LAWS(APH)-2011-1-20

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. MOHAMMADI BEGUM

Decided On January 31, 2011
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. Appellant
V/S
MOHAMMADI BEGUM Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the award in O.P. No.837 of 2000 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Nizamabad, dated 15-04-2002.

(2.) SHAIKBASHEER, husband of the 1st claimant, son of the 2nd claimant and father of claimants 3 to 6, was working as cleaner in bus No.AP 25T 6174 and was travelling as such in the bus on 14-05-2000 when it met with an accident in front of congress bhavan, Nizamabad due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver. Shaik Basheer was run over by the bus and died while undergoing treatment at Government Headquarters Hospital, Nizamabad. He was claimed to be earning Rs.3,000/- per month as salary and Rs.100/- per day as batta at the age of 38 years and the claimants sought for a compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- from the owner and insurer of the bus jointly and severally.

(3.) HEARD Sri Naresh Byrapaneni, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri P. Radhive Reddy, learned counsel for the claimants/respondents 1 to 6. The point for consideration is the liability of the insurer for the death of the cleaner under the insurance policy in question. The insurance policy is seen to be referring to the payment of premium in respect of 35 passengers apart from premia which appeared to have been paid in respect of legal liability to paid-driver and/or conductor and for increased third party property damage. In respect of the personal accident to driver, conductor and cleaner as per endorsement IMT-6, no premium was paid. The oral or documentary evidence on record before the Tribunal does not run contrary to the same in any manner. When in a similar case, premium was not paid to Hamali who died in the course of his employment due to an accident for tractor and trailer, a learned Judge of this Court following the earlier precedents, opined in DudekulaSalabee v. R. Siva Sankar Reddy and another 2009 ACJ 1053 that the question of liability of the insurer does not arise when there was no separate contractual obligation between the insured and the insurer covering the risk of such nature.