Telangana High Court
The New India Assurance Company Limited vs Mandimadugu Alivelu And Anr. on 19 June, 2023
Author: Lalitha Kanneganti
Bench: Lalitha Kanneganti
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
M.A.C.M.A.No. 3693 of 2008
J U D G M E N T:
This is an Appeal filed by the Insurance Company aggrieved by the Award dated 24.06.2005 in O.P. No. 1186 of 2000 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Nalgonda.
2. The claimant filed the O.P. seeking compensation of Rs.50,000/- for the injuries sustained by her. The case of the claimant is that she was travelling in a tractor with goods from Devarakonda to Thimmapuram Village to attend the funeral ceremony of their relative and when the said tractor reached near Peda Muagah Cross Roads, within the limits of Chandampet Mandal, the driver of the tractor drove the same in a rash and negligent manner. As a result, the tractor turned turtle and the claimant and others sustained severe injuries.
3. The Insurance Company filed the counter-affidavit denying the averments made in the claim petition.
4. In support of her case, the claimant examined P.Ws.1 to 7 and got marked Exs.A1 to A12. On behalf of the insurance Company, neither oral nor documentary evidence is adduced.
2
5. The Tribunal after careful analysis of the evidence before it, held that the involvement of the crime vehicle in the accident was proved by Exs.A1 and A2 and the Insurance of the crime vehicle is proved by Ex.A12. Therefore, both the respondents being the owner and insurer of the crime vehicle are liable to pay the compensation and awarded Rs.16,000/- to the claimant.
6. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that as per the claimant, it is admitted by her that they were travelling in the crime vehicle to attend the funeral of their relative by paying price for transportation, but as per the conditions of the policy, there is no insurance coverage for the passengers. It is stated that the tractor is insured for agricultural purpose. It is also their case that as per Ex.A1 i.e. FIR and Ex.A2 charge sheet, the accident occurred while the claimant and others was taking the dead body in the crime vehicle driven by its driver in a negligent manner. According to the learned counsel, the Court erred in concluding that the dead body carried in the tractor - trailer falls within the meaning of 'goods' as defined in Section 2(13) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1998. It is the case of the Insurance Company that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation as the said vehicle is insured for agricultural purpose and for other than agricultural purpose, they cannot use the vehicle. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has relied on the judgment of this Court in New India 3 Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sandepudi Mariyamma1 and also the judgment of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Chinnamma2 and submits that the respondent insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation.
7. In this case, notice was served on the claimant and no vakalat is filed. The 2nd respondent - owner of the vehicle remained ex parte before the Tribunal, hence, no notice was issued vide order dated 27.08.2016. In cases where the Appeal against the respondent - owner is dismissed for default, this Court had passed the judgment as follows:
" The only issue that falls for consideration before this Court is whether the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation.
According to the insurance company, the tractor is meant for agricultural purpose and it is not permitted to carry the dead body and as there is violation of terms and conditions of the policy, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation.
Learned counsel for the claimant has relied on the judgment in Divisional Manager, M/s United India Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Dhamayanthi (C.M.A.No. 2188 of 2006) of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras wherein in paragraphs 17, 18 and 19, it was held as under:
" 17. It is a categorical statement of the claimants that the deceased had travelled in a goods vehicle for loading and unloading of a dead body and after unloading such dead body, when the deceased was returning back, the accident took place.
18. Ex.R2 is a Goods Carriage Permit produced by the owner according to which the nature of goods that could be carried are all types of goods except prohibited. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 defines the terms 'goods' in Section 2(13). Goods includes 1 2003(2) ALD 921 2 2004(8) SCC 697 4 livestock and anything (other than equipment ordinarily used with the vehicle) carried in a vehicle except living persons, but does not include luggage of personal effects carried in a motor car or the personal luggage of a passenger travelling in the vehicle therefor. Living person is not a 'goods' but a dead person if transported becomes a 'cargo'. There is also no prohibition to transport a dead body in a goods vehicle. There is no law that a dead body should always be carried in an Ambulance or a Mortuary van.
19. Therefore, carrying a dead body in a goods vehicle is also covered within the meaning of a goods vehicle used in carriage of goods and the deceased was a coolie/load man, for whom, there was premium paid for the coverage and therefore, the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the insured."
This is an Appeal of the year 2008 filed by the Insurance Company and the accident took place in 2005. The Appeal against the owner of the vehicle was dismissed by order dated 13.07.2016 as no steps were taken by the insurance company. Further, the insurance company is not able to pay the compensation as the claimant was travelling in the tractor for attending the funeral of the relative. They are not covered under the policy as such insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. The appellant had already deposited half of the amount and the claimant had already withdrawn the same. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant shall not recover the amounts that were withdrawn by the claimant.
The Appeal is accordingly, allowed. No costs."
8. In the light of the said judgment, this Appeal is also allowed. Whatever the amount is deposited, the appellant shall not recover the same. No costs.
9. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
------------------------------------
LALITHA KANNEGANTI,J 19th June 2023 ksld