The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellant: Sri T. Viswarupa Chary Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Sri A. Rama Krishna Reddy The Court delivered the following: COMMON JUDGMENT 1 THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA M.A.C. M.A.NO.253 & 319 0F 2021 COMMON JUDGMENT: Both these appeals arise out of the Order and Decree dated

15.06.2020 in M.V.O.P.No.1817 of 2O15 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Xl Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short "the Tribunal").

2. For convenience and clarity, the-parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The case of the petitioner before the Tribunal was that on 21 .O1.2012 at about 23:00 hours, thc deceased-G. Laxman and his friend Srinivas were going from Nalgonda to Bhongir on motor bike bearing No.AP-24-AL-2548 and on the way, when they reached Chityal Village, an unknown vehicle coming in the same direction, dashcd the motor bike from behind, as a result of which the deceased and his friend fell down. and sustained serious injuries. The deceased died on the spot. It is Lheir case that the deceascd was hale and healthy and was aged 26 years, he was doing Kirana Business and used to earn Rs.9,OOO/- per month. They sought a compensation of Rs.9,00,0OO/- by hling a petition under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act.

4. The respondent No. 1 remained ex-parte. t 2 ETD,J MACMA Nos.253 & 319 2021 5, The respondent No.2 filed counter denying the avermcnts of the petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident and the age, avocation and income of the deceased. They further contended that as pcr the FIR an unknown vehicle has hit the motor bike and thus, it comes under the provisions of Hit and hun cases. Further, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation. They further contended that the deceased did not have a valid driving license as on the date of accident and that their company is not liable to pay any compensation.

6. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues for consideration:- 1 2 Whether the accident took place due to the rash and negligent drtutrtg of the motor bike beaing No.Ap-24_AL 2548 causing death of deceosed-G. Loxman? Whether the petitioner is enti ed for compens(1tion. If so, to whqt amount and from uhonr?

3. To uthat relief ?

7. To prove their case, the petitioner got examined pW1 and Exs.Al to A4 were marked. On behalf of the responclents RW1 was examined and Ex.B1 and 82 were marked.

8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded a c?Fpensation of Rs.3,7O,O0O/-. Aggrieved by the said order and decree, the present appeal is hled by the Insurance Company. ETD,J MACMA Nos.253 & 319 2021 3

9. Heard Sri A. Rama Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company and Sri T. Vishwarupa Chary, learned counsel for the respondents.

10. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has submitted that the order of the Tribunal is contrary to law and weight of evidence and that the Tribunal ought to have seen that the deceased is not a third party, but he is the younger brother of the insured r.e., respondent No.l before the trial Court and the said fact was admitted by PW1 in her evidence. Even then, the Tribunal failed to consider the said fact. He further argued that the deceased was driving the vehicle of his brother who is the owner of the vehicle and that he does not come under the meaning of third party and therefore, the Tribunal ought not to have entertained the application. He further argued that the Tribunai has committed error in quantifying the compensation and has awarded huge amounts without observing the conditions laid down in the policy. He further argued that if this Court holds that the deceased is a third party, then it has to follow the Second Schedule as per the statute. He therefore, prayed to set aside the order and decree of the Tribunal by allowing this appeal.

11. Learned counsel for the claimant, on the other hand, has argued that the deceased is a third party, since he is neither the insured nor the insurer and that the claim petition is very much I 4 ETD,I MACMA Nos.253 & 319 2021 maintainable before the Tribunal. He further, argued that the Tribunal has granted meagre amounts without following the cost inflation index and that the Tribunal has simply awarded the compensation under the second schedule, but failed to consider the raise in cost of living and the cost inflation index. He therefore, prayed to enhance the compensation.

