The High Court · 2025

Petition lnder Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim stay granted by order dated.09/0112020 in lA No.2 of 2020 in MACMA No.32 of 2020. Cross Between No.35 ot 202O 1 poya Santamma, wio Late B.Kesavuru, Aged about 51 years, occ. coolie. R/o. t'l.No.6-10r Gangapur Viilagle of Jeocheria lVtinoir, lVlahabc,obnagar District. -

2. Boya Santosha, D/o Kesavulu, Aged about 24 years, Occ. Coolie. R/o. H.No.6-1O,Gangapur Village of Jedcherla Mandal, l/ahaboobnagar District. ...Cross Objectors/Respondents No.1 & 2 AND

1. The National lnsurance Company Limited, Represented by its Regional Manager Regional Office, CC Hub, 1't floor Koti to Nampally, Road, Hyderabad ...RespondenU Appellant

2. Golconda Chandraiah, S/o Yellaiah, Aged Major, Occ. Owner of the Motorcycle bearing No. AP-22-AQ 4730 R/o H.No.1-117, Gangapur Village of Jedcherla Mandal, lvlahaboobnagar District. ...RespondenU Respondent No.3 Counset for the Appellants: in MACMA.No.32 of 202O and Respondents No.1 in Cross Objections No.35 of 2020 : SRI P.HARINATH GUPTA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 in MACMA.No.32 of 202O and Cross Objector in Cross Objections No.35 of 202O: SRI P.HARINATH GUPTA Counsel for the Respondents No.2: in MACMA & Cross Objections No.35 of 2020 : None Appeared The Court made the following: COMMON JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA M.A.C.M .A.Nos.32 of 2O2O & Cross Objection No.35 of 2O2O Date of Order :15.12.2O25 BETWEEN The National Insurance Company Limited Appellant And Smt. Boya Sar,tamma and 2 Others . Respondents COMMON Jf,IDGMENT: M.A.C.M.A.No.32 of 2O2O is filed by the National insurance Company Lirnited and Cross objection No.35 of 2o2o is filed by the Claimaht. $6:ing aggrieved and unsatisfied against the Award and decree passed by the Motor Vehicles Claims Tribunal-Cum-I Addl.District Judge, Mahabubnagar, (hereinafter referred to 'learned rribunal') in M.V.O.P.No.!150 of 20 14, dated 04.02.2019.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as they ar,: arrayed before the learned Tribunal. t I 2 .llIlw.J M.A.C.M.LNo,32 of 2O2O & Cross oblecdon No.35 of 2O2O

3. The brief facts of the case are that on 19.11 .2013, the deceased along with another were proceeding on a motorcycle bearing registration No.AP-22 AQ-4730 from Ranipet to Gangapur village on Jadcherla Kalwakurthy road and when they reached near Yerra kaluva, an unknown vehicle being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner hit the deceased motorcycle, as a result, both the deceased who was a pillion rider and also rider of the said motorcycle, fell on the road and sustained severe grievous injuries. Immediately, the deceased was shifted to hospital and while undergoing treatment, the deceased succumbed to injuries. The Jadcherala Police, registered a case vide crime No.577 of 13. The petitioner claimed that, due to the sudden death of the deceased the petitioners lost their source of income and the claimants were depended on the deceased for their livelihood and claimed compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/ - as compensation.

4. Before the learned Tribunal, respondent No.l (Owner of the Motor cycte No.AP-22-AQ-4730 remained ex-parte. Respondent No.2 filed counter affidavit and contend.ed that the petitioners filed the petition filed under Sections 140 or 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, as such the petition is not maintainable, as it ts a 'hit and. ntn case' and also contend's .zJ / R, 3 IVIVR.J M.A.CMA.No.32 of 2O2O & Cross oblectlon No.35 of 2O2O both the police and the insured failed to discharge their mandatory duties contemplated under Sections 134 and 158 (6) respectively of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 and there was no negligence at all on the part of the driver of the motorcycle registration No.AP-22-AQ-4730 at the time of accident and that, there is contributory negligence on the part negligence contributory of the rider of the motorcycle and prayed to dismiss the petition in so far as respondent No.2 is concerned.

