The United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. U. Narasimhudu and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- all india services act, 1951.sections 8 & 11 & a.p. buildings (lease, rent and eviction) control rules, 1961, rule 5: [v.v.s. rao, g. yethirajulu & g. bhavani prasad, jj] refusal by landlord to receive rent - deposit of rent in court - held, a tenant has the option to take recourse to section 8 in case of refusal or evasion by landlord to receive rent and if landlord were to not name a bank or refuse even the money order of rent, the tenant can deposit the rent in accordance with sub-rules (1) to (3) of rule 5. the notice to person entitled to rent and proper maintenance of accounts of such deposits under sub-rules (4) and (5) of rule 5 are solely dependent on compliance with sub-rule (3) by the tenant. the payment or deposit of rent under section 11 read with sub-rule (6) of rule 5 arises only in respect of a tenant who did not take recourse to section 8 or section 9 before an application for eviction has been made against him in respect of any rent in arrears by date of that application, whereas in respect of rent that becomes subsequently due since date of application for eviction, the tenant is bound to pay or deposit regularly until termination of proceedings in order to enable him to contest the application. any violation of section 11(1) to (3) and sub-rule (6) of rule 5 makes the tenant liable for the adverse consequences under sub-section (4) of section 11. thus, the provisions of section 11 and sub-rule (6) of rule 5 are intended only to ensure the payment and deposit of rent including arrears during pendency and till termination of proceedings for eviction. the forfeiture of right of tenant to contest in case of default is to protect the rights and interests of landlord pending such an application for eviction, but not to confer any right on tenant to plead that all defaults committed by him prior to application for eviction can never be considered wilful, if he were to deposit all arrears of rent due within fifteen days under rule 5(6) read with sub-section (1) of section 11. the object and effect of section 11 and sub-rules (1) to (5) to rule 5, the former being for protection of landlord during pendency of eviction proceedings and the later being for protection of tenant to avoid any liability for eviction on ground of wilful default. consequently, while taking recourse to section 8 by tenant is optional, once that option is exercised, compliance with sub-rules (1) to (5) of rule 5 becomes mandatory in the sense that any non-compliance with prescribed procedure will positively indicate the wilful nature of default committed in paying or tendering rent as prescribed. while deposit of rent in terms of provisions of act and the rules amounts to valid tender of rent to landlord, the failure to comply with rule 5 (3) requiring delivery of a copy of the challan for deposit of rent in office of controller or appellate authority, as the case may be, so as to enable controller or appellate authority to cause maintenance of proper accounts under sub-rule (5) and give notice of deposit to person amounts to wilful default in making valid payment or lawful tender of the rent by the tenant to the landlord. thus, where a tenant obtains an order to deposit rent, same shall be deposited at least by the last day of the month following that for which rent is payable and rent challan shall be delivered in the office of controller within a reasonable time so that rent controller can take necessary action for service of notice of deposit under sub-rule (4) of rule 5 of the rules within seven days of such delivery. in the absence of compliance in so depositing rent and delivering challan in the office of controller, tenant shall be deemed to have committed wilful default. - it is submitted that all the claimants are poor people and they are all coolies.radhakrishna rao, j.1. in all these 14 cases, the case set up is that due to the rash and negligent act of the driver of the vehicle the accident took place. the tribunal ultimately fixed the liability on the insurance company and awarded an amount of rs. 20,000/- to each of the claimants in these cases where there are 14 deceased. the facts are that many people were travelling in the lorry at the time of the accident. some persons received injuries and some persons died. in the claim petition the claimants did not mention the name and address of their employer and the column relating to the name and the address of the employer is shown as nil. that means, they were not travelling in the lorry engaged by their employer. the finding is that they have not paid any fare. so they are not fare paid passengers. they were also not engaged by any person on that day. so when they themselves came forward with the plea that the name and address of their employer is nil, now they cannot be permitted to say that they were travelling as coolies of the employer.2. under those circumstances the finding of the tribunal with regard to the rash and negligent driving is confirmed.3. sri hanumaiah, learned standing counsel for the insurance company contended that the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation as the injured and the deceased were not fare paid passengers and no extra amount towards premium was paid on the policy for the insurance company to pay compensation to the non-fare paid passengers in the event of accident. on a perusal of the policy it is found mat 5 fare paid passengers and the driver can travel in the lorry. these injured and the deceased will not come into that category. under those circumstances they cannot claim the benefit of the payment of extra premium for those 5 or 6 persons. a division bench of this court in oriental fire & general insurance co. v. m. bhanumathi, 1990 (1)a.l.t. 685. found that the non-fare paid passenger travelling in a goods vehicle is not entitled for any compensation from the insurance company on the basis that there is a valid cover as on the date of the filing. therefore the contention of the insurance company that it is not liable to pay any amount as compensation is correct. it is only the owner of the vehicle alone that has to pay the compensation amount. it is submitted that all the claimants are poor people and they are all coolies.4. in the circumstances it is held that the insurance company is not liable to pay any amount. the c.m.as. are allowed to the effect that the award to the extent of fixing the liability on the insurance company is set aside. no costs.