Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Darji Racharla Saraswath And Ors. on 1 September, 2006
Equivalent citations: I(2007)ACC743, 2006(6)ALD273, 2006(6)ALT662
ORDER Gopala Krishna Tamada, J.
1. Aggrieved by the warrant of attachment of movable property in execution, dated 21-4-2006, issued in E.P. No. 67 of 2005 in O.P.No. 103 of 1991 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Nizamabad, the United India Insurance Company Ltd., Kamareddy, represented by its Divisional Manager, Nizamabad, who is the judgment-debtor No. 5 therein, filed this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
2. The important facts are that one Darji Racherla Prakash, (hereinafter called as the deceased) aged about 25 years met with an accident on the intervening night of02/03-2-1991 and died instantaneously. In view of the said sudden death, his mother and father approached the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Nizamabad and filed O.P. No. 250 of 1991 claiming a total compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-. Similarly, the wife and daughter of the deceased filed O.P.No. 103 of 1991 claiming a total compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-. As both the matters are similar, the Accidents Claims Tribunal clubbed both the matters and after trial passed a common order on 24-8-1994 awarding a total compensation of Rs. 1,46,880/- to the claimants in both the matters. Out of the said amount, an amount of Rs. 25,000/- was ordered to be paid to the wife of the deceased, and the remaining amount shall be distributed equally among the wife, daughter and mother of the deceased. Against the order and decree in O.P.No. 250 of 1991, the petitioner herein preferred C.M.A.No. 1029 of 1995 and a learned Single Judge of this Court partly allowed the said appeal vide judgment dated 22-1-1997 restricting the liability of the appellant herein to pay an amount of Rs. 25,000/- towards compensation under no fault liability. As against the said judgment, the owner of the vehicle preferred L.P.A.No. 263 of 1997 and the same was dismissed confirming the judgment dated 22-1-1997 passed in C.M.A.No. 1029 of 1995. The Insurance Company also preferred C.M.A.No. 1576 of 2000 against the order and decree in O.P.No. 103 of 1991. When C.M.A.No. 1576 of 2000 came up for final hearing before a learned Single Judge of this Court, it was brought to the notice of the Court that the deceased was travelling in the tractor as gratuitous passenger and the learned Single Judge following the judgment of the Apex Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Satpal Singh , dismissed the appeal on 7-3-2001 confirming the order passed in O.P. No. 103 of 1991.
3. Be that as it may, as the amount of compensation was not paid to the wife and daughter i.e., the claimants in O.P. No. 103 of 1991 they approached the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and filed E.P. No. 67 of 2005 for execution of the decree passed in O.P. No. 103 of 1991. It appears the Court below pursuant to the order of attachment made by it, issued the impugned warrant of attachment. As stated supra, as against the said warrant of attachment, this revision is directed.
4. According to Mrs. A. Malathi, learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner company, though the order in O.P. No. 103 of 1991 has become final, having regard to the observations made by a learned Single Judge of this Court in C.M.A. No. 1029 of 1995, as confirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 263 of 1997 the liability of the Insurance Company is restricted to Rs. 25,000/- and as such, the insurance company is not liable to pay the entire amount of compensation. The learned Standing Counsel further contended that as no-fault liability to a tune of Rs. 25,000/- was awarded, the question of paying anything more than Rs. 25,000/- either to the wife, daughter or motor would not arise.
5. Sri V. Ravikiran Rao, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 opposed the said contentions.
6. I find force in the submissions made by the learned Standing Counsel. It is true that this Court by judgment dated 22-1-1997 in C.M.A. No. 1029 of 1995 restricted the liability of the Insurance Company only to an extent of Rs. 25,000/-and the said judgment was also confirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 263 of 1997. The observations of the Division in that regard is as follows:
basis of evidence available on record and in accordance with law only to a sum of Rs. 25,000/- and fastening the balance liability on the owner of the vehicle, which cannot be said to be illegal or contrary to law. Thus we do not find any merit in the appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
7. It does not mean that the hands of the claimants are tightened by not proceeding against the Insurance Company. In fact, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal fixed the liability on the owner as well as the Insurance Company in its common order dated 24-8-1994 in O.P. No. 103 of 1991 and the order and decree in O.P. No. 103 of 1991 was confirmed by this Court on 7-3-2001 in CMA No. 1576 of 2000. So long as the order and decree in O.P. No. 103 of 1991 is in existence, it is always open for the claimants to proceed against the owner or the Insurance Company or both. The E.P. filed against the Insurance Company, in my considered view cannot be said to be illegal and hence, I see no justification to set aside the impugned warrant of attachment issued by the Court below. It is needless to observe that the Insurance Company is at liberty to work out its remedies, if the law provides.
8. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs.