Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
The National Insurance Company Limited vs Manda Vijayalakshmi And Others on 31 July, 2017
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2017 HYD 66
Author: T.Rajani
Bench: T.Rajani
THE HONBLE SMT JUSTICE T.RAJANI
MACMA No.454 OF 2006
31-07-2017
The National Insurance Company Limited ..... Appellant
Manda Vijayalakshmi and others ..... Respondents
Counsel for Appellant:Ramani Jonna
Counsel for Respondents:Mr. Sivalenka Ramachandra Prasad
<GIST :
>HEAD NOTE :
? Cases referred :
1.2017(4) ALD 93 (SC)
2.2000(2) ALD 310
3.1998 ACJ 921
SMT JUSTICE T. RAJANI
MACMA. No.454 of 2006
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is preferred by the appellant, who is respondent No.3 insurance company before the Court below, assailing the order of learned IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam, in M.V.O.P.No.390 of 2004 dated 05.12.2005, on the ground that the approach of the Court below in mulcting the appellant with the liability of Rs.50,000/- in spite of observing that the insurance company is not liable, since there is a violation in the conditions of the policy, is erroneous.
Heard both the learned counsel.
The small question that has to be decided is, whether in spite of there being a violation in the conditions of the policy which exonerates the insurance company from liability, the insurance company can be mulcted with liability to the extent of no fault liability. The order of the Court below shows that it has concluded by saying that the claimants are not entitled for any compensation from the insurance company. Having said so, it awarded Rs.50,000/- and directed the insurance company to pay the said amount and the rest of the compensation was directed to be paid by the owner of the crime vehicle. It did not specify as to the head under which Rs.50,000/- was awarded and as to why a direction was given to the insurance company to satisfy the award to the extent of Rs.50,000/-. But, however, a possible assumption is that the said amount was awarded towards no fault liability.
When a question was raised whether the insurance company would be exonerated even from no fault liability when there is a violation in the conditions of the policy, the learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 furnishes a ruling of the Apex Court reported in Kempaiah and others v. S.S. Murthy and another . But a reading of the said judgment does not meet the query that was posed by this Court. There was no discussion with regard to the liability of the insurance company under no fault liability irrespective of any violation in the conditions of the policy. The learned counsel for the appellant however relied on a ruling of this Court reported in Andhavarapu Kamaraju v. Thammineni Seetharam and others . This Court in turn relied upon a ruling of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Jethu Ram and others and concluded that the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation even under no fault liability. It was observed that the Apex Court in the above cited ruling, while considering Sections 92-A and 92-B corresponding to Sections 140 and 141 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, did not find anything contained therein which should suggest that the liability which accrues under the provisions of Section 92-A has to be borne by the insurer even if it is ultimately held that under the policy of insurance company, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation in question. The Apex Court also issued a direction to recover the amount paid by the insurance company from the owner.
Hence, following the above ruling, the contention of the appellant needs to be accepted. The award of Rs.50,000/-, which was directed to be satisfied by the appellant, has to be satisfied by the owner along with the remaining part of the award and the appellant stands exonerated. However, this Court on 02.03.2006 while admitting the appeal granted interim stay on condition of the appellant depositing half of the awarded amount together with interest and costs and out of the said deposited amount, permission was given to the claimants to withdraw a sum Rs.12,500/- out of Rs.25,000/-. In view of the findings of this Court, the appellant is permitted to recover the said deposited amount from the owner of the crime vehicle, without necessity of filing another suit. It can be done by way of execution proceedings. Further, it is needless to state that the appellant can take return of the remaining amount of Rs.12,500/- deposited as per the Courts order dated 02.03.2006.
To the extent indicated above, the appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
____________________ JUSTICE T. RAJANI Date: 31.07.2017