5. Basing on the pleadings of the both the parties, the learned Tribunal has framed the following issues: "(i) Whelher the death of the deceased late Mandla Kesauulu dted out of a molor accident occurred on 19.11.2013 at about 08.00 pm near Yerra kaluua within the limits of Gangapur uillage on JadcLrcrla Kalutakurthy road on a"ccount of the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the motorcycle bearing registration no.AP-22-AQ-4730? (ii) whether the petitioners are entitled to seek the compensation for the death of late Mandla Kesanrulu and if so, what amount and from uhom? (iii)7'o uthat relief"

6. In supl:ort of the case of the claimant, the claimant examined herself as P.Wl an<l got marked Exs.Al to A14. On behalf of the respondents, RWl was examin-ed and marked. Ex.B1 and 82 are marked. 4 IN'R.J tlLA.C.M.A.No'32 of 2O2O & ctoss oblectlon No.35 of 2o2O

7. After perusing the oral and documentary evidences and going into the entire record and the evidences placed by both the parties, the learned Tribunal allowed the claim petition in part and granted compensation of Rs.3,58rOOO/- along with interest @7.5%o per annum.

8. Being aggrieved with the compensation amount, National Insurance Company Limited filed M.A.C.M.A.No.32 of 2O2O to exonerate respondent No.2 from liability and claimants prefer Cross Objection No.35 of 2O2O to enhance the compensation amount' orrnsel Na Com g. It is averred that the learned Tribunal ought to have seen that the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the rider of the bike and the Police was unable to trace out the crime vehicle, thereby the claimants ought to have filed the claim petition under Section 161 of M.V.Act instead of 163-A and 140 of M.V.Act. The learned Tribunal did not consider the crucial aspect of violated the lnsurance Policy'

10. It is further averred that learned Tribunal failed to examine properly, whether there was an accident as alleged, and also there was no damage -,.,:,., (.\I 5 IAB,J lI.A.C.ItLA.No.32 of 2O2O & Cross oblectlon No.35 of 2O2O to the said motor cycle bearing registration No.AP-22-AQ-473O and there is negligence ()n the part of the rider of the said motor cycle and also the offending vehi,:le u,hich hit the deceased motorcycle was not traced, as the FIR aiso revea-ls that the motorcycle has been hit by another motorcycle, holtever the offending crime vehicle was not traceable, hence the accident was not clear.y proved and the compensation granted by the Tribunal is exorbitant and prayed to set aside the Tribunal order and allow the present appeal filed by the respondent No.2 Contentions of the Claimants: 1 1. It is averred that claimants have filed the claim petition under Section 163-r\ and the section provides for "no-fault" liability, and the claimants do<:sn't need to prove negligence to get compensation for death in a motor a<:cident and claimants are not bound to prove the burden of innocence of the rider in which the deceased was pillion rider and the learned Tribrrnal has rightly taken into consideration that the claim petition under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act, however the learned Tribunai tailed to consider the income of the deceased as Rs.3OO/- per day as the deceas;ed he was working as coolie and was aged about 48 years as t 1 6 NIV:R.J M.A.C.I{.A.1;1o.32 of 2O2O E Cross oblectlon No.35 of 2O2O on the date of the accident and the learned Tribunal did award the amount under convention heads and pray this Court to enhance the compensation.

12. Heard, Srz P.Ho:rinath Gupta, learned Counsel for Insurance Company and Sri ^f(. Venkatesh Gupta, learned counsel for claiamts. None appear for respondent No.1 Perused the material on record.

13. Admittedly, both the parties have filed appeal and cross appeal against the Award passed by the learned Tribuna-l. As such, there is dispute regard.ing age and income of the deceased more particularly tiability of the respondent No.2. Therefore, the points which arose before this Court in the present appeal and cross appeal are that: ' i) Whether the Tribunal has rightlg consider tle claim petition under Section 163-A of M.V.Act tt) Whether the learned, Tribunal has rightly fixed the liabilitg on both the Insurance Company.? iii) Whether the claimants are entitled for enhanced compensation and if so, from wlnm and what quantum of amount? Point Nos.1 & 2 14. The main grievance of the Insurance Company is that the claimants ought to have filed the claim petition under Section 161 of the M.V.Act, as l -.. 7 NIIR.J il.A.c.MA.No.32 of 2O2O & C"oss oblectlon l,lo.35 of 2O2O it is a case 'trit and run' and the petitioner ought to have availed the remedy under Section 161 of the M.V.Act instead the petitioner filed the claim petition under Section 163-A of the M.V.Act and the learned Tribunal r,vithcut considering the crLrx of the case that the matter will come under tLit and run case has granted compensation under Section 163-A of the M.V.Act and further contended that the monthly income taken by the l,:arned Tribunal is exorbitant.

15. Per contra, learned counsel contention is that the learned Tribunal did not awarcl any amount towards love and affection and fatherhood in respect of the children and the learned Tribunal failed to add 50% of the amount towards future prospects of the deceased in view of the rising value and inflation in the market and the Tribunal ought to have awarded interest at l2)h on the compensation amount.

16. Admittedly, the deceased died due to an accident occurred on

19.11.2013,'vhich is not disputed by either of the parties. The deceased was a pillion rider on the motorcycle vehicle bearing registration No.AP- 22-AQ-4730 when 'unknown uehicle' being driven by its driver in a rash and negligenf manner hit the deceased motorcycle as a result of which, ) B AINR..' M-A.CItLA.l'b.32 of 2O2O & Crcss oblectloa No.35 of 2O2O both the rider and pillion rider (deceased) fell on the road and received severe injuries and the deceased succumbed to injuries. It is pertinent to mention that the rider is none other than the deceased's son.

17. PW.l in her chief examination has specifically deposed that the deceased rvas travelling as a pillion rider on motorcycle and that the motorcycle was being driven by its rider in a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner at the time of the accident, however, she stated that she did not witness the accident.

18. Ex.A1 shows that Mandla kurmaiah claiming to be the own son of the deceased and also the rider of the motorcycle, gave a report on

20.11.2013 before the Station House Officer, Jadcherala deposing that on

19.11 .2013, when he and his father i.e., Mandal Kesarrulu (deceased) were coming on motorcycle from Ranipet to Gangapur and when the vehicle reached near Yerrakaluva within the limits of Gangapur Village an unknown vehicle coming in the opposite direction hit their motorcycle and the deceased sustained severe injuries and was shifted to the Government hospital, where the deceased succumbed to injuries on 2O.11.2O13. I 9 NNR.J tlA.C.lrt A.No.32 of 2O2O & Cro$ oblectlon I'b.35 of 2O2O

19. Ex.A3 - lnvestigation Officer who investigated Crime No.577 of 2013 submitted report that the vehicle hit the motorcycle bearing No.AP-22-AQ- 4730 could not be traced despite all possible efforts made by lnvestigation Officer.

20. The son of the deceased i.e., Mandla Kurmaiah stated that he was driving the nrotorcycle at relevant point of time and the deceased has taken lift frorn his son and when they proceeding the accident occurred, however thert: is no mentioned in the Ex.Al that the deceased's son was riding the vehicle and the Tribunal disbelieve the version of the Mandla Kurmaiah that he was riding the motorcycle because it is hard to believe that his father has requested for lift from his own son and also there is no whisper in the evidence of PW.1 or in the petition with regard to the narne of the rider rtf the said motorcycle, hence the Tribunal rightly disbelieved the Ex.Al anC come to the conclusion that another person might be riding the vehicle.

21. As per the evidence of Pwl, Ex.A1 and F;x.A2, it is clear that on

19.11.2013tr when the deceased along with unknown person who was driving the rootorcycle an accident occurred, since the petition was filed ) q ,: 10 JVIVR.J M.A.C.M.A.No.32 of 2O2O & Cross oblectlon No.35 of 2O2O under Section 163-4 i.e., "no fault liabilitg" the Tribunal has awarded compensation relying upon the decision of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Orient Insurance Compang Linited u. Indro Deui and otherst and judgment passed by High Court of judicature at Madras in New India Assurance Compang Limited a. P,Atttnachq.lam and others2.

22. ln New India Assurance Compang Limited Vs. Shanti Bopanna. and Others3, in the said case, the deceased was travelling in a car that belongs to his employer and it was driven by another person. It was contended by the Insurance Company that the deceased is not a third party because he was an employee sitting in the car. It was held in the said case that the deceased was indeed a third party being neither the insurer nor the insured.

23. The Division Bench of this High Court between Orl.ental Insurance Compang Linited Vs. Ramisettg Sriniaa.sa Ro;o and Others+; the petitioners'case therein is that he was going along with his wife and two I 2016 ACI 1759 2 zoll ACI 530 3 AIR zotz sc 2857 o 2o2q (2) ALD 828 (rs) (DB) I 11 A'NR.J M.A.C.M.A.No.32 of 2O2O & Cross oblectloa l;1o.35 of 2O2O other employe:es in a Maruthi Car which met with an accident, as its driver drove ttre car in a rash and negligent manner. His wife is the owner of the car and it is also put forth that he is the only earning member of his family. Thus, the Insurance Company has corttended that the injured- petitioner is the defacto-owner of the car anct thus, the Company is not liable to pay any compensation, since he steps into the shoes of the owner and that he ir; not a third party. The Bench has held that the term 'third party'implies any person other than the insurer and the insured, who are not parties to insurance contract. In the said case the deceased was not driving the vt:hicle at the time of accident, but in the present case, the deceased is also pillion rider when the accident occurred.

24. Even ol.herwise, as it is seen from the Ex.Bl-copy of Insurance policy, it is a 'comprehensive/Package Policy' and not a 'Act policy'. It is pertinent to rnention herein that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nqtional rnsurance cornpang Llmited u. Bo.lo,krishno;n & qnothe€, it is hetd that compreh.ensive/package policy would cover the liability of the insurer for payment of compensation and the relevant paragraphs No.2O and 21 is extracted here under for ready reference: s zotz ruR sc-vv 6::78 T i i 12 "m A'IVR.J "2O. It is also worthy to note that the High Court, afier referring to indiuidual circulars issued by uaious insurance companies, euentually stated thus:- oln uiew of the aforesaid, it is clear that the comprehensiue/ package policy of a two utheeler couers a pillion rider and comprehensiue/ package policy of a priuate car couers the ocatpants and where the uehicle ls couered under a comprehensiue/ package policy, there is no need for Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to go into the question whether the Insurance Company is liable to compensate for the death or injury of a pillion rider on a two-wheeler or the occupants in a priuate car. In fact, in uiew of the TAC's directiues and those of the IRDA, such a plea usas not permissible and ought not to haue been raised as, for instance, it was done in the present case." 21. In uieut of the aforesaid factual position, there is no scintilla of doubt that a "comprehensiue/package policy" would couer the liability of the insurer for payment of compensation for the occttpant in a car. There is no cauit that an "Act Poltcy" stands on a differentfooting from a "Comprehensiue/Package Policy". As the circulars lruue made the position uery clear and the IRDA, which is presentlg the statutory autlnritg, has commanded the insurance companies stating that a "CompreLensiue/ Package Policy' couers the liability, tlrcre cannot be ang dispute in that regard. We may hasten to clarify t?wt the earlier pronouncements were rendered in respect of the "Act Policg" tuhich . admittedly cannot couer a third partA risk of an ocanpant in a car. BuL if the policg is a "Comprehensiue/Package Policg", the liabitity would be couered. T'hese aspects u)ere not noticed in the case of Bhngyalakshmi (supra) and, therefore, the matter was referred to a larger Bench. We are disposed to think that there is no necessitg to refer the present matter to a larger Bench as the IRDA, which is presently the statutory authority, has clarified the position bg issuing circalars which haue been reproduced in the judgment by the Delhi High Court and we haue also reproduced the same."

