Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 17730
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA, J
Insurance Company – Appellant
Versus
Claim Petitioner – Respondent
M.A.C.M.A.No.155 of 2020 | M.A.C.M.A.No.257 of 2020 | M.V.O.P.No.432 of 2015
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri A. Ramakrishna Reddy
For the Respondents: Sri Surya Balu Mahendra
Unauthorized passengers do not qualify for compensation under insurance policies, clarifying liability under the Motor Vehicles Act.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 147 - Appeal against award of compensation - The insurance company sought to challenge the tribunal’s compensation award, arguing that the claimant was not an authorized passenger. - The court emphasized that unauthorized passengers lack coverage under the insurance policy. (Paras 13, 15, 16)
(B) Liability - The tribunal had imposed liability on the insurance company despite the claimant's unauthorized passenger status. The court clarified that this was incorrect and allowed the insurance company’s appeal while denying enhancement of compensation to the claimant. (Paras 11, 12, 18)
Facts of the case:
The claimant sustained severe injuries from a tractor accident while allegedly working as a laborer. The tribunal awarded compensation while the insurance company contested the liability based on the claimant’s status at the time.
Findings of Court:
The court agreed that the claimant was an unauthorized passenger and that liability was misattributed to the insurance company. The compensation awarded by the tribunal was considered not excessive but was not subject to recovery by the insurance company from the claimant.
Issues: Whether the insurer is liable for an unauthorized passenger and the appropriateness of the compensation awarded.
Ratio Decidendi: Compensation liability rests solely on the authorized status of passengers under the insurance policy, reiterating the principle of tortious liability concerning authorized passage.
Result: Appeal by the insurance company allowed, appeal by the claimant dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeals filed against tribunal's compensation decision. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. claimant sustained injuries in tractor accident. (Para 5) |
| 3. details of the accident leading to injuries and claims. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. tribunal's determination of negligence and compensation basis. (Para 10 , 11 , 15) |
| 5. court found insurance company not liable for unauthorized passenger. (Para 12) |
| 6. insurance liability debated around passenger status. (Para 13 , 14 , 16) |
| 7. final verdicts on appeals and compensation rights. (Para 18) |
COMMON JUDGMENT:
M.A.C.M.A.No.155 of 2020 is filed by the insurance company being aggrieved with the order and decree dated 20.11.2019 passed in M.V.O.P.No.432 of 2015 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, at Nizamabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’) on the ground that the learned Tribunal granted exorbitant compensation to the injured claimant.
2. M.A.C.M.A.No.257 of 2020 is filed by the claim petitioner/injured being not satisfied with the compensation award vide order and decree dated 20.11.2019 passed in M.V.O.P.No.432 of 2015 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, at Nizamabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’).
3. Heard Sri A. Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel for the Insurance Company and Sri Surya Balu Mahendra, learned counsel for the claim petitioner.
4. For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.
5. It is contended that the petitioner claimed compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- but the learned Tribunal after perusal of the entire record and considering the arguments of both sides awarded an amount of Rs.1,21,700/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.
6. The brief facts of the case are that on 16.03.2013 at about 21.30 hours, while the petitioner was proceeding on the Tractor bearing No.AP-25-AA-4291 towards Narsingpally village as labourer under employment and on the instructions of respondent No.1 and when they reached at Thankurdh Canal area, the driver of Tractor droves at high speed and in rash negligent manner and lost his control over the vehicle, due to which, the Tractor turned turtle into the Thanakurdh canal and as a result of which, the petitioner fell down from the tractor and sustained multiple fractures and bleeding injuries and immediately, he was shifted to Amrutha Laxmi Multi Speciality, Nizamabad and there he took treatment as inpatient and he underwent major operations and a steel rod with screws were inserted into the left knee joint. Thereafter he was admitted in Yashoda Hospital, Malakpet, Hyderabad, where he underwent another major operation and replaced with the separate steel plates and screws to the fracture and he spent Rs.3.5 lakhs towards treatment, medical expenditure.
7. It is contended by the petitioner that the petitioner was hale and healthy and was aged 35 years and was earning Rs.25,000/- per month as a fisherman, labour and agriculture and due to injuries and fractures sustained in the accident, the sustained permanent disability and lost his future earnings and his amenities of life are affected. The respondent No.1 being the owner of the offending vehicle and respondent No.2 being its insurer are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the tortuious acts of the tractor driver, which resulted in the injuries to the petitioner.
8. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.1 filed written statement denying the manner of accident, receiving injuries and expenditure incurred for healing of wounds. It is further contended that the alleged accident not occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of offending vehicle and that the driver of the offending vehicle had valid driving license and that the offending vehicle is insured with respondent No.2 and the policy was in force as on the date of accident, as such the respondent No.2/insurance co
