Back
2014 Supreme(Online)(AP) 12
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
P. Naveen Rao, J.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Katikala Indira and Others
O.P. No. 573 of 2002
Insurance companies are liable for compensation under Section 163 - A of the Motor Vehicles Act without needing to prove negligence, even if policies limit risks to third parties.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 163 - A, 166, and 171 - Motor accident - Claim filed under Section 163 - A for compensation due to death caused by an accident involving an insured vehicle - It is determined that the insurance company is liable to compensate as the claimants are entitled to compensation without proving negligence under the application of S.163 - A; the defence based upon the scope of liability in an Act policy is dismissed - Evidence indicated the deceased was a passenger in the vehicle at the time of the accident, establishing liability - Interest of 7.5% per annum determined to be appropriate. (Paras 1, 9, 24)
(B) Insurance Policies - Scope - A statutory insurance policy does not exempt insurers from liability for passengers carried in a private vehicle covered under S.163 - A, establishing that the insurance company could not refuse liability based on terms of the policy regarding passenger coverage. (Paras 12, 23)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeal regarding fatal motor accident and liability. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. claim process and issue of insurance coverage. (Para 4 , 5 , 10 , 12) |
| 3. liability under mv act and implications of section 163 - a. (Para 6 , 8 , 14 , 17) |
| 4. clarification on liability patterns under statutory policies. (Para 19 , 22 , 24) |
| 5. conclusion of the appeal's dismissal due to meritless arguments. (Para 25) |
1. In this appeal, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. challenges the award dated 8.8.2011, passed in O.P. No. 573 of 2002 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad.
2. Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 herein are the petitioners and respondent No. 6 is the owner of the vehicle. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to as they were arrayed before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal.
3. The facts giving rise to institution of O.P. No. 573 of 2002 are as under:
On 11.2.2002, the deceased Katikala Jangaiah boarded Tata Sumo motor vehicle bearing registration No. AP 28 - K 5258 at Hyderabad and was proceeding towards Shamshabad. In the midnight at about 1200 hours, when Tata Sumo vehicle reached near Budwel Railway Station on National Highway 7, the vehicle met with an accident as it hit against the stationed lorry bearing registration No. AP 11 - T 310 from behind, due to which the deceased Jangaiah and other inmates of Tata Sumo vehicle sustained bleeding injuries and the deceased Jangaiah succumbed to the injuries on the spot. Crime No. 66 of 2002 was registered by Rajendranagar Police Station, Hyderabad. As no compensation was paid to the dependants of the deceased, wife, three minor daughters and mother of the deceased instituted O.P. No. 573 of 2002 claiming compensation of Rs.6,00,000 together with interest and costs. The owner of the vehicle and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. are arrayed as respondent Nos. 1 and 2 before the Tribunal.
4. In support of their claim for compensation, petitioners contended that the deceased was aged about 31 years and was earning Rs.3,000 p.m. as an employee in a cloth showroom and he died due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Tata Sumo vehicle. In support of their claim for compensation, they contended that they were solely dependent on the deceased and due to his sudden demise, the entire future of the family has been adversely affected and children were unable to pursue their studies and further they lost their source of income and love and affection and therefore claimed compensation of Rs.6,00,000. Initially, O.P. No. 573 of 2002 was initiated under S.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act; subsequently petitioners by filing I.A. No. 2238 of 2010 sought leave of the Tribunal to amend their claim under S.163 - A of the Motor Vehicles Act and the same was ordered on 15.4.2011.
5. Respondent No. 1 did not oppose the claim, whereas the insurance company, respondent No. 2, opposed the claim and took the usual defences, i.e., the crime vehicle was driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy; that the vehicle driver did not possess a valid driving licence; and that the claim made by the petitioners is excessive and disproportionate. The insurance company filed additional counter - affidavit taking the stand that the policy executed by the owner of the vehicle is an Act policy and therefore the deceased is not covered by the policy and that Tata Sumo vehicle was a private car and therefore the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation.
6. The Claims Tribunal framed the following three issues for consideration:
(1) Whether the pleaded accident has occurred on account of rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the crime vehicle Tata Sumo bearing registration No. AP 28 - K 5258?
(2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation; if so, to what amount and from which respondent?
(3) To what relief?
7. On behalf of the petitioners, PWs 1 and 2 were examine
