The High Court · 2025

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

3. The case of the petitioners before the Tribunal is that on 0405.2014 at about 7:10 p.m., the deceased was going as a pillion rider on a motor bike bearing No Ap-10VE_T/R_5729 being driven by one Sudarshan and while proceeding from Keshavaram Village to Yellampet side, the rider of the motor bike has driven it in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed and dashed to the road side rairing when they reached near Sangeeth Function Hall on the outskirts of Keshavaram Vi'age' as a resurt of which the pirion rider fe, down from the motor bike and sustained head injury and died on the spot. The claimants sought a cr \ 4. The respondent No.1 remained ex_parte lmpensation of Rs.12,00,000/_. 2 ETD,J MACMA No.4O2 2021 (

5. The respondent No.2 has filed counter denying the averments of the petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident, age, avocation and income of the deceased. lt is further contended that the owner-cum-driver of the motor bike was not having valid driving license as on the date of the accident. Thus, their company is not liable to pay any compensation.

6. Based on the above pleadings, trial Court has framed the following issues for trial:- 1 2

3. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of Bajaj Pulsar motor cycle bearing N,.AP-1OVE-T/R- 5729 on 04.05.2014 causing death of K. Narsimha S/o K Venkataiah? Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, how much and from whom? To what rclief?"

7. To prove their case, petitioners got examined PWs 1 to 3, Exs.Al to A5 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, RWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B1 and 82 were marked.

8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.7,17,300/- against the owner of the vehicle and has exonerated the lnsurance Company. Aggrieved by the said award, the present appeal is preferred by the claimants ) ETD) MACMA No.402 2021 3

9. Heard the submissions of Sri Kasi Reddy Jagathpal Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri K. Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

10. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the lnsurance company has contended before the Tribunar that the driver of the offending vehicre did not have varid driving ricense and that in the absence of any proof, pay and recovery may be ordered making the lnsurance Company liable to pay the compensation to the claimants and then recover from the owner, but the Tribunal has completely exonerated the lnsurance Company .and has fixed the liability only on the owner which is not justified. He relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in National lnsurance Company Vs. swaran singhl . He further argued that the Tribunar faired to consider the income of the deceased as pleaded by them and that the deceased was a labourer and used to earn around Rs.15,0001 per month, but the Tribunal has assessed the income to be Rs.4,000/- per month which is very low. He therefore, prayed to enhance the compensation and also to fix the liability on the lnsurance Company to pay the compensation. I / 'zoe<(.tlscc I and 2004 AC.r 4 ETD,J MACMA No.4O2 2021 (

11. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has submitted that, there were three persons going on the motor bike at the time of accident and that it was overloaded. He further argued that the deceased was a pillion rider and the driver of the motor bike did not have valid driving license. Thus, the owner-cum-driver of the motor bike has violated the terms and conditions of the policy and therefore, the company is not liable to pay any compensation. He further argued that PW2 is examined to be an eye witness, but in his cross examination PW2 has admitted that he is not an eye witness. Therefore, the accident is not proved in this case. He further submitted that they got examined RW2/the owner-cum-driver of the vehicle, his evidence reveals that he did not have valid driving license as on the date of the accident, he had only learners license, but the same is not produced. Therefore, he submitted that their company is not liable to pay compensation.

12. ln view of the above rival contentions, the points that arise for consideration in this Appeal are as follows:- 1 \ 2\ 3 4 Whether the ider of the molor bike beaing No. AP-IoVE-T/R- 5729 was not having valid diving /icnese as on the date ot accident. lf so, whether the lnsurance Company is liable to pay compensation? Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal rS lust and reasonable? Whether the Order and Decree of the Tibunal need any interference ? To what relief ? 5 ErD;J lvlACMA No.402 2021