12. Based on the above rival contentions, this Court frames the following points for determination, ' 1 2 3

4. WhetLter the deceased is third patTA? If so, tDhether the Insurance Compang is tiabTe to-pag compensation? Wether tlE conpensation granted_ bg just and reasonable? the Tibunql is Whether the order and decree of the Tibunal need. qnA interkrence? To what retief> 1 3. Point No. 1: a) The deceased is the brother of respondent No.1 who is tl-re owner of the motor bike bearing No.Ap-24-AL-2548. on the fateful day, the deceased was going on the said motor bike from Nalgonda to Bhongir, and on the \ ray he met with an accident as an unknown vehicie has hit it from behind. The present petition is filed by the mother of the deceased against the owner and insurer of the motor bike. Since, it is filed under Section 163_4, the petitioner need not prove the rash and negligence on part of the rider of the motor bike. The contention of the appellant counsel is ETD,J MACMA Nos.253 & 319 2021 5 ,, ,.|, that since the deceased is the brother of the owner and was riding the motor bike at the time of accident, the claim would be restricted to the terms and conditions of the policy. b) To prove his contention, the counsel for Insurance Company has relied upon .hlingam rna and dnother. Vs- Unlted Indian Assurance Compang Limitedl; in the said case the deceased was travelling on Hero Honda motor bike, which he borrowed from its real owner. It wasr held in the said case by the Apex Court that a bare perusal of Section 163-A would make it explicitly clear that the persons like the deceased in the present case would step into the shoes of the owner of the vehicle. In a case, wherein the victim died or where he was permanently disabled due to an accident arising out of the aforesaid motor vehicle, in that event the liabiliry to make paymenl of compensation is on the Insurance Company or the owner, as the case may be as provided under Section 163-A' But if it is proved that the driver is tlee owner of the motor cycle, in that case the owner could not himself be a recipient of compensation, as a liability to pay the same is on him. c) The counsel for Insurance Company has also relied upon National Insurance Compang Limlted Vs. Slnitha and Others2; \ ' AIR 2oo9 sc 3056 ' r (20t2) ACC 524 (sc) I 6 ETD,,] MACMA Nos.253 & 319 2021 .:.1 wherein it was held that Section 163-A of the Act is founded under the "No Fault" liability principle. d) He further relied upon New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Sad.anand. Mukhi and Other#; wherein the son of the insured while driving the motor bike met with an accident and died. In the said case, it was held that the driver of the vehicle is not a third parqr and as such, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to pass any order under Motor Vehicles Act. e) Relying on the said Judgment, a Coordinate Bench of this High Court in Ortental Insurance Company Limited. Vs. patha Gangannma and. Otherst; has held that the deceased who is the son of the owner of the vehicle, died in an accident while driving the said vehicle, is not a third party and he is only a legal heir of the insured and as such, the insurer is not liable to pay any compensation, since the risk of the deceased was not covered by the Policy. 0 On the other hand, the counsel for claimant has relied upon Neu India Assurance Comgtang Limited. Vs. Sharnti Bopanna and Others5; in the said case, the deceased was travelling in a car which belongs to his employer and it was driven bv another ' lzoqg; rScc +rz o :ozo 1s61 ,+Lo roz 1.rs.1 . AIR 20 I 7 SC 2857 EID,] MACMA Nos.253 & 319 2021 7 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 rn the said case that the deceased was indeed a third party being neither the insurer nor the insured. g) lrarned counsel for the claimant has further relied upon the decision of a Division Bench of this High Court between Oriental Insttrance Compang Limited Vs. Ranr,lrlsettg Sriniaasa Rao and Others6; the petitioners case is that he was going along with his wife and two other employees in a Maruthi Car which met with an accident, as its driver drove the car in a rash and negligent manner. His wile is the owner of [he car and it is also put forth that he is the only earning member of his family. Thus, the Insurance Company has contended that the injured-petitioner is the defacto-owner of the car and thus, the Company is not liable to pay any compensation, since he steps into the shoes of the owner and that he is 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 vehicle at the time of accident, but in the present case, the deceased was driving the vehicle with which the accident occured. 6 zoz+ p1 ryo vt (rs) (DB) I 8 ETD,I IMACMA Nos.253 & 319 2021 h) The counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court to Bajaj Allianz Genera.l Insurance Compang Limited. ys. Gaddam Sra.llami Red.dg and anotherT; wherein a Coordinate Bench of this High court has held that to fasten the liability on the Insurance Company, the claimant is required. to establish that he is either a third party or that his risk is covered under the terms and conditions of the policy. In the said case, the injured_petitioner who was driving the car,,dashed a tree on the road side and thus, sustained fracture injuries. The Bench held that the claimant in the instant case is admittedly not a third party and that he did not adduce any evidence showing that the accident occurred in the course of his employment with the respondent No.2 who is the owner of the vehicle or that under the terms and conditions of the policy, under which the car involved in the accident was insured *.ith the appellant-lnsurance Company, his risk is covered. With the said observation, the appeal f,rled by the Insurance Company was allowed. 4 A perusal of Ex.Bl/Policy reveals that it covers the risk of owner-driver to an extent of Rs. 1,00,00O/ _. It is further mentioned that the term 'driver' includes .ang person inctud.ing the insured- prouided that a person diuing hold.s an effectiue diuing license at the time of the accid-ent and is not d.isqualified. from holding or ' zon ecl zssa ETD,J MACMA Nos.253 & 319 2021 9 obtoining such a license. Prouided also that the persons Ltolding an effectiue Learner's license maA also drtue the uehicle uhen not used for the transport or goods/ passengers at the time of the accident ond that such a person sofisfes tlw requirements of Rule 3 of the Centrol Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989'. j) Thus, after going through all the above cited decisions, it is inferred that the deceased is not a third party in the present case as he was driving the vehicle of the insured and that he falls under the term "driver" as mentioned in the policy. The claim petition filed by the mother of the deceased is maintainable and the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation as per the terms and conditions of the Policy. k) The Ex.Bl/Policy reveals that a premium of Rs.SO/- is paid towards PA coverage of owner-driver. Thus, it is held that the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation to the petitioner to the extent of limited liability mentioned in the policy. Point No.1 is answered accordingly.

