The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.l & 2: SRI GOPINATH L.r ,KKINENI Counsel for the Respondent No.3: None appeared Counsel for the flespondent No.4: SRI VENKATRAMI REt 0Y The Court made the following: JUDGMENT I r ! ,4 THE HON'BLE SRI WSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA M.A.C.M.A.No. 153 of 2O2O JUDGMENT: This M.A.C.M.A is frled under Section 173 of M.V.Act, 1988 by the Appellant/Insurance Company/respondent No.3 against the Award and decree passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribr:nal cum- V-Additional District Judge, Kothagudum, (hereinafter referred to 'learned Tribunal') in M.V.O.P.No.33 of 2O16, dated 13.06'2019, wherein claimant filed the claim petition under Section 166 of M.V.Act seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- on account of death of claimants mother i.e., Thota Papamma, (herein after referred as 'deceasedJ who died in Motor Vehicle accident occurred on 25.12.20 15.

2. For the sake ofconveniencc, the parties rvill be hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The brief facts of the case are that claimant filed M.V.O.P.No.33 of 2016 under Section 166 of the M.V.Act, 1988 seeking compensation for the d.eath of the deceased, who died in the accident alleged to have caused due to rash and negligent manner of the Motorcycle. It is contended that on 25.12.2016, the deceased Tota Papamma and Therdala Nagamani went to cooking work, after completing their work \\ 2 ta,J U-Lc.u.L tib. ,53 of 2O2O they were returning to their house and when they .eached at Motessori School at about 20.00 hours the rider of the mot,r'cycle bearing No.TS 04 EB 8866 drove his motorcycle in a rash arLr negligent manner. dashed against the deceased rota papamma. As a -esult, she felr down and sustained injuries on head and all over the b. [y. Immediately, she was shifted to Government Hospital, paloncha, ar.r thereafter she was shifted to Kothagudem Govemment Hospital for : :tter treatment and while undergoing treatment, the deceased succur rbed to inj uries on 26.12.2015 at 10:30 hours. Basing on complaint, tL : police registered a case in crime No.41o of 2015 under Sections 3o4 ,. of Ipc against the driver of the offending motorcycle.

4. The contention of the claimants was that, the deceased was hale and healthy and was aged about 50 years and tha,. :he deceased was a coolie and used to earn Rs.9,Ooo/- per month € r d due to the said sudden death of the deceased, tJre claimants sufferr: t mental agony and pain as they lost the love and alfection, care guidar ce of their mother. The claimants claimed a,, amount of Rs.5,00,0O0/- i s compensation for the death of the deceased under various heads.

5. Before the learned Tribunal, respondent I o. I filed counter affidavit and contended that there was no negligenc t on the part of the a 3 lv aR'J y. r_ c a. L r,ro. t 53 0t zuro driver of motorcycle bearing No.TS 04 EB 8866 and the offending vehicle was insured with the 2nd respondent, which was subsisting as on the date of accident and the driver of motorcycle was also having valid and effective driving. licence at the time of accident. Respondent Nos.2 & 3 (The New India Assurance Company Limited and The National Insurance Company Limited) also filed their counter affrdavits denying the averments made in the clairn petition, including the manner in which the accident took place. It is further contented that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid driving licence to drive such vehicle and whether the said vehicle was having a Frtness certifrcate to drive the same. The respondent No.3 has also filed additional counter and contended that the claim petitioners are put to strict proof of tJrat they are the legal heirs of the deceased to claim compensation for the death of the deceased and they are fully dependant on the earnings of the deceased at the time of accident and submitted that the compensation claimed is excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

6. Basing on tl.e pleadings and averments made by both the counsels before the learned Tribunal, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues which reads as under: \-- .t 4 ,{!4,J EA-CU.,.!$. 1 s:t of 2o2O

1. Wlrcther tLre Thota Papamma, u/o. Lale bikshomaic I , die due to thE rash and negligent nding of the diuer of the natorcy(l beaing No.TS 04 EB 8866? 2- Whether the claim petitioners are erltitled to amper;ation. If so, to uhot omount and fromuLam?

