Back
2006 Supreme(AP) 1081
2007 (2) ALD 65
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.
United India Insurance Co., Ltd., Mukarampura, Karimnagar -Appellant
Versus
Tuniki @ Mudam Lachavva @ Laxmi and another -Respondents
MA CMA No.1200 of 2005
Decided on: 19th September, 2006
Advocates appeared : E. Venugopal Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioner; I. Aga Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent No.1.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 147 – Accident Case –Injured – Claim of Compensation – First respondent filed O.P. claiming a sum of injuries sustained by her in an accident that occurred on pleaded that petitioner was travelling as a pillion rider on a motorcycle driven by one with a view to go to and when they reached Bus Stage, a vehicle bearing owned by second respondent and insured with the appellant came in a rash and negligent manner and hit motorcycle from behind first respondent is said to have fallen down and sustained head injury. She was treated in a private hospital and it was pleaded that she incurred a sum of towards the treatment – Under different heads she claimed a sum of as compensation – Owner of vehicle remained ex part was contested by appellant herein – It was pleaded that there was no negligence on part of driver of Toyota Qualis and that accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of driver of motorcycle – It was further alleged that there did not exist any insurance coverage for vehicle as on date of accident – Held, Webster to make known to give notice, to inform by words or writings, or by any other signs – Which are understood – In certain enactments, the term was interpreted as meaning "publication of notification – Since such a clause does not exist in Act - nor insurer is empowered to issue such notification meaning that can be given to said term is that communication as to cancellation of covernote must reach Registering Authority – Whatever be means employed obligation of insurer comes to an end only when facturm of cancellation of covernote had reached Registering Authority – In the instant case only exercise undertaken by appellant was that it sent a notice to Registering Authority through Certificate of Posting – It was neither pleaded nor proved that Registering Authority notified facturm of cancellation of covernote before accident had occurred – Contract of insurance is between appellant and second respondent and first respondent is not a party to it – If it were to be a contract in the ordinary parlance first respondent could not have enforced it once plea of appellant that it cancelled contract of insurance is not disputed by second respondent – Contract assumes a different character inasmuch as it came to be executed as a compliance with requirement under a statute – Civil miscellaneous appeal is accordingly dismissed.
2. First respondent filed the O.P. claiming a sum of Rs.l,50,000/- for the injuries sustained by her in an accident that occurred on 21-3-2003. She pleaded that the petitioner was travelling as a pillion rider on a motorcycle driven by one Erukla Kishan; with a view to go to Vemulawada and when they reached Nampally Bus Stage, a vehicle bearing No.AP 15V 5656 (Toyota Qualis) owned by the second respondent and insured with the appellant came in a rash and negligent manner and hit the motorcycle from behind. The first respondent is said to have fallen down and sustained head injury. She was treated in a private hospital and it was pleaded that she incurred a sum of Rs.50,000/towards the treatment. Under different heads, she claimed a sum of Rs.l,50,000/- as compensation.
3. The owner of the vehicle remained ex parte. The O.P. was contested by the appellant herein. It was pleaded that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the Toyota Qualis and that the accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the motorcycle. It was further alleged that there did not exist any insurance coverage for the vehicle as on the date of the accident.
The Tribunal held that the accident occurred on account of the rashness and negligence of driver of the vehicle, insured with the appellant, and awarded a sum of Rs.42,000/- as compensation with interest at 9% per annum. It was held that the appellant and the second respondent are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.
4. Sri E. Venugopal Reddy, learned Counsel for the appellant, submits that though the insurance coverage was taken for the vehicle in question on 9-1-2003, the cheque issued by the second respondent towards payment of the insurance premium was dishonoured and accordingly the insurance cover was cancelled on 21-1-2003. The learned Counsel further points out that the second respondent took out a fresh policy on 22-3-2003, whereas the accident occurred on 21-3-2003. Placing reliance upon certain precedents, he contends that the Tribunal ought not to have held the appellant liable, to pay the compensation.
5. Sri I Aga Reddy, learned Counsel for the first respondent, on the other hand, submits that though it was pleaded by the appellant that the cheque issued by the second respondent for payment of the insurance premium was dishonoured, there is nothing on record to show that they have notified the cancellation of the policy to the Registering Authority as required under sub-section (4) of Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity the Act) and in that view of the matter, the appellant cannot escape from its liability to pay the compensation. He submits that the Tribunal had examined the matter in the light of settled principles and that the same does not warrant any interference.
6. First respondent pleaded that when she was proceeding to Vemulawada, on motorcycle as a pillion rider, the vehicle owned by the second respondent came from behind and dashed against the motorcycle and she sustained injuries. The second respondent remained ex parte. It was the appellant that pleaded the absence of any negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle owned by the second respondent.
On her behalf, the petitioner deposed to these facts as PW.1. She has also filed an attested copy of the F.I.R. in Crime No.36 of 2003, marked as Ex.A.1 and the certified copy of the charge-sheet, marked as EX.A.3.
These two documents, together with the Medical Certificate issued to the petitioner, marked as Ex.A.2, clearly disclosed that the liability for the accident was exclusively with the driver of the Tayota Qualis. The Tribunal examined the rival contentions and ultimately held that the accident occurred on account of the rash and negligence on the part of the driver o
