Telangana High Court
The New India Assurance Company Ltd., vs Talluri Chinna Pullaiah Another on 4 March, 2020
Author: K.Lakshman
Bench: K.Lakshman
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN
M.A.C.M.A.No.562 OF 2014
JUDGMENT:
Heard learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company and learned counsel for respondent No.1/claimant.
2. Feeling aggrieved by the order and decree dated 16.04.2012 in M.A.T.O.P.No.1267 of 2007 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge (FTC), Khammam (for short 'the Tribunal'), the insurance company preferred the present appeal.
3. Vide the aforesaid order, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.42,500/- towards compensation along with costs and interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation as against the claim of Rs.50,000/-. The Tribunal directed the appellant/insurance company to deposit the said compensation amount and recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company would contend that admittedly respondent No.1/claimant is a gratuitous passenger and hence, the appellant/insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation. According to him, on 13.08.2006 morning, the claimant engaged auto trolley bearing No.AP20W 6356 along with his friends and went to Lord Goddes Pedhamma Temple, situated at Paloncha, and after completion of darshan, they left to their village in the said auto. On the way, the driver of the auto drove it in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and 2 applied sudden break, due to which, the auto turned turtle, as a result of which, the claimant sustained grievous injuries.
5. With the said pleadings, deposition of P.W.1 and Exs.A.1-FIR and Ex.A.2-charge sheet, the learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company would contend that the claimant travelled in the auto trolley, which is meant for transport of goods, as an unauthorised passenger and therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. He would also rely upon Ex.B.2-judgment and decree in O.P.No.1270 of 2007 passed by the very same Tribunal in respect of an injured in the very same accident. In the Ex.B.2-judgment, the Tribunal held that the injured/claimant therein is a gratuitous passenger and therefore, the insurance company cannot escape its liability in paying the compensation. The said finding of the Tribunal is correct and it is as per the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Anu Bhanvara Vs. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited1 and also in Parminder Singh v New India Assurance Co. Ltd.2, wherein the Apex Court categorically held that the insurance company has to pay the compensation at the first instance and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle, even the claimant is a gratuitous passenger.
6. In view of the said principle, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company that the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation in respect of gratuitous passenger is not sustainable. According to this Court, the Tribunal 1 2019 (5) ALD 287 (SC) 2 AIR 2019 SC 3128 3 rightly awarded an amount of Rs.42,500/- towards compensation with a direction to the appellant/insurance company to pay the compensation amount to the claimant and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. Therefore, this Court is satisfied with the reasons given by the Tribunal and hence, there is no circumstance that warrants interference by this Court, in the present case.
7. Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stands closed.
_________________ K.LAKSHMAN, J Date 04.03.2020 TJMR