AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B. Manohar, J.—1. The United India Insurance Company Limited has filed these appeals, challenging the legality and validity of the judgment and award dated 03.03.2012 passed in MVC Nos. 540/2011 and 541/2011 by the Fast Track Court-I at Raichur, fastening the liability on the insurance company to compensate the claimants.
The common order passed in MVC Nos. 540/2011 and 541/2011 has been challenged by the insurance company in these appeals. Since the common order has been passed, both the appeals are clubbed together and disposed of by this common judgment.
The 1st respondent in both the appeals are the claimants in the respective claim petitions; they filed the claim petitions contending that on 21.03.2011 while they were travelling in a Tata Sumo bearing registration No. AP-10/J-0080 on Ayya-Bowli road, due to the rash and negligent driving of the said Tata Sumo by its driver, it dashed against the compound wall. Due to which the claimants sustained grievous injuries. Therefore, they filed the claim petitions contending that due to the rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the Tata Sumo, the accident had occurred and they have sustained injuries. Hence, sought for compensation of Rs. 4,50,000/- and Rs. 5,00,000/- respectively.
In pursuance of the notice issued by the Fast Track Court, respondents entered appearance. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 - the driver as well as the owner of the vehicle filed the written statements and did not dispute the occurrence of the accident. However, contended that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the Tata Sumo. Since a person suddenly came across the road, in order to avoid the said person, he took the vehicle to the extreme left side and dashed against the compound wall. The vehicle is covered by insurance policy and the driver of the Tata Sumo is having the valid and effective driving licence as on the date of the accident. Hence, the insurer has to compensate the claimants and sought for dismissal of the claim petition as against respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
The 3rd respondent - insurance company has filed the written statement, denying the entire averments made in the claim petition and also contended that the driver of the Tata Sumo did not possess valid and effective driving licence as on the date of the accident. It was further contended that the Tata Sumo is insured with the 3rd respondent under the private car policy. The insurance policy covers the risk of third party only. The inmates of the Tata Sumo are not covered by the insurance policy and hence, sought for dismissal of the claim petition as against the 3rd respondent.
On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Fast Track Court framed necessary issues.
The claimants in order to prove their case, examined themselves as PWs. 1 and 2 and got marked the documents as Exs. P1 to P10. On behalf of the 3rd respondent - insurance company, the Senior Assistant was examined as R.W. 1 and the insurance policy was marked as Ex. R1.
The Fast Track Court after considering the oral and documentary evidence let in by the parties, held that due to the rash and negligent driving of the Tata Sumo, the accident had occurred and the claimants have sustained injuries. Hence, the claimants are entitled for compensation.
The Fast Track Court, taking into consideration the injuries sustained and suffering undergone by the claimants has awarded a sum of Rs. 25,000/- in respect of the claimant in MVC No. 540/2011 and a sum of Rs. 10,000/- in respect of the claimant in MVC No. 541/2011. Since the vehicle is covered by the insurance policy, liability was fastened on the insurance company to compensate the claimants. Being aggrieved by the same, the insurance company has filed these appeals.
Sri Manvendra Reddy, advocate appearing for the appellant in both the appeals contended that the Tata Sumo i.e., the offending vehicle was insured with the appellant under the private car policy from 12.02.2011 to 11.02.2012. The premium was paid for the owner, driver and the third party. The inmates travelling in the Tata sumo are not covered by the insurance policy, since it is only a private car and Act Policy. Hence, the insurer is not liable to compensate the claimants. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of the Division of this Court reported in , ILR 2012 KAR 1841 (The Branch Manager, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Mahadev Pandurang Patil and Another) and contended that the order passed by the Fast Track Court is contrary to law. The liability ought to have been fastened on the owner of the vehicle.
On the other hand, Sri L.H. Shivareddy, the advocate appearing for the 1st respondent in both the appeals argued in support of the judgment and award passed by the Fast Track Court and contended that the vehicle is covered by the insurance policy. Hence, the insurer has to compensate the claimants. Apart from that, a meager compensation has been awarded. The award passed by the Fast Track Court is in accordance with law and sought for dismissal of the appeals, confirming the order passed by the Fast Track Court.
I have carefully considered the arguments addressed by the advocates appearing for the parties and perused the judgment and award passed by the Fast Track Court and oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties and also perused the policy of the offending vehicle.
The insurance policy clearly discloses that it was an Act Policy. The Tata Sumo was insured with the appellant - insurance company under the private car policy. The policy does not cover the risk of the inmates travelling in the vehicle. Apart from that, no additional premium is paid. As per the policy condition, it covers the owner/driver and the third party and the inmates are not covered by the insurance policy. The issue raised in these appeals is covered by the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court reported in , ILR 2012 KAR 1841 (The Branch Manager, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Mahadev Pandurang Patil and Another). Paragraph 16 of the judgment reads as follows:
"16. If the risk of an occupant of a car, inmate of a vehicle or passenger in a private car, is to be covered, additional premium has to be paid. If no additional premium is paid, their risk is not covered. The statutory liability under Sections 146 and 147 of the Act has to be read with the terms of the insurance policy issued under Section 146 of the Act. But that does not prevent an insurer from entering into a contract of insurance covering a risk wider than the minimum requirement of the statute, whereby the risk to gratuitous passengers could also be covered. A third party policy does not cover liability to gratuitous passengers who are not carried for hire or reward. If a liability other than the limited liability provided for under the Act is to be enhanced under an insurance policy, additional premium is required to be paid. The liability is restricted to the liability arising out of the statutory requirements under Section 14 only."
In view of the law declared by the Division Bench of this Court, the order passed by the Fast Track Court cannot be sustained. Since the owner of the vehicle had allowed the inmates to travel in a private car, the owner of the vehicle has to compensate the claimants. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
The appeals are allowed. The judgment and awards dated 03.03.2012 passed in MVC Nos. 540/2011 and 541/2011 by the Fast Track Court are modified. The liability is fastened on the owner of the vehicle to compensate the claimants. The amount in deposit be refunded to the appellant.