Nandikanti Pratap Reddy v. United lndia lnsurance Company Limited

THE HONOURABLE THE SMT.JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI REVIEW M.A.C.M.A.M.P No. 3147 ot 2012 IN M.A.C.M.A. NO: 2840 OF 2008 Between: Nandikanti Pratap Reddy, S/o.Narayana Reddy, Occ: Agriculture & Labour on Contract Basis R/o.Ugrawai [Vl, Kamareddy Mandal, Nizamabad District. ...PETITIONER/RESPONDENT AND 1 2 United lndia lnsurance Company Limited, through its Branch Manager b/o.Station Road, KamaredOy -'SOS f r f ,'f.f Aam"iOad Oistrict Sri Jillella Gangaiah, S/o.Rajaiah, Rl/o.Ugrawai [V], Kamareddy Mandal, Nizamabad District. ...RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS Petition under Section 114 R/W Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds of appeal, the High Court may be pleased to review the judgment and decree dated 2911112011 passed in MACIMA.No. 2B4O of 2008. Counsel for the Appellant : M/s. LAKKADI DAYAKER REDDY Counsel forthe Respondent No. 1 : SRl. N. MOHAN KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 : NONE APPEARED The Court made the following: ORDER This application is filed seeking to review the order daled 29.11.20'1 1 passed in MACMA No.2840 of 2008. TheinsuranceCompanyfiledtheappealquestioningtheawardpassedbythe Tribunal in granting compensation of Rs.1,42,'184l- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition. According to the insurance company, the policy was an act policy. Though it is claimed that the clairnant was travelling on the tractortrailer as a labourer at the time of accident, according to the insurance company he was a gratuitous passenger. The Tribunal fastening the liability on the insurance company hasgrantedthecompensation. Assailingthesame, theappealisfiledbythe insurance comPanY. By Judgment, dated 29.11.2011, this Court having considered the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex court in National lnsurance company Ltd., v. Rattanil, New lndia Assurance Co. Ltd. V. Neeradi Kaspa Sattawa2, New lndia Assurance Co.Ltd., Vs. Asha Rani3 and National lnsurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Bommithi Subbayammaa, held that the insurer cannot be fastened with any liability for the risk in respect of gratuitous or unauthorized passenger and as the claimant is an authorized and gratuitotrs passenger, the risk of the passenger travelling in such tractor-trailer is not covered, and also held that the insurance company is not liable to pay the Compensation.Fu(her, itwasheldthatastheinsurancecompanyhasdeposited 50% of the award amount, as the claimant is an agricultural labourer, the amount which is already withdrawn by him may not be recovered' Learnedcounse|appearingfortheclaimantsubmitsthatthepolicyisa comprehensive policy and as per the said policy, the labourers are covered and the said fact was not brought to the notice of the learned Judge when the order was passed and on that ground there is an error apparent on the face of the order' ' 2oo9 ACJ 92s ' zoog (:) alo z8q t zoo: lc.t t 1sc; ' zoos (z) ac; zzt (sc) This court has perused the Judgment passed by this court on 2g.11.2011 as well as Ex.B'l policy. The policy is a B-policy comprehensive policy. As it is the case of the claimant that he was travelling in the said tractor as labourer and he is covered by the policy, counsel has rightly held that the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation. Accordingly, the review application is ordered. //TRUE COPY// Sd/.P.GOWRI SHANKAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR LfD SECTION OFFICER '1 . The Motor Accident Claims tribunal (Vl Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court), Nizamabad) at Kamareddy.

#2. One CC to M/s C. DAYAKAR REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Onb CC to SRl. N MOHAN KRISHNA, Advocare [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies To, DL d HIGH COURT DATED:26/06/2023 ORDER M.A.C.M.A.M.P. No' 3147 ot 2012 IN MACMA.No.2840 0f 2008 t\E 1 STATg o )+ e 5 --) ,.) ruB N8 9 C) + ORDERING THE REVIEW APPLICATION w ,1} 1