Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
National Insurance Co Ltd vs Bhumireddy Narapureddygari Chenna ... on 8 October, 2021
Author: Ninala Jayasurya
Bench: Ninala Jayasurya
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
M.A.C.M.A.Nos. 3115 and 3116 of 2005
COMMON JUDGMENT:(Heard and pronounced through Blue Jeans App (Virtual) mode, since this mode is adopted on account of prevalence of COVID-19 pandemic) These two appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment, as they arise out of the same accident and the respondents in the original petitions are one and the same.
2. Both the appeals were preferred by the National Insurance Company Limited, aggrieved by the awards dated 03.08.2005 in M.V.O.P.Nos.386 of 2002 and 387 of 2002 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal- cum-III Additional District Judge, Cuddapah, (for short 'the Claims Tribunal').
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to, as they were arrayed before the Tribunal in the original petitions.
4. The original petitions were filed by two injured persons/claimants separately seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by them in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 19.06.1999. The claimants are residents of Bidinamcherla Village. On 19.06.1999, after completion of personal work of the 1st respondent in Hyderabad, while they along with others were returning back in a Jeep of the 1st respondent to their village and when the Jeep crossed Palem Village at about 5.30 p.m., the driver of the Jeep drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against an R.T.C. bus. As a result of which, the Jeep turned turtle and the claimants and others sustained severe injuries. Immediately after the 2 accident, the claimants were taken to the Government Hospital, Vanaparthy and later, they were referred to the G.G.H., Kurnool. The claimants sustained fracture injuries and became permanent disabled persons. The claimant in MVOP No.386 of 2002 is earning Rs.60,000/- per year out of agriculture and fruits business, and the claimant in MVOP No.387 of 2002 is earning Rs.60,000/- per year out of agriculture and contract works. After the accident, the claimants are not able to attend any work and thereby lost earnings.
5. The 1st respondent remained ex parte in both the petitions. The 2nd respondent-Insurance Company filed written statements in both the petitions admitting the accident, while denying the other averments in the original petitions. It is contended that the driver of the Jeep drove the same slowly, but due to rash and negligent driving the driver of the R.T.C. bus, the accident occurred. The petitions are bad for non-joinder of necessary party i.e., R.T.C. The claimants are put to strict proof of the accident and the amount claimed under each head. It is also contended that the driver of the Jeep did not possess any valid driving licence at the time of the accident. Further, the claimants and the others are unauthorized passengers in the Jeep and hence, the 1st respondent violated the terms and conditions of the policy and thereby, the 2nd respondent is not liable to pay compensation. The claimants had not suffered any permanent disability and in any event, the claim amount is excessive. Accordingly, the 2nd respondent prayed for dismissal of the original petitions.
6. On the basis of the said pleadings, the following issues were framed in both the original petitions:
3
1) Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 19.06.1999 at 5.30 P.M. due to rash and negligent driving of New Mahindra & Mahindra Commander Jeep by its driver belong to respondent No.1?
2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, and if so, to what amount?
3) To what relief?
7. In M.V.O.P.No.386 of 2002, the claimant got examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.7. He also got examined Dr.G. Venkata Subbaiah as P.W.2. On behalf of respondent No.2, R.W.1 was examined and Ex.B.1 was marked.
8. In M.V.O.P.No.387 of 2002, the claimant got examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.5. He also got examined Dr.G.Venkata Subbaiah as P.W.2. On behalf of respondent No.2, R.W.1 was examined and Ex.B.1 was marked.
9. The Claims Tribunal, on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Jeep by its driver, and accordingly, allowed the original petitions in part against respondent Nos.1 and 2 granting compensation of Rs.57,000/- to the claimant in M.V.O.P.No.386 of 2002 and Rs.88,000/- to the claimant in M.V.O.P.No.387 of 2002 with proportionate costs and interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petitions till realization, while dismissing the rest of the claim of the claimants, by awards dated 03.08.2005, which are under challenge in these two appeals.
4
10. Heard Sri P. Phalguna Rao, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company, Sri D. Kodandarami Reddy, learned counsel for the claimants, and Smt. S. Kiranmayee, learned counsel for the owner of the vehicle.
11. Sri P. Phalguna Rao, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance company contended that the policy in question is a private car policy for personal, social and private purposes and the owner and family members alone are covered and no third party's risk is covered. He submits that no additional premium was paid and though the vehicle is meant for use of the owner alone, as seen from copy of Ex.A.1,-FIR, five persons travelled on their personal work. While pointing out that though it is the projected case before the Claims Tribunal that the claimants sustained injuries, while coming back to their village on completion of personal work of the 1st respondent-owner of the vehicle, the version in the FIR goes to show that they are returning after completion of their personal work. He submits that the contents of the FIR clearly disclose that the persons injured in the accident were going on their own work and the 1st respondent-owner of the vehicle was not travelling along with them. He contends that the claimants were travelling in the Jeep as unauthorized passengers and therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation, since there is a violation of the conditions of the policy. The learned counsel further submits that the Claims Tribunal without examining the issues in the light of the contents in the FIR and in the absence of proof that the claimants were travelling on the personal work of the 1st respondent, erred in fixing the liability on the Insurance Company. He submits that the claimants have failed to prove their case by discharging the burden of proof under Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act. He submits that the Claims Tribunal erred in not giving any 5 finding by looking into the contents of the FIR. The learned counsel also submits that except P.W.1, no other witness was examined with regard to occurrence of the accident and P.W.2-Doctor has not treated the injured claimant, but only gave a certificate and therefore, the evidence of P.W.2 cannot be taken into consideration. Contending so, the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submits that the award of the Claims Tribunal fastening liability on the Insurance Company, though the claimants are travelling as unauthorized passengers is not sustainable in law. He further submits that in any event, the Claims Tribunal ought to have decreed the original petitions by applying the principle of pay and recover, in the facts and circumstances of the case.
12. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimants submitted that the order of the Claims Tribunal is well considered, based on the material on record and also supported by cogent reasons. Therefore, the same warrants no interference by this Court. The learned counsel for the owner of the Jeep while supporting the contentions of the learned counsel for the claimants submits that there are no merits in the appeal and accordingly, prays for dismissal of the same.
13. This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the material on record.
14. The prime contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant- Insurance Company is that the claimant was travelling in the Jeep, which was insured by the appellant-Insurance Company, as an unauthorized passenger and therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation. The learned 6 counsel to substantiate his contentions placed strong reliance on Ex.A.1-FIR and contended that a mere perusal of the same would clearly disclose that the claimants along with others sustained injuries while returning in the Jeep to their village from Hyderabad after completion of their personal work, which is contrary to the case set up in the original petitions wherein it was alleged that they were returning back to their village after completing the personal work of the 1st respondent and in view of the said contradictions, the original petitions ought to have been dismissed against the Insurance Company. He also submits that in fact, the 1st respondent- owner of the vehicle was not travelling along with the claimants at the time of accident and since the vehicle was not used for personal purposes in terms of the policy, the Claims Tribunal is not justified in fixing liability on the Insurance Company.
15. The Claims Tribunal on considering the material on record answered Issue No.1 in favour of the claimants. It is not the case of the Insurance Company that the claimants have not sustained injuries in the accident, but they are travelling as unauthorized passengers and not entitled for compensation from the Insurance Company. Examining the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, this Court has gone through the contents of Ex.A1-FIR in Crime No.81/1999 of Kothapeta P.S. filed along with the appeal and as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, finds that one of the persons travelling in the Jeep insured by the appellant-Insurance Company stated that the inmates of the vehicle are returning to their village from Hyderabad after completing their personal work. In the affidavit filed in lieu of chief examination, the claimant categorically stated that he along with the 1st respondent, Mr. Jagadeeswar Reddy, and others went to 7 Hyderabad for attending personal work of Mr. Jagadeeswar Reddy in his new Commander Jeep and after attending the work, they were returning from Hyderabad and met with an accident. As submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant, the version of the claimants is at variance with the complaint in Ex.A.1- FIR. However, this Court is of the opinion that the same would not have any bearing on considering the claim/entitlement of the claimants for compensation, since it is not in dispute that they suffered injuries in the accident. The question, however, is, as to whether they were traveling as unauthorized passengers as contended by the appellant-Insurance Company, thereby, it is not liable to pay compensation. Before adverting to the said aspect, it may be relevant to mention that the opinion of the Claims Tribunal that "on perusal of the claim petition, it is the stand of the petitioner that himself and others went on R.1's Jeep and attended the work of R.1 and on return, this accident took place. On perusal of Ex.A.1-FIR, the same version also noted" is not correct and the same is contrary to the record.
16. Be that as it may. With regard to the contention that the claimants were travelling as unauthorized passengers, the Claims Tribunal has recorded findings in the following terms:
"R.W.1 admitted that accident jeep was insured with R.2 company and the same was in force by the date of accident. He also further admitted that the said policy is the private car policy with comprehensive coverage, which means that it covers the damage to the vehicle and third parties. He also further admitted that on perusal of Ex.B.1 car can be used for social, domestic and pleasure purpose and insured's own business. This accident was occurred at 5.30 p.m. and report given at 6.30 p.m. with the version that himself and others going on R.1 8 jeep from Hyderabad to their village. No whisper about the engaged the jeep on hire. It is also further admitted by R.W.1 that the carrying capacity of jeep is 9 passengers and other person is the driver and so 10 persons can be travelled in that jeep including driver. He also further deposed that he has no personal knowledge to say that P.W.1 is an unauthorized passenger, but on record he is deposing. But the record before the Court is against his evidence. So, it can be safely concluded that P.W.1 and others went to Hyderabad on the work of R.1 and after attended they were returning back and on the way, this accident took place and hence they are not the unauthorized passengers and thereby R.1 also not violated the terms and conditions of Ex.B.1 policy."
17. In view of the categorical statement made by R.W.1 in his cross-examination to the effect that the Jeep was insured with the appellant-Insurance Company with comprehensive coverage, meaning thereby that it covers the damage to the vehicle and third party risk, it is not material as to whether the claimants were travelling as unauthorized passengers or otherwise. In the light of the categorical admission of R.W.1 with reference to Ex.B.1-policy, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the award of the Claims Tribunal. No doubt, as argued by the learned counsel for the appellant, the principle of pay and recover can be applied, provided the attending facts and circumstances of a case so warrants. However, in the present case, since the liability of the Insurance Company is covered in terms of Ex.B.1- policy as admitted by R.W.1, this Court is unable to accept the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant.
18. Accordingly, both the appeals are dismissed, while confirming the awards dated 03.08.2005 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- 9 III Additional District Judge, Cuddapah, in M.V.O.P.Nos.386 of 2002 and 387 of 2002. No order as to costs.
19. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the appeals shall stand disposed of.
_______________________ NINALA JAYASURYA, J 8th October, 2021 cbs 10 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA M.A.C.M.A.Nos. 3115 and 3116 of 2005 8th October, 2021 cbs