25. In view of the cited judgments above, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Tribunal has rightly considered the claim petition under 13 JVI\m.J M-LC.M/*No.32 of 2O2O & Crcss oblectlon No.35 of 2O2O Section 163-A of the M.V.Act and granted compensation. Hence, the point Nos.1 ar,d 2 irr favour of claimant against the lnsurance company. Point No.3 26. As far a's the quantum of compensation is concerned, the claimants claim that the deceased was working as cooolie and was earning Rs.9,ooo l- p<rr month, however, as the Hon'ble decision of the Hon,ble Apex Court delivered in the case of Deepal Girishbhai Soni & Ors. Vs. United Indio'. rnsurance Company Limitedo , the victim having more than Rs.40,0()0/- annual income cannot maintain the claim under Section 163-A of the Act of 1988. In the present case on hand, the claimants claimed coml)ensation under Section 163-A of M.V.Act and the learned Tribunal having considered the entire facts and circumstances of the case and in the absence of income certificate or any documents sustaining that the deceased was earning more than Rs.40,0oo/- per annum has taken the income of the deceased as Rs. Loo I - per day and Rs.3,o00/- per month and Rs.36,00O/- per annum, which appears to be reasonable and needs no interferenoe. 6 2004 ACJ gt)4 I i l , : L4 ATI'R.J M.A.C.M.A.IiI0.32 of 2O2O & Cross oblectlon l|ro.3s of 2O2O

27. The claim petition is filed under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act, no future prospects can be granted. The Division Bench of Sikkim High Court in case of "The Branch Manage4 Shriram General Insurance Compang Limited uersus Dilu Rai and Qther (M.A.C.M.A. No.10 of 2018, dated 4.4.2022)", held as follorns: "lt needs no reiteration that the Supreme Court has clearly spelt out as euident from the decisions cited supra that compensation to be computed under Section 163 of the M.V. Act is on the structured forrnula as if is based on no fault liability. Once a person inuokes the prouisions of Section 163A, the question of inclusion of pecaniary compensation for non-tangibles and future prospects does not arise. 20 . uruder Section 163A future prospects or anA other additional non-pecuniary heads find no place and compensation in a Claim Petition under Sectton 163A of the M.V. Act ls to be strictly computed on the structured formula prouided in the Second Schedule to the Act."

28. Therefore, Point No.3 is ansvvered in favour of Insurance Company against claimants.

29. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded compensation of Rs.3,5B,OO0l- with 7.5 o/o per annum interest and neither the Insurance Company nor claimants have placed any such material or srolrnds to interfere in the findings of the / judgment of trial Court. Consequently, both the appeals falls to the 15 ,tI lR.J M.A.C.M.A-1,b.32 of 2O2O & Cross oblectlon No.35 of 2O2O ground.

30. Accordir.gly, IilIACMA No.s2 of 2o2o filed by the Insurance Company anc. Cross Objection iVo.35 of 2O2O filed by the Claimants deserved to be and accordingly dismissed. In the result, the Judgment and Decree passed by the Motor vehicle Claims Tribunal cum I.Additional D,istrict Judge, Mahabubnagar, in M.v.o.p.No.25o of 20t4, dated 04.o2.2o 19 is confirmed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any are pending, shall stand closed. SD/- MOHD. TSMAIL UTY REGISTRAR D //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, The ft/otor Vehicle claims Tribunal-cum-l Additional Mahabultnagar. One CC to SRI P.HARTNATH GUPTA Advocate IOPUC] One CC to SRl. K VENKATESH GUPTA Advocate [OpUC] Two CD Copies 1 2 3 4 District Judge, w- NVB/PSL ; -... :? / I STATE q f, o r) tt[$ 11 rq$$ t :..-. :,, HIGH COTJRT DATED:1\i|1212025 COMMOI\I J U DGM ENT+ DEC REE MACMA.l,lo.32 of 2020 & CROSS CTBJECTION No.35 of 2020 DlsMlsslNc THE BorH MAGMA No.3zoF z0zo AND CROSS OBJECTION No.35 OF 2020 b [ 3443 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD IMONDAY,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA M.A.C.M.A. Nos: 32 OF 2O2O & Cross Obiection No.35 of 2020 M.A.C.M.A. Nos: 32 OF 2O2O Between: The National lnsurance Company Limited, Represented by its Regional Manager Regional Office, CC Hub, 1'' floor Koti to Nampally, Road, Hyderabad. ...ApPellanUResPondent AND

