Telangana High Court
MACMA/2913/2015 of ICICI Lombard Motor Insurance Company Limited Vs Goantal Venkateswarlu (died) on 31 December 2015
B. SIVA SANKARA RAO M.A.C.M.A.M.P.No.155 of 2010 IN/AND M.A.C.M.A.No.2913 of 2015 COMMON ORDER : The 2nd respondent-insurer among the two respondents including the owner and insurer of lorry bearing No.AP 07 W 1859 of the claim filed by the two claimants, no other than the husband and major
HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE B. SIVA SANKARA RAO
M.A.C.M.A.M.P.No.155 of 2010
IN/ANDM.A.C.M.A.No.2913 of 2015
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
COMMON ORDER:
The 2[nd] respondent-insurer among the two respondentsincluding the owner and insurer of lorry bearing No.AP 07 W 1859 ofthe claim filed by the two claimants, no other than the husband andmajor son of the deceased G.Jalamma, aged about 60 years, acoolie, under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act forRs.1,00,000/-, since awarded an amount of Rs.67,000/- with 8% perannum by the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal (VIII ADJ),Guntur (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) in O.P.No.101 of 2008 in favour of the 2[nd] claimant as the 1[st] claimant died pending the O.P., vide awarddated 03.08.2009. Impugning the same, Insurance Companymaintained the appeal with a delay of 53 days with explanation ofadministrative delay in forwarding and sanctioning.
2. The contentions of the appeallant-2[nd] respondent in the grounds ofappeal vis-à-vis oral submissions are that the driver got licence onlylight motor vehicle non-transport and there is no valid licence to drivethe transport lorry and Ex.A.5-charge sheet filed by the police speaksthe same way that the driver is an accused for the offence as he wasnot possessing the valid licence and the interest of 8% per annum isexcessive and thereby to set aside the award and to exonerate theinsurer.
3. Whereas it is the contention of the learned counsel for the claimanti.e., respondent No.2 in the appeal (since respondent No.1-claimantNo.1 died pending O.P.) that respondent No.3 to the appeal-respondent No.1 in the claim petition appeared in person even dismissed for default in the appeal, who is the main contestant laterremained ex parte, which can be seen from the award of the Tribunalat para 3, even impleaded and dismissed for default in the appeal, noway fatal to the maintainability of the appeal as laid down inM.Chakradhara Rao v. Y. Babu Rao.
4. Heard and perused the material on record. The delay is condoned.At the request of both sides, the matter is taken up for hearing.
5 . So far as the joint liability of the insurer fixed by the Tribunal isconcerned, the evidence on record clearly speaks of including that ofRW.1 with reference to Ex.A.4-Motor Vehicle Inspector’s report andEx.A.5-charge sheet, the driver got licence only LMV non-transport,whereas the vehicle involved is heavy goods vehicle and suffice tosay no valid licence and what the Tribunal observed in para 8 of theaward is Column No.17 of the M.V.I. report speaks the driverpossessed LMV only and did not say beyond it. Such conclusion ofthe Tribunal is untenable when the vehicle involved is undisputedly atransport vehicle and the licence possessed by the driver is LMVnon-transport. Thus, the Tribunal ought to have been awarded thecompensation against the insurer to the extent of liability and beyondthat so far as the quantum and rate of interest for this Court whilesitting in appeal there is nothing to interfere.
6. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed by modifying the jointliability against the 2[nd] respondent-insurer to liability of pay andrecover and respondent No.2 shall deposit said amount within onemonth, failing which the claimant can execute and recover. It is madeclear from the settled expressions of the Apex Court in United IndiaInsurance Co. Ltd V. Lehru (supra) & Nanjappan (supra) that theinsurer is entitled, while depositing the amount payable, if notdeposited or paid any amount so far to deposit the balance due andto approach the Tribunal to direct the RTA concerned not to registerany transfer of the crime vehicle and to seek for attachment of thecrime vehicle or other property of the insured as an assurance forexecution and recovery in the same proceedings or under revenue
recovery as per the MV Act, 1988 and also ask the Tribunal not todisburse the deposited amount to claimant (but for to invest in abank) till such attachment order is made. However, after the same,the Tribunal shall not withhold the amount of the claimant, if there isany necessity to permit for any withdrawal but for to invest thebalance in fixed deposit in a nationalized bank. Rest of the terms ofthe award of the Tribunal holds good.
7. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. Noorder as to costs.
31[st] December 2015.mar
____________________________
Dr. B. SIVA SANKARA RAO, J