1. Shaik Moinuddin v. 1. SHAIK MOINUDDIN

2. Smt.Shameem Begum, W/o Shaik Moinuddin, Occ Household, R/o Boni lmam Galli, Bhainsa

3. M/s New lndia Assurance Company Limited, Rep-rby its Branch Manager, Door No.S-114112, Near old Bus stand, Nirmal-5(M106. ...RESPONDENTS l.A. NO: 3 OF 2013(MACMAMP. NO: 3134 OF 20131 petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in.support of the petition, the H$h Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in pursuance of award dated 14.08.2012 passed in MVbp No.61g/20O0 on the file of Chairman, MACT cum District Judge, Adilabad- l.A- NO: { OF 2O16(MACMAMP. NO: 4630 OF 20161: Between

1. Shaik Moinuddin,, S/o. Asraf Ali, Occ Business- R/o. Boni lmmam Galli, Bhainsa, Presently residing at Adilabad, Adilabad District-

2. Smt. Shameem Begum,, W/o. Shaik Moinuddin, Occ Household- R/o' Boni tm*rm Galli, Bhain-sa, Presently residing at Adilabad, Adilabad District- ...APPELLANT(S) AND 1 B. Pranay Kumar,, S/o. B. Venkat Red{y, fS9 Ma,gr,..O.o Owner of Mahindra Jeep No.'AP1T R/o. Dasturabad, Mandal l(adam, Adilabad District.

2. M/s- New lndia Assurance Company Limited,, Rep. by its Branch Mandager, Door No. 5-114112, Near Old Bus stand, Nirmal-504106.

3. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under 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 this Hon'ble court in MACMAMP No.3134nA13 in MACMA No.1576nA14 dated 24.06.2013 by permitting the petitioners / respondents 1 and 2 to withdraw the deposited amount in the interest of justice. , Counsel for the Appellants : SRl. C VANI REDDY Counsel for ttre Responcientsi & 2 : 5478/5 SURENDER REDDY Counsel for the Respondent - 3 : 46IA RAMAKRISHNA REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI M.A.C.M.A.No.4O96 OF 2O12 AND M.A.C.M.A.No. 1576 OF 2O14 COMMON JUDGMENT: 1. These two appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment since M.A.C.M.A.No.4O96 of 2012, filed by the claim petitioners seeking enhancement of compensation and M.A.C.M.A.No. 1576 of 2014 filed by respondent No.I in MVOp challenging the order of the Tribunal, both are directed against the very same order dated I4.O8.2O12 passed in M.V.O.P.No.619 of 2006, on the file of the chairman, Motor Accidents claims Tribunal - cum - District Judge, Adilabad (for short, 'the TribunalJ.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter be referred as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners, who are parents of Master Shaik Imran (hereinafter be referred as "the deceased"), filed a petition under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation of Rs.2,0O,0OO/- for the death of the deceased boy, who being minor of aged 13 years, in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on Ll.O7.2006. As stated by the petitioners, on ll.O7.2006, at about 2.OO p.m., when the deceased was travelling in Mahindra Jeep bearing No.AP-IT-6535, the driver 2 MGP,J MACMA.N0.4095 of 2012 and MACMA.No.1576 of 2014 of the said jeep drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. As a result, the deceased fell down on the road and sustained injuries and died on the spot and another person viz., Lasangiri Venkatesh also fell on the ground and jeep ran over him.

4. Based on a complaint, Police of Bhainsa Rural Police Station registered a case in Crime No.85 of 20O6 under Sectiorrs 3O4-A and 337 IPC against the driver of the said jeep.

5. It is stated by the petitioners that the deceased was studying VII Class and they intended to make him study upto Engineering and that there was every scope for the deceased bo1, 1s earn a surR of Rs.25,OO0/- per month. Due to his sudden demise, the petitioners got deprived of their future earnings. Hence, filed claim petition seeking compensation oi Rs.2,00,000/- from the respondenf-s, who are the owner and Insurer of the crime vehicle i.e. Jeep bearing no.AP-1-T-6535. _5. Respondent No.l, who is the owner of the crime jeep, Iiled his counter denying the averments made in the cler.im petition and contended that there was no rash and negligence on part of the driver of crime jeep and that the driver of the sairl jeep is having valid driving license as on the date of accident and if any compensation is awarded, the 2.d respondent is liable for payment of the sarne. "/ 3 MGPJ MACMA.No.4096 0f 2012 and MACMA.No.1576 of 2014

7. Respondent No.2/Insurance company fired its counter denying the averments made in the claim petition including, narration of accident, rash and negligent driving of the driver of crime jeep, age, education of the deceased boy, insurance coverage and driving license of the driver of jeep and contended that the deceased was travelling as gratuitous passenger at the time of accident and that the accident took place on account of gross negligence on part of the deceased who is sitting in the jeep in a casual and callous manner at the corner seat of the jeep and hence, he is not entitled fior any compensation. It is further contended that if there is any insurance coverage, the liability of Insurance company depends upon compliance of pohcy conditions and if any compensation is awarded, the l"t respondent alone is liable for payment of the same and therefore prayed to dismiss the claim against it.

