The High Court · 2025

Shriram General lnsurance Company Limited, Represented by its Manager, Sai Datla Arcade, H.No.3-6-517, 4th Floor, Flat no.401 and 402, Street no.6, Himaya,:hnagar, Hyderabad-500 029. .... Respondent No.1/Appellant Panduga Shivaraj, S/o Mallaiah, Aged- 25 Years, Occ- Owrier of Motorcycle chassis No. MD2A76AY2JWD13859 and Engine no.PFYWJD12891, R/o- H.No.3-1 1/1, Ramsanpally Viilage, Andole Mandal, Sangareddy District502 273. Panduga Shivakumar, S/o Mallaiah Aged- 28 Years, Occ- Driver of Molo1gy'cle chqggis !o. MD2A76AY2JWD13859 and Engine no.PFY/UJD'12891, R/o- H.No.3-1 1/1, Ramsanpally Village,Andole Mandal, sangarr:ddy District-SO2 "' *""oonr"nt Nos.2 & 3/Respondent Nos.S & 6 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 orders dated 07-02-2024 made in lA No. 2 of 2024 in MACMA No 129 of 2024. Counsel for the Appellant : SRl. HARINATH REDDY SOMA Counsel for the Respondents : SRI A YADAVA REDDY The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT /./ HON''BLE SRI JUSTICE LA>(MI NARAYANA ALISHETTY M.A.C.M.A.No. L29 of 2o24 JUDGMENT: T.ee prcsent appeal is liled by the appellant-insurance Comparry, aggrieved by lhe Ordcr dated 17.1O.2023 in M.V.O.t'.No.25 of 2019, passed b), Lhe lcarned Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Medak.

2. The zrppellant herein is the respondent No.3, respondents No.l to 4 are claimants and respondents No.S and 6 are respon<lents No.1 and 2, betbre the Tribunal

3. Fleard Sri Harinath Rcddy Soma, Iearned Counsel for the appellant and Sri A.Yadava Rr:dclr,, learned Counsel for iesponrlents No. I to 4.

4. f'he brief facts of the case, which led to filing of the presenl- appeal, are that respondents No.I to 4 filed claim petitiorr uide M.Y.O.P.No.25 of 2O19, seeking compensation on account of death of one Thalary Yellaiah (deceased), in a road acciderrt that took place on 02.03.2019. The deceased was travelling on a motor cycle bearing No.TS 15 EV 3890, as a pillionrider,whichwasdrivenbyttrcrespondentNo.6. I I : lj' i1 i 2

5. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of claimants, p.ws .l and 2 were examined and Exs.p1 to p6, were marked. on behalf of the respondents, R.ws.l and 2 were examined and Ex.Ri was marked. 6- The Tribunal considering the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, awarded Rs.12,OO,OO0/- as compensation along with interest @ T.s% per annum from the date of petition tilt realization and fastened tiability on appellant and respondents No.S and 6 jointly and severally. The Tribunal further directed the appellant herein to first pay the compensation and gave liberty to the appellant to recover the same from respondent NIo.S (owner) and respondent No.6 (driver) 7- The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the driver of the motor cycle did not possess a valid Driving License as on the date of accident and he was charge sheeted under Section 304-A IPC and Section i81 and 196 of Motor vehicles Act, therefore appellant is not liabre to pay compensation. He also submitted that it is the statutory duty of the owner of the vehicle to see that the driver to whom the vehicle is entrusted holds an effective driving license to drive such vehicle. since there is clear violation of the conditions of , ti:'e vpolicy, appellant cannot be made liable to pay J compenriation. He further submitted that claim petition is filed under Siection 163-A of M.V.Act, and therefore the annual notional income of the deceased should not cross Rs.4O,OOO/- and future prospects also cannot be granted. However, the Tribuna has considered the income of the deceased as Rs.8,0OO/- per month and also considered the future prospects @ lOo/o and awarded a sum of Rs.L2,OO,0OO|-, contrary to scheduk:-ll. Therefore, prayed to allow the present appeal. B. Per contra, learned Counsel for respondents No.l to 4 would srubmit that though [he appiication was filed under Section 163-A of M.V.Act, entire evidence u,as adduced as per Section 166 of M.V.Act. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly considered the application under Section 166 of M.V.Act and awarded just and reasonable compensation, and no grounds are made otrt to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal. He further submitted that respondents No.l to 4 have filed an applicalron uide I.A.No.4 of 2024, to amend the provision of law of the claim petition from Section 163-A to 166 of M.V.Act, and this Court uide Order dated 01..O4.'2O25, allowed. the said applicaLion, and therefore, the contention of the appellant that the Trib':nal has awarded the amount contrary to Schedule-Il of the M.V.Act when the claim petition was filed under Section 163-A ol'M.V.Act, is not tenable. \ ;1lr I 4 9 ' Perusal of the record would disclose that respondents No.1 to 4-ciaimants are claiming that deceased was a contractor labour and was earning Rs.25,000 l- per month. In the absence of any evidence on record to substantiate the said claim, the Tribunal considered the deceased as unskilled labour earning daily wages and fixed the monthly income as Rs.g ,ooo/-,as per the Minimum wages Act and deducted r /gra of the income towards personal expcnscs. The Tribunal has considered the age of the deceased as 30 yc:ars basing on Ex.p3-inquest report and appiied multiplier 17 and has also awarded future prospects at royo and awarded Rs.12,0o,o00/- arong with interest @ 75% per allnum.