1. Boya Santamma, Wo Late B.Kesavulu, Aged about45 years, Occ. Coolie 2. Boya Santosha, D/o Kesavulu, Aged about 24 years, Occ. Coolie. Both R/o. Gangapur Village of Jedcherla Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District (R2 has been declared as maior discharging Rl from the guardianship vide C.O. D1.24.11.2020 in lA No.3 of 2O20)

3. Golconda Chandraiah, S/o Yellaiah, Aged major', Occ. Owner of the . Village'of Jedcherla Mandal, Mahaboobnagar Dist. Motorcycle bearing Regn. No. AP-22-AQ 4730 R/o H.No.1-117, Gangapur ...ResPondents/Petitioners Cross Obiection No.35 of 2020 Between: '1. Bova Santamma, Wo Late B.Kesavulu, Aged about 51 years, Occ. Coolie' R/6. H.No.6-10, Gangapur Village of Jedcherla Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District.

2. Bova Santosha. D/o Kesavulu, Aged about 24 yearc, Occ. Coolie' R/o' H.No.6-10,Gangapur Village of Jedcherla Mandal, Mahaboobnigar District' ...Cross Objectors/Respondents No.1 & 2 AND

1. The National lnsurance Company Limited, Represented by its Reg.ional Manager Regional Office, CC Hub, 1't floor Koti to Nampally, Road, Hyderabzrd.

2. Golconda, chandraiah, S/o Yellaiah, Aged lvajor, occ. owner of the lVlotorcycle bearing No. AP-22-AQ 4730 R/o H.No.1-1 17, Gangapur Village of Jedcherler Mandal, t\Iahaboobnagar District. ...RespondenU Appellant ..RespondenU Respondent No.3 Appeal under Section 173 of [/.V.Act and Cross-Objections under order 41 Rule 22 of C.P.C., against the order and decree in O.P.N o.250 of 2014 dated 04-02-2019 on the file of ther Court of the [/otor Vehicle Claims Tribunal-cum-l Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar. This apgreal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the case and upon hearing the argument of Sri P.Harinath Gupa, Advocate for the Appellant in tvl,ACMA.No.32 of 2020 and Respondent No.1 in Cross Objections No.35 of 2020 and Sri K.Venkatesh Gupta, Advocate for Respondent No.1 in MACMA.No.32 of 2020 and Cross Objector in Cross Objections No.35 of 2020 and None appeared for Respondent No.2 in MACIVTA and cross objections. This Court dotih Order and Decree as follows: 1- That the appealfiled by the insurance company be and hereby is dismissed; 2- fhat the Cross-Objections in Petition No.35 of 2020 filed by the claimant be and hereby is dismissed.

3. That the impugned order dated 04-02-2019 passed by the Motor Vehicle Claims Tribunal-cum- I Additional District Judge, tVlahabubnagr in M.V.O.P No.250 of 2014 is confirmed. 4- That the injured claimant shall be entitled to withdraw the said amounts as per the directions of the Tribunal; and 5. That there shall be no order as to costs. //TRUE COPY/ SD/- MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Motor Vehicle Claims Tribunal-Cum-l Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar. 2. Two CD Copies NVB/PSL W HIGH COI.'RT DATED:1t;|1212025 I I DECREE MACMA.ltlo.32 of 2020 & CROSS OTBJECTION No.35 of 2020 DISMISSING THE BOTH MACMA No.32 OF 2020 AND CROSS OBJECTION No.35 OF 2020