The High Court · 2025

2. That save as aforesaid' the decree of the Lower Court shall stands confirmed in all other respects; and That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal J Sd/- V. HARI PRASAD AS.ISTANT REGISTRAR TION OFFICER Tribunal-cum-l Additional District /,TRUE COPY/' To

1. The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Judge, at Adilabad'

2. Two CD CoPies t+ .}.*; HIGH COURT DATED: 1410212025 DECREE MACMA.No.363 of 2014 /a 1 /a---=-::- - :__l !. ...,: .9 .\ \-: $ '.- - f'r r, $ \i_i ';/ c f- , {t' I DISMISSED ?* qq. D<t) tt 2) [ 3166 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR MOTOR ACCIDENT ClvlL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 363 OF 2014 Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor vehicles Act., against the Judgment and decree, made in O.P.NO.27 of 2008 dated- 22.06.2011 on the file of the chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-l Additional District Judge, at Adilabad. Between: National lnsurance Company Ltd, rep by its Branch Manager O/o. Branch Office ll Floor, Main Bazar, Ambedkar Chowk, Adilabad. ...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT NO.2 AND

1. D.Surender, S/o. D.Mallaiah Truck Driver R/o. Guruja Village, Gudihathnoor Mandal, Adilabad District.

2. Md.Babu Jani, S/o. Md.Sadiq Hussain, Aged about: Major Owner of Lorry Bearing No. AP 1-T-7152 R/o.Echoda, Mandal: Echoda, District: Adilabad RESPONDENT No.1/PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT No.2/RESPONDENT No.1 Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. A RAMAKRISHNA REDDY Counsel forthe Respondent NO.2: Ms. B SAI PRIYA The Gourt made the following: ORDER f :-y THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR M.A.C.M.A. No. 363 OF 2014 JUDGMENT: l. This NloLor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is fited aggrieved by the judgment dared 22.06.2011 in O.P.No. 27 of 201i, passed by the Chairman,, Motor Accidents Clairns 'l-ribunal- cum-l Additional District Judge, Adilabad (for shoft 'the Tribunal,) disputing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

2. 'l'he appcllant herein is the l{espondent No.2 insurcr in the aforcsaid OP

3. Heard Mr'. A. Ramakishna Reddy, learned standing counsel lbr the appellant and Ms. B. Sai Priya learncd Counsel appearing lor Respondent No.2 herein. Despite service of noticc Respondent No. 1/claimant lemains unrepresented

4. The blief facts of the case are that on 10.03.2007 at 7.40 p.m. the Respondent No.l herein was getting into the lorry bearing No. AP-I1'-7152, when the driver of the offending vehiclc had suddenly driven it in a rash and negligent manner- causing the Respondent No.1 herein to receive fracture to his left leg anrJ other injuries on his face, chest, abdomen, left hand and forearm. ( I 2 Resultantly, the Respondent No. I herein had filed the under lying OP seeking a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-

5. The Tribunal on considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, had held that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver. Holding the Appellant herein and the Respondent No.2 herein as jointly and severally liable, the Tribunal allowed the OP in part, granting a total compensation of Rs.65,000/- along rvith a sirnple interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of petition till the datc ofdeposit.

6. Leamed Counsel appearing for the appellant contends that since the Respondent No.l herein is a passenger travelling in a transport vehicle i.e., the offending lorry, liability to pay compensation cannot be imposed on the insurer

7. Learned counsel fbr the Respondent No.2 herein while denying his liability to pay cornpensation hcld, that the respondcnt No.1 himself was responsible for the injuries sustained by him, as he was moving on the road in an un-mindful of traffic resulting in accident. Thus, it is contended that the order of the Tribunal cannot be sustained

8. I have taken note of their respective contentions. '.: 3

9. The solc issue arising belore this Court is as to whether Respondent No. I herein was a gratuitous passenger in the offending vehicle.