13. Point No.1 a) The contention of the appellants counsel is that the rider of the motor bike did not possess valid driving license as on the date of the accident. ln suppo( of their case, lhey got examined RWs 1 and 2. b) RWl is the Legal Officer of Shriram General lnsurance Company and he had deposed in his chief examination that the owner has violated the terms and conditions of the policy by going on triple riding and also that without any valid driving license, he drove the vehicle. ln his cross examination, he admitted that the policy was in force and that it is a package policy. Through him Ex.B2 was filed which is the notice issued on the owner of the vehicle on 10.07.2018 Thus, the Company has discharged his burden by examining RW1 and also filing Ex 82 showing that they have served notice on the owner of the vehicle. c) They have also examined RW2, who is the owner of the vehicle. His evidence reveals that he did not possess driving license. He has also stated that the police filed charge sheel against him. ln his cross examination he admitted that the accident occurred due to his negligence and that he has obtained bail in the criminal case, however, he denied his joint liability to pay the compensation to the clqimants. He stated that just 15 days prior to the accident, he was issu\ed a learners license. Thus, it is elicited from the evidence on 6 ErD,I MACMA No-402 2021 ( record that the owner-cum driver of the motor bike did not possess a valid driving license as on the date of the accident. Though he stated that he has learners license, he has not produced the copy of the same. Therefore, it is herd that the driver-cum-owner does not have a valid driving license. d) ln National lnsurance Company Limited Vs. Swaran Singh and Others2, it is held that even in case of absence, fake or invalid license or disquarification of the driver for driving, the rnsurance Company is liable to satisfy the award in favour of third party at the first instance and later recover the award amount from the owner of offending vehicle, even when the lnsurance Company could able to establish breach of terms of poricy on the part of the owner of the offending vehicle. e) ln the decision of the Apex court in united rndia rnsurance Company Limited vs. S. tyyapaa,, it was held that even though the insurer has taken the defense that there is a breach of conditions of the policy excluding the lnsurance company from the liability that the driver is not duly licensed in driving rhe crime vehicle which met with the accident, third party has a statutory right to recover compensation from the insurer and it was for the insurer to proceed ' zooa (z) alo (sc) :e t lzors 121 scc oz1 7 ETD,] MACMA No.402 2021 against the insured for recovery of the amount paid to the third party, in case, there was any breach of conditions of the insurance policy. ln Shammaanna and Another Vs. Divisional Manager, 0 Oriental lnsurance Company o, the Apex Court has held that the doctrine of pay and recovery has to be made applicable, when the driver does not possess a valid driving license to cover the third party risk. S) ln the latest judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court dated 1.7.2019, rendered in Parminder Singh vs. New lndia Assurance Company Limited & Otherss, it is held that if no driving license is possessed by the driver of the offending vehicle, the principle of 'pay and recovery' can be ordered to direct the lnsurance Company to pay the compensation to the victim and then recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle. h) ln view of the above held discussion and in light of the above cited decisions, it is held that the driver of the offending vehicle did not have valid driving license and that the lnsurance Company shall I pay \e compensation and then recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. o (20 r 8) r rAC 677 t lzot o1 z scc zrz Point No.1 is answered accordingly 8

14. Point No.2'.- ETD,J MACMA No.4O2-2O21 a) The case of the petitioner is that the deceased used to work as a labourer and used to earn Rs. 15,000/- per month. No proof can be expected in this regard. b) ln Ramachandrappa Vs. Manager, Royat Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited, the Apex Court has held that in the absence of any proof of income with regard to a labourer, Rs.4,500/- per month can be safely taken as the income. Therefore, on a reasonable hypothesis the income of the deceased is assessed as Rs.4,500/- per month. c) As per the dicta laid down in National lnsurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & OthersT, 4oyo of the income needs to be added towards future prospects. As the deceased is aged 25 years, adding 40% towards future prospects would give Rs.6,300/_ per month, which comes to Rs.6,3004 x 12 = Rs.75,600/- per I (201 r) t2 scc 236 I ArR 2017 SCC 5157 ETD,., MACMA No.402 2021 d) The number of claimants herein are three and therefore, 1/3d deduction needs to be made to his income towards personal 9 expenses and this would come up to Rs.50,400/- (Rs.75,600/_ (_) Rs.25,200/-) e) The multiplier should be chosen with regard to the age of the deceased, as per column No.4 of the table given in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporations. post Mortem Examination ReporUEx.A3 discloses the age of the deceased as ,25, years. The deceased being aged 25 years, the appropriate multiplier to be applied is '18'. Therefore, the loss of dependency is calculated as Rs.9,07,2001 (50,400 x 1B) f) With regard to the amount to be awarded under the head ,loss of consortium', in the light of pranay Seth/s case, Rs.15000/_ towards loss of estate and Rs.1 5,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.40,0001 towards loss of consortium have to be awarded and the said amounts should be enhanced by lO% every three years. S) ln Magma General lnsurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and ofherse, the Apex Court has elaborately discussed the principres raid down in pranay sefh/s case and has further held that not onry the spouse but the parents and chirdren of '2009 (6) scc t2l "(2otri) t8 scc Bo 10 ETD,I MACMA No.402 2021 the deceased are also entitled to loss of conso(ium. Therefore, in the present case, the claimants would get Rs.48,400/- each towards loss of consortium, hence, the compensation amount under this head would be Rs.'l ,45,2001- instead of Rs.40,000/-. With regard to amounts to be granted under the heads of funeral expenses Rs. I 8, 1 50/- and loss of estate Rs. 1 8,1 50/- would be just and proper. h) Thus, in all the claimants would be entifled to the following amounts:- st. No. 1 2 3 4 Name of the heads Loss of dependency Loss of consortium (48,400 x3) Loss of Estate Funeral Expenses Total Awarded by this Court Rs- 9,07,200t- 1,45,2001- 18,150/- 18,150/- 10,88,700/- i Therefore, the compensation to which the petitioner is entitled is calculated as Rs.10,88,700/- while the Tribunal has granted Rs.7,17,3001 Thus, it is held that the petitioner is entifled for enhancement of compensation. Hence, point No.2 is answered accordingly.

