respondent was a third party. Such finding is erroneous. It is well settled that in an Act Policy the rider and the pillion rider of the two wheeler are not covered and Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation for the bodily injuries or the death. Whether, the pillion rider is covered under the Act Policy or not was considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Judgment reported in 2006 (4) SCC 404 [United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Shimla Vs. Tilak Singh and others], wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the pillion rider is not covered in the Act Policy and the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation to the pillion rider.

2019 SCC Online Mad 16849

12. In the present case, the Insurance Policy in question is only 'Act Policy' and 1st respondent was a pillion rider. In view of principles that emerged in the judgments referred to above, the 1st respondent is not a third party and he is only a gratuitous passenger. The contention of the learned counsel for the 1st respondent that the 1st respondent is a pillion rider and the Tribunal rightly directed the appellant to pay the compensation is without merits. The Tribunal erroneously held that the 1st respondent, pillion rider is a third party and appellant is liable to pay compensation. In the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2006 (4) SCC 404 extracted above, it has been held that pillion rider is a gratuitous passenger in case of Act Policy. In the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2007 (5) SCC 428 [Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., vs. Meena Variyal], the Hon'ble Apex Court referring to Asha Rani's case, [New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Asha rani], held in paragraph No.18 as follows:

'In other words, this Court clearly held that the apparently wide words 'any person' are qualified by setting in which they occur and that 'any person' is to be understood as a third party".

As per the judgments referred to above, in an Act Policy, the pillion rider in a two-wheeler is a gratuitous passenger and appellant is not liable to pay compensation to the 1st respondent. In view of the fact that the appellant is not liable to pay any compensation, the question of pay and recovery does not arise.'

13. In view of the Judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the award of the Tribunal is set aside and the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. The appellant / Insurance Company is permitted to withdraw the amount deposited in the credit of the claim petition, by

filing necessary application before the Tribunal. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed."

18. Coming to the present case on hand, It is evident that the

deceased was a pillion rider at the time of the accident, which was

neither disputed by both the parties, and the Insurance Policy is

only an "Liability only Policy and Act Policy" and in the light of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment discussed above, it is clear that

deceased was travelling in the offending vehicle as a pillion rider and

Insurance Company did not take any premium for pillion rider from

the owner of the Motor Cycle, therefore, the question of liability on

the appellant-Insurance Company to the pay the compensation for

the death of the deceased (pillion rider) does not arise.

19. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered

opinion that the learned Tribunal has committed error treating the

deceased to be third party and making appellant-Insurance

Company liable to pay compensation, and the Award passed against

insurance company is not correct in the eye of law, hence, the order

passed by the learned Tribunal in M.V.O.P.No.56 of 2017, dated

27.08.2019 is liable to be set aside in for as the appellant is

concerned.

20. In the result, this M.A.C.M.A. is allowed and the Award and

decree passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - Cum -

Principal District and Sessions Judge, Adilabad in M.V.O.P.No.56 of

2017, dated 27.08.2019 is hereby set aside in so far as the appellant

- Insurance Company is concerned.

21. It is made clear that, if the claimants have already withdrawn the

said award amount, the appellant-insurance company is not entitled to

recover the same from the claimants. However, the Insurance Company

can proceed to recover the compensation amount paid to claimants,

from the owner of the Motor Cycle by following due procedure

contemplated under law.

22. Miscellaneous petitions, if any are pending, shall stand closed.

_________________________________ NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA, J 24.11.2025 SHA