10. A gratuitous passenger is one who is invited bv the owner of the vehicle to rravel in the said vehicle, and not one who is carried for hire or reward (See: The Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Maftu Chandra Rao antl Orst). 1L A perusal of the record indicates that the driver of the offending vehicle Mr. K. Gangaraln was not exarnined belore thc TribLrnal. Further, it is to be seen that the respondent No. I hcrein claims to har,'c sustained injur.ies while boarding the oll'ending vehicle, whereas the appellant claims that respondent No.l was travelling in the offending vehicle as a passenger. Conrrctribt. the lespondent No.2 owner of tl-re vehicle rvhilc denying both clairns, contends that the accident had occurred due to Rcspondcnt No. I ,s 'unmindful movement' on the road. Therefore, since the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Acr, 1988,) is a beneficial legislation u,here the standard of proof is preponderance of possibilities (See: Rajwati and Ors. Vs. United India Insurance ' 1987(1)Apu (HC) 13s : MANU/AP/0158/1986 4 o Company Lld. and Ors2) and considering the fact that neither the appellant nor the respondent No. 2 herein have led any evidence to establish that the respondent No.1 herein was infact a graruitous passenger and not a second driver as claimed by the appellant, this Court does not find lault ivith the order ol the 'f iibunal

12. That apart even assuming that the respondent No.l herein is a second driver, it is to be seen that the Tribr-rnal had noted ol he having sustained injuries while boarding the offending vehicle. The I Iigh Court of Gauhati (Imphal Bench) under identical circumstances in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. P, Ruilaiwung and Ors3, held that a person who sustains injuries while boarding or alighting a vehicle cannot be tcmed as a passenger. The relevant observations are as under: "9. From the evidence as discussed above, it is clear that the vehicle is a truck lor carrying of goods and in iact on the datc of accident also the truck rvas carrying sand. When the deceased wanted to Bct into thc truck. the driver stopped the vehicle but before the deccased could enter into the truck thc vehiclc started again. Thus, the dcceascd could not board in the vehiclc. lhc learned counsel for the appellant also cited decision olthe C)rissa I{igh Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Susila PanigrahyMANU/OR /0008/ 1995(Orissa). wherein it was held that a Persoo merely making attempt to get into the vehicle but betirre he could actually board, the vehicle hit him as a resutt of rvhich hc lell down. sustaincd injurres and died. cannot be construed as a passcnger. In the case ol Prakash Anand Pednekar v. Sitabi K. Cawas MAN tJlM H/0022/ 1995( llorn bay), it was also held that when a deceased lell down whilc trying to make cntr) in crowded bus, cannot be termed as passenger though he only rvanted to be a passenger. !!gg in the Dresent casc the deccased only rvantcd to become a oassenger and isent act of the driver, the deccased could not bccomc a due to rash and ck Thus. considering the matcrials on record and also passenger of the 'zMANUlSc/1595/2022 :2022 Livelaw (SC) 1016 3 2oorncl2o53 : MANU/GH/0278/1999 5 the relevant D rovisions of law as alluded in the decisions, I am of the view that the deceascd rYas nol a rrassenser and hence the a oellant is liable to Day thc entirc amo unt of comDensatioll." (emphasis supplied) I 3. Similar views were expressed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh through Justice Deepak Gupta, (as his lordship then u,as) in Sanjeev Gsulam Vs. Surinder Kumar ond Ors4.

14. This Courl is in agreement with the views expressed above, that a person rvho is in the process of alighting/boarding a vehicle in the absence ol evidence to establish that he/she was authorized to board the said vehicle ought to be considered as a third pa(y.

15. In the light of the loregoing discussion, this Courl is of the vieu,that the irnpLrgned order does not suffer from any infirmity.

16. Accordingly, this Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appcal is d isnrisscd. ll . Pending miscellaneous petitions if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs. \ To //TRUE COPYII Sd/-V. HARI PRASAD / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR / ,ft ll\, -\ SECTION OFFICER 'l . The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal_cum_l ^ .l^rdgg, at Adilabad. (lf any Lower Corrt n""olO]"- ? One CC to SRt. A RAM 9 9nu cc to si i s'sii etfifl :I,ifgf"rrr#,tri"cate rop 4 Tryg CD Copres k) t'\+r Additional District UC] HIGH GOURT DATED: 1410212025 i I I I l- I i l I :\ i,ll ..f I ; '-,i -: '() a s i ',) JUDGMENT MACMA.No.363 ot 2014 sT CA o * !:^, DISMISSED ?A )1, \ r-)