Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
United India Insurance Company Ltd. vs E. Laxma Reddy (Died) Per Lrs. And Anr. on 10 March, 2006
Equivalent citations: III(2006)ACC702, 2007ACJ638, 2006(3)ALD353, 2006(3)ALT414
Author: L. Narasimha Reddy
Bench: L. Narasimha Reddy
JUDGMENT L. Narasimha Reddy, J.
1. This CMA is preferred against the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Nizamabad, in O.P. No. 276 of 1996.
2. Initially, the O.P. was filed by the deceased-1st respondent. He claimed compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/-, alleging that on 20-1-1996, he was travelling as the owner of the goods, in the lorry bearing No. ATK-7797, owned by the 4th respondent and insured with the appellant, and at about 12 noon, the lorry met with an accident at Indalwani, on N.H. No. 7, and he sustained injuries and fractures on the collar bone, head, and other parts of body. During the pendency of the O.P., the 1st respondent died and his wife and son were brought on record, as legal representatives (respondents 2 and 3). The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/-. The same is challenged in this C.M.A.
3. Sri Jagannath, learned Counsel for the appellant, submits that the deceased was an unauthorized passenger in a goods vehicles, and as such, no compensation was payable. He further contends that the Tribunal committed an error, in treating the compensation payable to the 1st respondent, as an estate of respondents 2 and 3.
4. Learned Counsel for the respondents 2 and 3, on the other hand, submits that strictly speaking, the O.P. was liable to be treated, as the one for compensation for the death of the 1st respondent, and that no exception can be taken for the award of compensation, on account of the injuries to the deceased-1st respondent.
5. To substantiate their claims, respondents 2 and 3 examined PWs.l and 2, and filed Exs.A-1 to A-5. None were examined on behalf of the appellant, or respondent No. 4, and Ex.B-1, the copy of the Insurance Policy, was filed.
6. Two contentions are advanced on behalf of the appellant. The first is that no compensation was payable, since the 1st respondent was an unauthorized passenger in a goods vehicle. The second is that no compensation can be awarded to the legal representatives of a deceased claimant, particularly when the claim is on account of bodily injuries.
7. The 1st respondent categorically pleaded that he was travelling in the lorry, as the owner of the goods. The statement of the 1st respondent was not disputed by the appellant, or by the 4th respondent. None were examined on their behalf. The best person to speak about this aspect was 4th respondent and the driver of the vehicle. The appellant could have taken steps to elicit the necessary information, in this regard, if they disputed the version of the deceased 1st respondent.
8. Though the learned Counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgments, which are to the effect that an insurer cannot be held liable to pay the compensation, resulting out of the death or bodily injury to an unauthorized passenger, he is not able to convince this Court that even to a owner of the goods, the compensation cannot be paid. Therefore, the contention advanced in this regard cannot be accepted.
9. Coming to the second question, it is true that compensation was claimed by the 1st respondent, for the injuries sustained by him. Even before his claim was decided, he died. His wife and son came on record. The liability of the owner of the vehicle and the insurer, to pay compensation for the injuries of a passenger, does not come to an end, in case, the claimant dies before the claim is settled. Their liability subsists and the legal representatives of the claimant would step into the shoes of the claimant. The liability would not be towards legal representatives, on account of the accident itself. The entitlement of the legal representatives would be confined to the amount, which the deceased claimant could have recovered, had he been alive. No exception can be taken for the approach of the Tribunal, which treated the said amount as the estate of respondents 2 and 3. If not estate, it least connotes the entitlement of the respondents 2 and 3 to receive the compensation that was payable, on account of the injuries to the deceased 1st respondent.
10. This Court does not find any basis to interfere with the award. The C.M.A. is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.