15. POINT NO.3:- It is held that the order and decree of the Tribunal need to be modified with regard to the quantum of compensation. This Court has enhanced the compensation to Rs.10,88,700/- from that of I Rs.\,17,300/- i.e., awarded by the Tribunal.

4..-

16. POTNT NO.4: 11 ETD;J MACMA No.402 2021 ln the result, the appeal is parfly allowed, modifying the Order and Decree dated '1 8 11.2020 in M.V.O.p.No j922 of 2014 passed by the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, enhancing the compensation from Rs.7,17,300/- to Rs.10,g9,700/_, and the enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till realization. However, the interest for the period of delay, if any, is forfeited. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 are held jointly and severally liable to pay compensation, it is directed that the lnsurance Company shall pay the compensation in the first instance and then recover from the owner of the vehicle. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appeal, shall stand closed sd/- Sq . JAWAHAR REDDY STANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1 The Chairman Motor Accident Claims TribunALtum-XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. One CC to Sri Kasireddy Jagathpal Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Sri K Ajay Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies w 2 3 4. iLa lt AS HIGH COURT DATED:1310812025 1 t{ E STAr€ o LI 2 5 tIfl 20ffi ; ,6 i.| '-+ JUDGMENT MACMA.N o.402 of 2021 PARTLY ALLOWED G "6"tr5* [ 3/1441 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA M.A.C.M.A. No:402oF 2021 Between: - l. k. Sumalatha, Wo Late K. Narsimha 4. Smt. K. Yadamma, Wo. K. Venkataiah 2. K. Venkataiah' S/o. K Advaiah ...Petitioner/Petitioner AND 1 2 Ch. Sudarshan, S/o. Rama SwamY frrfl, if," Shriram General inrrt"n." Company Limited, Represented by its Datta Arcade' Street No'6' Oiri.ionrf Manager' 3-6-517, 4th Floor, Sai Himayathnagar' Hyderabad' ...Respondents/Respondents Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the order and Decree madeinM.V.o.P'No.1922of2014dated18-,t1-2020onthefileoftheCourtofthe ' ChairmanMotorAccidentClaimsTribunal-cum-XXVAdditionalChiefJudge'City Civil Court, HYderabad. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the materral papers in the case and upon hearing the argument of sri Kasireddy Jagathpal Reddy' AdvocatefortheAppellantsandSriK'AjayKumar'AdvocatefortheRespondent No.2. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the MACMA be and hereby is allowed, modifying the order and decree dated 18-1 1-2020 in M V O P No 1922 ot 2014 passed by the Chairman' MotorVehicleAccidentClaimsTrtbunal-cum.XXVAdditionalChiefJudge,City Civil Court, Hyderabad, enhancing the compensation from Rs 7'17'3001 to Rs.'10,88,700/-andtheenhancedamountofcompensationshallcarryinterest @ 7 .5% per annum from the claim petition trll the realization;

2. Thatthe interest for the period of delay' if any' is forfeited;

3. That the respondent Nos.1 and 2 are held iointly and severally liable to pay compensation;

4. That the lnsurance Company be and hereby shall pay the compensation in the first instance and then recover from the owner of the vehicle;

5. That save as aforesaid. the decree of the Tribunal shall stands confirmed in all other respects; and

6. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. Sd/- M. JAWAHAR REDD\ ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII To, 1 The Chairman lt/lotor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- TION OFFICER \xv Roaitionat Crrief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Two CD Copies

2. AS/kanr Hr HIGH COURT DATED:1310812025 DECREE MACMA.N o.402 ot 2021 PARTLY ALLOWED '^tS 5{-