10. 'l'he 'lribunal basing on the pleadings placed on record, as well as the charge sheet filcd against respondent No.6 for the offence under section 304-A Ipc, has come to the conclusion that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.6, and that there is no fault on the part of the driver of the R.T.c bus. Thc Tribunal has also observed that the charge shebt wds filed under section 1g1 of M.v.Act, as the respondent No.6 iia .rot produce valid Driving License. The Tribunal fi,aily concruded that since there is valid insurance policy, appellant herein is liabre to pay the compensation amount and thereafter, recover the same from respondentp No.S and 6, by applying the principle of pay and I I \ \ ! 5 Recovery, tty relying upon the Judgment of the Hon,ble Apex court in shama.nnq. and. another vs. Divisional Manager, Orientul Insurance Compang Limited o.nd otherst.

11. In the light of the above discussion, this court does not find an''r reason or ground to interfere with the Ar,vard passed by the triL,unal and further the tribunal has rightly ordered the appellant to first pay the compensation to thc claimant and then recover the same from respondents No.S and 6, as the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the responclent No.6, and thus the appeal is devoid of merits, and accordiegly dismissed. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. SD/-A.H.S. GOWRT SHANKAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY/ SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Chi;arman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-Cum-principal District and sessions Judge, at Medat< lwitn-r"CJroi,'ir aivl

2. one cc to SRt. HARTNATH REDDY sotvtA Advocate topucl 3. One CC to SRt. A YADAVA REDDY Advocate IOPUCI 4. Two CD Copies ASR/PSL a ! itrr1€-: 1 ' r" .* .ti ,,* I i:t I I I I I I I i I i i : i, i ! I I I I I HIGH COIJRT DATED i0trl0712025 I I JUDGMEINT MACMA.tlo.129 ot 2024 STATE 18 rEB zffi (J * * ,l-r=: DTSMISSII{G THE APPEAL ,A IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY MOTOR ACCIOENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 129 OF 2024 Between: Shriram General lnsurance Company Limited, Represented by its Manager, H.No.3-6-517, Sai Datta Arcade, 4th Floor, Flat no.401 and 403, Street no.6, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad-500 029. ... APPELLANT/3'd RESPONDENT AND 1 2 3 4 5 6 Thalary Hemalatha, Wo Late Thalary Yellaiah Aged- 24 years, Occ- Housewife, R/o- H.No.2-98, Ramsanpally Andole Mandal, Sangareddy District-S02 273. Thalary Jeshwanth, S/o Late Thalary Yellaiah, Aged- 8 years, Minor, R/o- H.No.2-98, Ramsanpally Village, Andole Mandal, Sangareddy District-502 273. Thalary Varalaxmi, D/o Late Thalary Yellaiah, Aged- 6 years, Minor, R/o- H.No.2-98, Ramsanpally Village, Andole Mandal, Sangareddy District-502 273. Thalary Gangamma, Wo Late Thalary Laxmaiah, Aged- 50 years, Occ- Housewife, R/o- H.No.2-98, Ramsanpally Village, Andole Mandal, Sangareddy District-S02 273. (Respondents no.2 and 3 being minors are rept. by their mother and natural guardian, Respondent no. 1) ...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS Panduga Shivaraj, S/o Mallaiah, Aged- 25 Years, Occ- Owner of Motorcycle chassis No. MD2A76AY2JWD13859 and Engine no.PFYWJD12891, R/o- H.No.3-1 1/'1, Ramsanpally Viilage, Andole Mandal, Sangareddy District-SO2 273. Panduga Shivakumar, S/o Mallaiah Aged- 28 Years, Occ- Driver of Motorcycle chassis No. MD2A76AY2JWD13859 and Engine no.PFYWJD12891, R/o- H.No.3-1 1/1, Ramsanpally Village,Andole Mandal, Sangareddy District-502 273' RESpoNDENTs/1sr & 2nd REspoNDENTS Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, against the Order and Decree dated 1711012023 in M.V.O.P.No.25 of 201 9 on the file of the Chairpasson, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District and Sessions Judge, at Medak. ORDER: This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material paper:i in the Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Harinath Reddy Soma, r\dvocate for the Appellant and of Sri A. Yadava Reddy, Advocate Respondent Nos.1 tl're 4 That this tlourt doth Order and Decree as follows l. That this tlourt while dismissing the appeal confirmed the .ludgment and Decree of the Tribunal.

2. That therr: shall be no as to costs. SD/.A.H.S. GOWRI SHANKAR ASSISTANT REGIS T 6FP"tlCL. To l. The Chairman, l/otor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District ernd Sessions Judge, at fr/ledak.

2. Two CD Copies %^' t n HIGH COIJRT DATED:09/07/2025 t J GMEilI MACMA.No.129 of 2024 DISMISSII{G THE APPEAL \t