THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SURI APPA RAO
M.A.C.M.A. No.132 OF 2007
Dated 21st January, 2014 Between:
The National Insurance Co. Ltd. & another .. Appellants and Mallepaka Latchaiah & others .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. SURI APPA RAO
M.A.C.M.A. No.132 OF 2007
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 14.09.2006 passed in M.V.O.P.No.943 of 2004 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District Judge, Warangal at Mahabubabad, (for short ‘Tribunal’) whereby the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- as against the claim of Rs.2,00,000/- on account of death of one Mallepaka Ramulamma, who died in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 15.03.2004, with a direction to the insurer of the vehicle involved in the accident first to pay the compensation awarded to the claimants and then to recover the same from the owner of the crime vehicle since he violated the terms and conditions of the policy by allowing the unauthorized passenger to travel in the crime vehicle.
The manner of accident, death of the deceased, involvement of the offending vehicle belonging to the fifth respondent insured with the appellant-Insurance Company are not in dispute.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the deceased was traveling in the crime vehicle as gracious passenger, as such, the Tribunal was not justified in directing the Insurance Company to pay the compensation and then to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle and that the owner of the vehicle alone is liable to pay compensation awarded by the Tribunal as he violated the terms and conditions of the policy by allowing the deceased to travel in the auto as unauthorized passenger.
In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Suresh K.K.
[1]
and another wherein the Supreme Court held that the insurer is not liable to pay compensation when the owner of the goods traveling in the goods carriage being a person in vehicle in a capacity of other than owner of the goods and such person cannot be treated as gracious passenger.
He further relied on National Insurance Co. Ltd., Secunderabad v. Mashetty Vijaya Laxmi and others[2] wherein this Court held that the expression ‘goods’ contemplated in Section 2 (13) does not include luggage or personal effects carried in motor car or trailer attached to motor car or personal luggage of passengers traveling in vehicle. In case of death of person traveling in the goods vehicle with his personal luggage, it cannot be said that the deceased was traveling as the owner of the goods and no liability of insurance Company for payment of compensation and the amount awarded has to be recovered from the owner of the vehicle since he is vicariously liable for tortuous act of his driver.
Relying on the above decisions, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the contents of the claim petition clearly indicate that the deceased was traveling along with his luggage and not as owner of the goods and, therefore, the finding of the Tribunal that the Insurance Company has to pay the compensation first and to recover the same cannot be sustained.
Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents-claimants submits that the deceased was traveling along with red chillies and the same was supported by P.W.2, who was the eye witness to the accident and who was also traveling along with the deceased.
As seen from the contents of Ex.A.1-FIR deceased and others were engaged by one Veeraiah for plucking red chilies in his field and after completion of work when they were proceeding to their villages in the crime vehicle they met with accident. Nowhere in F.I.R. it is mentioned that they were traveling in the auto as representatives of the owner of mirchi i.e. Veeraiah, but in charge sheet filed by the Police after investigating into the accident, it has been mentioned that after completion of chilly collection work on 15.03.2004 L.W.8-Regalla Pedda Veeraiah hired three wheeler goods vehicle of the accused for transportation of some of the chilly bags along with labourer and the said auto met with an accident when the deceased was sitting by the side of the accused. It is, therefore, clear from the contents of the charge sheet filed by Police after investigating into the accident, the deceased was traveling along with mirchi belonging to her master.
The Tribunal, therefore, rightly observed at para 21 of the impugned judgment that the deceased was a third party to the crime vehicle and therefore the respondent-insurance Company has to pay the compensation initially to the claimants and then can recover the same from the owner of the vehicle as the terms and conditions of the policy are violated by him by allowing the deceased as unauthorized passenger to travel in the crime vehicle.
Therefore, in view of the fact that the deceased was traveling along with mirchi belonging to her master, the Tribunal has rightly passed the impugned award directing the insurance Company first to pay compensation and then to recover the same from the owner. I see no grounds to interfere with the impugned award and the same is hereby confirmed granting liberty to the appellant-Insurance Company to recover the compensation amount paid by it to the claimants from the owner of the crime vehicle.
The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petition pending in this appeal, if any, shall stand closed.
V.SURI APPA RAO, J Dated 21st January, 2014 sur
[1] 2008 (6) ALD 87 (SC)
[2] 2008 (1) ALD 280