14. Point No.2:- a) The contention of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company is that if the deceased is held to be a third party and when the claim petition is filed under Section 163-A, the annual income of the deceased cannot be more than Rs.4O,OOO/- as per the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act. i -) ,( 10 ETD,J MACMA Nos.253 & 319 2021 b) On the other hand, the counsel for the claimant contended that the deceased is a third party and the compensation under Section 163-,4 has to be granted by taking into consideration, the cost inflation index in addition Lo the second schedule. c) In support of their contentions, they have relied upon several decisions ofApex Court and High Courts. d) It is already held under point No.l that the deceased falls under the term 'driver' as mentioned in the policy and the claimant is entitled to compensation of Rs. 1,O0,OOO/ as stipulated rn the policy covering the risk of owner-driver. Point No.2 is answered accordingly

15. POINT NO.3:- In view of the finding arrived at point No.1 and 2, it is helcl that the order and decree of the Tribunal does not need any interference with regard to the tiability of respondents and the same is upheld. But with regard to quantum of compensation, it needs to be reduced from Rs.3,7O,OOO/- to Rs.1,OO,OOO/-. Point No.3 is answered accordingiy.

16. PTOINT NO.4: In the result, the MACMA.No.319 of 2O2i filed bv the claimant is dismissed and MACMA.No.2S3 of 2O2l filed bv the 11 ETD,.I MACMA Nos.253 & 319 2021 insurance Company is partly allowed modifying the Order and Decree dated 15.06.2020 in M.V.O.P.No.1817 of 2OLS passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Xl Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, reducing the compensation from Rs.3,70,OO0/- to Rs.1,OO,000/- which shall carry interest @7.5% per annum from the date 9f claim petition till realization. However, the record shows that the claimant has already withdrawn 50% of the compensation deposited by the Insurance Company. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the amount that is already received by the claimant and if at all the amount that is already received by the claimant is found to be in excess, the same shail not be recovered by the insurer keeping in view the objective of beneficial iegislation. No Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appeal, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/- MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUry REGI TRAR SECTI OFFICER One Fair Copy to the HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA (For Her LordshiP's kind Perusal) To,

1. The Motor Accident claims Tribunal-cum-Xl Additional chief Judge, city civil Courts at Hyderabad.(with records, if any)

2. One CC to Sri A. Rama Krishna Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri T. Viswarupa Chary, Advocate [OPUC] 4. 11 LR Copies 5. The Under Secretary, Union of lndia lrilinistry of Law' Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi

6. The Secretary, Telangana Advocates Association Library, High Court for the State of Telangana, High Court Buildings at Hyderabad.

7. Two CD Copies kam/gh I i HIGH COURT DATED: 1 310612025 L -.:--.\ c .t. . -.--a ./- ,.\). ,/\ .,/ 1 ) I ,] 18 SEP zffi t ,;) 3= t o FslarC " COMMON JUDGMENT+COMMON DECREE MAGMA.Nos.253 & 319 of 2021 MACMA No.319 of 2021 IS DISMISSED MACMA No.253 of 2021 IS PARTLY ALLOWED ./o

4.t 2a