8. Based on the above pleadings, the learned rribunal had framed the following issues:- (t) Whether the accident occurred on 11.0T.2006 due to rash and negligent driuing of tlw driuer of jep bearing No.AP-1-T-6535? (it) whetlrcr tlrc petitioners are entitted for compensation? If so, to uhat extent and from uhich of the respondents? (iit) WtrctLrcr tlrc claimants are entitled for ampensation? If so, to uhat extent and from whom? \ 4 MGP,J r!,lACMA.No.4096 of 2012 and MACMA.No.1575 of 2014 (iiil To ushat relief; g. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the petitionr:rs, PWs I & 2 were examined and Exs.Al to A5 were marked. On behalf of respondents, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced.

10. After considering the evidence available on record, the learned Tribunal allowed the claim petition by awarding compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- along with interest @ 7 '5% per annum payable by Respondent No.1 alone. challenging the same, the present appeals came to be filed by the claimants and owner of crime jeep bearing No.AP-I-T-6535 respectively.

11. Heard both sides and perused the material available on record.

12. The main contention of the learned counsel for appellants,/claim petitioners in M.A.C.M.A.No.4O9[:, of 2OL2 is that the iearneti Tribunal erred in exonei'ating the lns;'-trance Compan5r from its liability to pay compensation and further contended that the Tribunal ought to have granted more compenszttion by applying proper multiplier and therefore prayed to allow the Appeal by enhancing the compensation.

13. On the other hand, the contention of the learned Counsei for Responderrt No.l/Owner of Mahindra Jeep No.AP-1-T-6535 in M.A.C.M.A.No. t576 of 2014 is that the learned Tribunal ought to / 5 MGP,J MACMA.No.1095 of 2012 and MACMA.No.1576 of 2014 have seen that the offending vehicle is having insurance coverage as on the date of accident, as such, the Insurance Company should also be made liable for paying compensation along with respondent No.1/owner of crime jeep and filed M.A.C.M.A.M.P.1111 of 2Ol4 praying the Court to permit him to file original insurance policy and driving license along with the grounds of Appeal. L4. Now the point that emerge for determination is, Wletlrcr tlrc order passed by tLe learned Tribunal requires interferene of this Court? POINT:- 15. [t is pertinent to state that since the claim petition is liled under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act, the question of rash and negligence on part of the offending vehicle do not arise. However, the learned Tribunal has framed l"t issue on rash and negligent driving. Further, as seen from the evidence of PW2, an eye witness to the incident who travelled along with the deceased boy, deposed in this evidence that the deceased fell on the road as the jeep was driven at high speed. Further, the contents of Ex.Al- FIR also goes to show that the death of the deceased boy-Shaik Imran was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of crime jeep. Hence, from the above oral and documentary evidence, it can be held that the deceased died due to due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of crime vehicle- Jeep bearing No.AP- 6 MGP,J MACMA.N0.4096 of 2012 and MACMA.No.1576 of 2014 i-T-6535. The learned Tribunal has answered the issue in favour of the petit.ioner.

16. As far as quantum of compensation is concerned, the learned Tribunal, considering the age of the deceased boy as 13 years, took the notional income @ Rs.15,O00/- per annum by follovring Sichedule- II of Section 163-A of IVI.V.Act., deducted 1/3.4 to'uvards personal expenses and calculated loss of a.nnual income @ Rs.1O,0OO ,l- per annum, applied multiplier 15 ancl calculated loss of ea-rnings @ Rs. 1,50,000/-. Apart from this, the learned Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.5O,00O/- towards loss r:t life of their son and future prospects -which in total arrive,C at a total compensation of Rs.2,OO,OOO /- which this Court finds the same ,:o be reasonable and is not inclined to interfere with the same.

17. Coming to liability aspect, the learned Triburral exempted the lnsurance Company from its liability to pay comF)ensation as the petitioners anri owner of the crime vehicie iaiieci to prociuce any material showing that there was an insurance coverage for the crime vehir:le.

