Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
NINALA JAYASURYA, J.
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD – Petitioner
Versus
BHUMIREDDY NARAPUREDDYGARI CHENNA KRISHNA REDDY ANR. – Respondents
M.A.C.M.A.Nos. 3115 and 3116 of 2005
Decided On : 08-10-2021
Indian Evidence Act - Section 101- Accident – Claim of Compensation - Whether petitioner is entitled for compensation and if so to what amount - Appeals were preferred by National Insurance Company Limited aggrieved by awards - original petitions were filed by two injured persons/claimants separately seeking compensation for injuries sustained by them in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on - Claimants are residents of Village - On after completion of personal work of respondent in Hyderabad while they along with others were returning back in a Jeep of 1st respondent to their village and when Jeep crossed Village at about driver of Jeep drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against an R.T.C. bus - As a result of which Jeep turned turtle and claimants and others sustained severe injuries.
Finding of the court :
In statement made by R.W.1 in his cross-examination to effect that Jeep was insured with appellant-Insurance Company with comprehensive coverage, meaning thereby that it covers damage to vehicle and third party risk it is not material as to whether claimants were travelling as unauthorized passengers or otherwise - In light of the categorical admission of R.W.1 with reference to Ex.B.1-policy this Court finds no reason to interfere with award of Claims Tribunal - No doubt as argued by counsel for appellant principle of pay and recover can be applied provided attending of a case so warrants - However in present case since liability of Insurance Company is covered in terms of Ex.B.1-policy as admitted by R.W.1 this Court is unable to accept the submission made by counsel for appellant.
Result: Appeal are dismissed
JUDGMENT:
(Heard and pronounced through Blue Jeans App (Virtual) mode, since this mode is adopted on account of prevalence of COVID-19 pandemic)
These two appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment, as they arise out of the same accident and the respondents in the original petitions are one and the same.
2. Both the appeals were preferred by the National Insurance Company Limited, aggrieved by the awards dated 03.08.2005 in M.V.O.P.Nos.386 of 2002 and 387 of 2002 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Cuddapah, (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’).
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to, as they were arrayed before the Tribunal in the original petitions.
4. The original petitions were filed by two injured persons/claimants separately seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by them in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 19.06.1999. The claimants are residents of Bidinamcherla Village. On 19.06.1999, after completion of personal work of the 1st respondent in Hyderabad, while they along with others were returning back in a Jeep of the 1st respondent to their village and when the Jeep crossed Palem Village at about 5.30 p.m., the driver of the Jeep drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against an R.T.C. bus. As a result of which, the Jeep turned turtle and the claimants and others sustained severe injuries. Immediately after the accident, the claimants were taken to the Government Hospital, Vanaparthy and later, they were referred to the G.G.H., Kurnool. The claimants sustained fracture injuries and became permanent disabled persons. The claimant in MVOP No.386 of 2002 is earning Rs.60,000/-per year out of agriculture and fruits business, and the claimant in MVOP No.387 of 2002 is earning Rs.60,000/-per year out of agriculture and contract works. After the accident, the claimants are not able to attend any work and thereby lost earnings.
5. The 1st respondent remained ex parte in both the petitions. The 2nd respondent-Insurance Company filed written statements in both the petitions admitting the accident, while denying the other averments in the original petitions. It is contended that the driver of the Jeep drove the same slowly, but due to rash and negligent driving the driver of the R.T.C. bus, the accident occurred. The petitions are bad for non-joinder of necessary party i.e., R.T.C. The claimants are put to strict proof of the accident and the amount claimed under each head. It is also contended that the driver of the Jeep did not possess any valid driving licence at the time of the accident. Further, the claimants and the others are unauthorized passengers in the Jeep and hence, the 1st respondent violated the terms and conditions of the policy and thereby, the 2nd respondent is not liable to pay compensation. The claimants had not suffered any permanent disability and in any event, the claim amount is excessive. Accordingly, the 2nd respondent prayed for dismissal of the original petitions.
6. On the basis of the said pleadings, the following issues were framed in both the original petitions:
(2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, and if so, to what amount?
(3) To what relief?
7. In M.V.O.P.No.386 of 2002, the claimant got examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.7. He also got examined Dr.G. Venkata Subbaiah as P.W.2. On behalf of respondent No.2, R.W.1 was examined and Ex.B.1 was marked.
8. In M.V.O.P.No.387 of 2002, the claimant got examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.5. He also got examined Dr.G.Venkata Subbaiah as P.W.2. On behalf of respondent No.2, R.W.1 was examined and Ex.B.1 was marked.
9. The Claims Tribunal, on the basis of
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
