ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT ISSUES ORDER ON A.P.S.R.T.C. V/S CHUKKA DURGAYYA AND OTHERS

AMARAVATI, India, June 1 -- Andhra Pradesh High Court issued the following order on April 30:

1. This application is filed to review the order of this Court dated 26.11.2013 passed in C.M.A. No. 3497 of 2003 in M.O.P. No. 51 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum- District Judge, Vizianagaram.

2. M.O.P.No.51 of 2002 is filed by the respondents Nos.1 and 2 herein against the respondents Nos.3 to 5 herein / respondents Nos.1 to 3 and the petitioners Nos.1 and 2 herein / appellants.

3. M.O.P.No.51 of 2002 was partly allowed on 14.11.2002 by the Tribunal. Challenging the same, the respondents Nos.4 and 5 before the Tribunal preferred the appeal in C.M.A.No.3497 of 2003.

4. The appeal was disposed of on 26.11.2013 with the following observations at paragraphs Nos. 6 and 7, which read as follows:

"Admittedly, the claim is satisfied with the monies deposited by the fifth respondent-insurer. The monies deposited by the appellants, therefore, can be taken back by the appellants. If the fifth respondent considers that the appellants are liable to contribute up to 50% of the award, it is for it to take steps to recover such amounts from the appellants. So far as the present case is concerned, the appellants are jointly and severally liable with respondents 3 to 5. I also consider that it would be appropriate as held in the common judgment in M.A.C.M.A. Nos. 1956 and 1960 of 2009 that the appellants 1 & 2 on the one side and respondents 3 to 5 on the other side shall be liable to an extent of 50% each of the awarded amount. So far as the monies lying with the Tribunal to the credit of the case, if the appellants herein had deposited the same, they are entitled to withdraw the same, subject of course to the claim of the fifth respondent-insurer, if any.

The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of accordingly without costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition (sic. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal) shall stand closed."

5. Aggrieved by the above order, this review petition was filed contending that the insurance company alone is liable and that the petitioners cannot be made liable.

6. As can be seen from the order in appeal noted above, the claim was already satisfied by the respondent No. 5 / insurer. It is correct to hold the owner also is liable jointly and severally along with insurer, as the liability of insurer is not independent of an owner / insured. As such, the insurer cannot be permitted to recover the amount from the insured or owner, so long as the liability of the insured is covered by the policy of insurance and there is no violation of any term(s) of the policy.

7. The present case is not of such kind. When the insured and the insurer are jointly and severally liable, the insurer cannot be permitted to recover any amount from the insured. So, the portion of the order in appeal at paragraph No. 6 noted above, permitting the respondent No.5 to recover the amount from the appellants by referring to another common judgment in M.A.C.M.A. Nos. 1956 and 1960 of 2009 is obviously mutually inconsistent with the joint and several liability.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=WSRFLpK7bpll%2Fzvq9H5YQmKQrP3IPhMzwrzlBMOIUVjISlhdSY4nvORwFlNMLiYf&caseno=CMA/3497/2003&cCode=1&cino=APHC010551282003&state_code=2&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.