18. This Court, while perusing the record of the Trial Court found a receipt issued by New India Assurancc Co.Ltd, dated 2L.O6.2OO6, wherein, it is stated that a sum ol'Rs.6,75O/- was received from Mr.B.Pranay Kumar, who is respondent No.l in o-P./owner of crime jeep towards motor package which particulars \ \I 7 MGP.J MACMA.No.{i)6 0f 2012 ..d MACMA.No.1576 of 2014 are shown as AP-O1-T-6535 vaLid from 23.O6.2006 to 22.O6-2007' Hence, from the above it is ctear that the subject crime jeep is having valid insurance pollcy covering the date of accident and the respondent No.2 is the insurer of the crime jeep. Therefore, the lnsurance Company cannot be exempted from its liability in paying compensation to the petitioners. Though the said document was included in the list of documents filed along with o-P. by the petitioners, tJre learned Tribunal, inadvertentty, failed to consider the same. Further, the appetlant in M.A.C-M.A.1576 of 2O14 filed a petition uide M.A.C.M.A.M.P.No.111 I of 2ol4 requesting the Court to receive 2 documents viz., original insurance poticy and driving license along with the grounds of Appeal. Though the appellant in M.A.C.M.A.L576 of 2OL4 stated that he enclosed insurance potrcy and driving license along with the grounds of appeal, a perusal of grounds of appea[ shows that there is no driving license annexed along u,ith insurance policy- Since the insurance poltcy appears to be crucial and necessary piece of evidence for arriving at a correct finding, this Court is inclined to allow the petiti,on to the extent o[ receiving insurance policy and hereby include lnsurance Company in making tiabte to pay compensation along with the insurcd'

19. In the result, M.A.C.M.A.No.4096 o[ 2oL2 and M.A.C.M.A.No.1576of2oL4botharcpartly-allowedbyfixing 8 MGP.I MACMA.No.4096 of 2012 and MACMA.No.1575 of 2014 liability upon Insurance company along with owner of subject crime vehicle i.e., Jeep bearing No.Ap-ol-T-6s3s in paylng compensation to the petitioners and M.A.G.M.A.M-P.11 11 of zol4 is also ordered. Except the said finding, the findings rendered by the 'l'ribunal with regard to quantum of compe:nsation, rate o[ interest ernd apportionment shall remain undisturbed. 20 Mi:;ce llaneous petitions, if any, pending shail stand crosed. ,/TRUE COPY,, SD'- T. JAY TION OFFICER To,

1. The Chairman, MACT-CUM-DISTRICT JUDGE, ADt 2. One CC to SRl. S SURENDER REDDYAdvocate [OPUCI 3 One CC to SRl. 4464(AJAYANTH| Advocate [OPUCI 4. One CC to SRl. ZOBIC VANI REDDYAdvocate [OPUCJ 5. Two CD Copies Y{- HIGH COURT DATED i1710312025 C) $ f ir:-t 1[15 * Y'." JUDGMENT MACMA.No.4O9O of 2012 & 1576 0F 2014 PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEALS lcqfeA W ;eftfls HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT MONDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI oF 2011 n 2 :t Between l. Shaik Moinuddin,, S/o. Asraf Ali, Occ Business. R/o. Boni lmmam Galli, Bhainsa, Presently residing at Adilabad, Adilabad District. I Smt. Shameem Begum,, Wo. Shaik Moinuddin, Occ Household. R/o. Boni lmmam Galli, Bhainsa, Presently residing at Adilabad, Adilabad Distrjct. AND ) l. B. Pranay Kumar,, S/o. B. Venkat Reddy, Age Major, Occ Owner of Mahindra Jeep No. APIT R/o. Dasturabad, Mandal Kadam, Adilabad District. / Mls. New lndia Assurance Company Limited,, Rep. by its Branch Mandager, Door No. 5-114112, Near Old Bus stand, Nirmal-S(X106. Appeal filed under Section 173 of the M.V. Act, against the Judgment and Decree passed in M.V.O.P.No.619 of 2006, dt.14.08.2012 on the file of the Chairman, MACT-Cum-Dishict Judge, Adilabad. These appeals coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeals, the Judgment and Decree of the Tribunal and the material papers in the suit and upon hearing the arguments of Sri S. Surender Reddy, Advocate for the appellant in MACMA.No.4906 of 2O12 and for the Respondent in MACMA.No.1576 ot 2014 and of Smt. C. Vani Reddy for Respondents in MACMA. No.zt096 ot 2012 and for Appellant in MACMA.No.'1576 of 2O'14 and Sri T. Ramulu, Advocate for the respondent No.2 in MACMA. No.4096 of 2012 and Sri A. Ramakrishna Reddy, ' Advocate for the respondent No.3 in MACMA. No.1576 ot 2014. This court doth Order and Decree as follows: l. That this court while partly allowing the both appeals confirmed the findings rendered by the Tribunal with regard to quantum of compensation, rate of interest and apportionment.

2. That this Court fixed the liability upon insurance company along with owner of subject crime vehicle i.e. Jeep bearing No.AP-01-TS535 in paying compensation to the petitioners and

3. That this Court also ordered MACMAMP. 1111 ol 2014.

4. Save as aforesaid, this court confirmed all the averments passed by the Tribuna[.

3. That there shall be no order as to costs. To, /muB(oryl/ SD'. T. JAYASREE EPUTY REGISTRAR N OFE€BR

1. The Chairman, MACT-Cum-District J , Adilabad.

2. Two CD Copies. W HIGH COURT DATED:1710312025 \ \ DECREE MACMA.No.4096 ot 2012 & 1576 0F 2014 PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEALS ''a.o{"h F",