3. To uhat relieJ?

7. After perusing the oral and documentary evide'rces and going into the entire record €rnd the evidences placed by b:,h the parties, the learned Tribunal allowed the claim and gra-nt€ ( compensation of RS.6,O2,OOO/- along with interest @ 7.5o/o per annur r

8. Being aggrieved by the colossal compensation irnount awarded bv the learned Tribunal, the present appeal is file<l by the Insurance Company/ appellant/ respondent No.3 on the grou :l 1 that the learned Tribunal ought to have seen that tl.e Insurance corlzrny is not liable to pay compensation for the reason that the owner/ins r red has committed breach as to the terms ald conditions of the policy z nd that he was not holding a valid driving license and the police hav3 hled charge sheet agarnst the driver of the motorcycle under Sectior 3O4A of IPC and Section 181 of MV Act for non-possessing of driving I cense and as such the driver of the offending vehicle is liable to pay enr i 'e compensation to the claimants. It is further contended that the learn: I Tribunal erred in taking the income of the deceased at Rs.S,OOO/- as z coolie and further I 4 5 JVIN,J N. A"C.U.A" No. I 53 ol 2O2O added 1O% for every three years which comes to Rs'66'0O0/- per annum is without any documentary evidence and therefore prayed this Court to set aside the Award passed by the Tribunal and allow the present appeal. g. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimant submits that there is no dispute with regard to accident, injuries sustained and death of the deceased. Pw1 & PW2 were examined and Exhibits A. I to A.6 were marked. karned counsel further contended that Pw2-who is the eye-witness to the accident deposed that on 25'12'2015, when she was proceeding to her house, she witnessed that at about 20'00 hours' the driver of offend.ing vehicle bearing No.TS 04 EB 8866 drove the same' in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased and as a result, the deceased fell down and sustained injuries and that she was shifted to Government Hospital, Paloncha, and thereafter she was shifted to Kothagu.dem Government Hospital, and while undergoing treatmentthedeceasedsuccumbedtoinjuries,on26.|2.20|5andPW2 has specifically stated that tl.at the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending crime vehicle and further submits that there are no merits in the appeal and prayed this Court to dismiss the present appeal. I ! t , l i : II I I i I I I t ! It I I t I I I l 6 rNR.' r.LC.LLib.lS ol Xrn

10. Heard, Sri, Iearned counsel for ttre appellant - National Insurance Company Limited and Sri CH,Venko,t Narayant 4 representing Sri V.Venka Ravi Reddy, Iearned counsel for the respor.( ent No.4. 1 l. Admittedly, the respondent/claimant have :r >t frled any appeal and cross appeal against the Award passed by the ):arned Tribunal. As such, the respondents/claimant appears to br satisfied with the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal. 'f rerefore, the points which arose before this Court in the present appeal s that: 1) Whether the Tribunal hos righfly assessed tltt income of the deceased. 2) WLether the Tribunal ho,s a utarded etces: compensation amount to the claimo.nt, if so, to tulut ertent? Point No. 1& 2: 12. The main grievance of the appellants before tl is Court is that the leamed Tribunal did not consider the fact that the , lriver-cum-owner of the offending vehicle i.e., respondent No.3 was not rossessing the valid driving license and though the police have laid the < harge sheet against the rider of the offending vehicle for non-possessinl the driving license. It is also the case of the appellants that ttrere is ckr: r violation o[ terms and conditions of policy and as the rider was rir ing the motorcycle without driving license, as such, imposing of -. re tiability on the j\ 7 N?\IR,J Y.LC.Y-A-r.ro. t5!t of 2O2O appellants is against the law as th9r9 is breach of the condition. It is also contended that notices were issued to respondent No.3/ driver of the sajd motorcycle for production of driving license and the s€une was served to him but there was no response from him and the sarne was exhibited by way of Ex.B2 & El3 on behalf of respondent. It is further contended that the respondents/claimants are married and not dependent on the income of the deceased, as such they are not entitled for any compensation. It is also contended that the learned Tribunal without there being any evidence have considered tl.e income of the deceased at Rs.5,O00/- and added lOo/o for every three years and f-rnally awarded Rs.6,O2,OO0/- as compensation.

13. As seen from the record that the leamed Tribunal appears to have taken the income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- as the deceased being only a coolie, this Court is of the opinion that as there being no appeal is preferred by the respondent/claimants and as it is a settled law that in the absence of any proof of income, the courts by considering the ground realities call assess and take the monthly income. It appears that the learned Tribunal has rightly taken the income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- ald venture to assess the income. It also appears that by following the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of I IUla'J X.A.C. x. L I&. t s 3 oI 2O2o Sarld Venna v. Delhl CotTtoratlonr and also in r he case of National Insurance Compang Llmtted u. Pranag.SethP, has rightly awarded Rs.5,000/- and added 107o increase in the incomt: of the deceased and also by deducting the personal expenses ald havi::t 3 applied the proper multiplier of 13 lor the age group of 40 to 5O years It appears that the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 15,0O0/- fur era] expenses and Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate and this Court rpines that no error has been committed by the learned Tribtrnal by taki rg the income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- and awarding Rs.6,02,0007' and which appears to be just and lair compensation which needs no in _, rference.

74. The other main grievance of the appellant is that the leaned Tribunal without considering the fact that the dri er of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid driving license and :nposed the liability on the respondents.

15. RWI is the employer of respondent No. 1 Comp lny and he deposed that respondent No. I has no driving license and t 1at the respondent No. I violated the terms ald conditions of the Insur rnce Policy. The l.t respondent who examined himself as RW2 has detrx sed that the police have hled charge sheet against him under Secticr 3O4A of IPC and I 2oo9 AcJ 1298. 2 2017 Law Suit (SC) 1093 9 tYlr4J LLcu.LNo.t53 of 2g2o Section 181 of MV Act, after conducting due investigation and he further stated that the said driver of the said motort5rcle was not having a driving cycle at the time of accident. The respondents have also cross examined the inspector of police, Police Station Palvoncha, who has stated that he filed a charge sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle i.e., Mr.M.Gopi under Section 3O4A of IPC and Section 181 of Motor Vehicle Act and as per the investigation, the said driver was not having a valid driving license as on the date of accident i.e., on

25.12.2015.

16. It is also the case of the appellant that the appellant have issued a notice to the owner of the vehicle which was marked as Ex.B2 and 84 and it was accepted by way of frling of acknowledgment to show that the ovr.ner of the crime vehicle has received and he did not chose to reply to the said notice, thereby clear violation of policy condition, but as it seen that the petitioner herein being a third party to the said policy and any violation in respect of non-possessing of license by the owner-cum-driver of the said motorcycle itself may not alfect the liability of the respondents, but considering the circumstances as there are violations in respect of the policy conditions wherein the owner of the said vehicle u,ho was riding the said vehicle without there being any license. Though 10 J$n'J x.Lc .LItIo,r'3 olzoN the said aspect was taken into consideration, but th , learned Tribunal did not consider the factum that the respondents cor: d have been given liberty to recover the said amount after making pay:r ent. As such, this Court is of the opinion that, though the respondenl' National Insurance Company Limited, was made compensation, but for the reasons stated above, tl No.3 therein - the liable to pay the Ls Court is of the opinion that respondent No.3 the appellant herein czu L be given a liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle a ter honouring the decree passed by the learned Tribunal.

17. Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, this appezu is partly allowed fnodi-ffing the judgment and decree to the extent th tt the resPondents are liable to pay the compcnsation and initially the r:spondent Nos.2 & -);vere directed to deposit the said amount as awar ted by the learned Tribunal with interest r.r,ithin two months from the <[ Lte of its order and on such deposit, the respondent claimants are entir'l :d to withdraw the same as apportioned by the learned Tribunal and <'t ' such deposit, the appellants are entitled to recover the same from ttt owner of the said motorcycle under the same decree. -t 11 ,{ra,J LLCr.r,tib.r53 of 2O2O

18. Miscellaneous petitions, if arry are pending, shall stand closed. SD/. NAGAMANI AS ISTANT REGISTRAR - //TRUE COPY// I I I ON OFFICER To, 1 . The Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cu Additional Judge, Kothagudem.

2. One CC to Ms SWATI GUDA, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRI GOPINATH LAKKINENI Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to SRI V.VENKARAMI REDDY, Advocate IOPUC] 5. Two CD Copies 4e AS/nvb HIGH COURT DATED:01 t081202s JUDGMENT+DECREE MACMA.No.153 of 2020 '/- ( jra.\I1: o C) s 5 itB 1$1[ J- .,..,',,,.. \ :-A- MACMA IS PARTLY ALLOWED WITHO UT COSTS C)1 \q )l 134p,31 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE FIRSTDAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 153 OF 2020 Betweed: The National lnsurance Company Limited, Rep by its Branch Manager, Khammam, H.No. 2-1-368/1, I.lear DEO Office, Trunk Road. Khammam. ...AppellanURespondent No.3 AND

1. Samineni Sunitha, Wo. Upendar, Aged. 23 years, 0cc. Housewife, Rl/O Kesavarpuram, Paloncha Mandal, Khammam.

2. Meda Sudha, W/o. Vijaya Kumar, Aged. 26 years, Occ. Household, Rlo Cheruvu Bazar, Near Park, Kharnmam Town and District. ... Respondents/Petitioners

3. Marapondgu Gopi, S/o Anjaiah, Aged. Ma1or, R/o H,No.27-1-169/1, Karakavagu, Paloncha Town and Mandal, Khammam.

4. The New lndia Assurance Co- Ltd, Rep. by its Local Eranch Manager, Branch Office, H.No. 9-3-143, OU Club Road, Near Vinod Mahal, Khammam. .. Respondents/Respondent Nos.1 & 2 Appeal filed Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1 988 against the Order and decree in M.V.O.P.No.33 of 20'16 dated.13/06/2019 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- V Additional Judge, Kothagudem. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgrnent and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the Case and upon hearing the arguments of Srnt Swathi Guda, Advocate for the Appellant and of Sri Gopinath Lakkineni, Advocate, for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2, and of SRi V.Venkatrami Reddy, Advocate, for the Respondent ll, .4, None appeared for respondent No.3. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal e and hereby is partly allowed.

2. That the judgment and decree of the Tribunal is modili respondents are liable to pay the compensation an(! Nos.2 & 3 were directed to deposit the said amct learned tribunal with interest within two months from tr 3. That on such deposit, the respondent claimants are same as apportioned by the learned Tribunal anrl appellants are entitled to recover the same from motorcycle under the same decree. rd to the extent that the initially the respondent rt as awarded by the ) date of its order. rntitled to withdraw the on such deposit, the 1e owner of the said

4. That save as aforesaid, the Judgment and decree of 0 e Tribunal shall stands confirmed in all other respebts; and

5. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal //TRUE COPY// SD/- NAGAMANI A!; ;ISTANT REGISTRAR \ \\\\ sEcfloN oFFtcER \

1. The Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-curr . V Additronal Judge, Kothagudem. 2. Two CD Copies To, N AS/nvh HIGH COURT DATED:01l,0U2025 DECREE MACMA.No.153 of 2020 MACMA IS PARTLY ALLOWED WITHII UT COSTS ($ ( 'sb