The High Court · 2025

Counselfor the Appellants : Sri K. Ajay Kumar Counsel for the Respondent No. 5 : Mr. N. Chandra Sekhar, representing Sri A. Ramakrishna Reddy The Court clelivered the following: HON'BLE SRI IUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHT RAO M.A.C.M.A.NO.25 0F 2022 IUDGMENT: Heard Mr. K.Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company and Mr. N.Chandra Sekhar, learned counsel representing Mr. A.Ramakrishna Reddy, for respondent No.5 and as the appeal is filed only as to the apportionment of conlpensation between the insurance companies, the Appeal is heard and decided at the stage of admission.

2. , 'fhe present appeal has been filed by the appellant/ insurance company challenging the award passecl by .the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XlV Additional Chief ]udge (Fast 'frack Court), City Civil Courts, Hyderabad (for short, 'Tribunal') in M.V.O.P.No.2499 of 2074, dated 06.01 .2027, thereby seeking to set- aside the award against the appellant-insurance company.

3. 'the brief factual matrix of the present appeal is as under.

4. On 06.11.2012 at about 11.45 a.m./ while B.Raja Shekharam (hereinafter referred to as'deceased') was proceeding on his Bajaj CT 100 Motorcycle bearing registration No.AP-29-N-7282 from Aramghar to Durga Nagar and when he reached Sai Baba Nagar 2 MACMA No.25 oJ cross-roads, one Motor Cab (Auto) bearing registration No.Ap-2g- TV-0289 coming from Saibaba Nagar in rash and negligent manner dashed t.re rnotorcycle of the deceased, as a result, the deceased fell down orL the road and unJortunately at the same time, one lorry bearing registration No.MI-[-34-AB-4986 which came from Aramghar in rash and negligent manner ran over the head of the deceased, due to which, head of the deceased was crushed and died on the spot.

4.1. T'hc Police, Shivararnpallv [)olice Statiorr, Ranga Reddy District, registerecl a case in Crime No.653/2012 under Section 304-4 IpC against both the drivers of the Motor Cab as well as the lorry and filed charge sheet and the proceedings were pending trial before the competerit Court.

5. The claimants, i.e., wife and son of the deceased, have filed claim petitiorr against the owners of the Motor Cab and Lorry and their respective insurers - insurance companies under Section 166 of the Motor vehicles Act, 1988, r/w Rule 47s/78 of MV Rules, 19g9 read with Sections 163-4 and 140-C of the MV Act, 19gg before the Tribunal <:laiming compensation of Rs.75,4 0,000 / -together with costs and intere'st from the date of petition till the date of re:alization. 3 SCR,J MACMA No.25 of 2022

6. The deceased was hale and healthy, aged about 51 years and was working as Marketing Manager in M/s.SAN PRINTECH PVT.LTD., at Andheri (W), Mumbai, operating from Hyderabad branch on a monthly salary basis @ Rs.35,000/- and contributing the same to the welfare of the claim petitioners. It is contended by the claimants before the Tribunal, that due to death of the deceased, the claim petitioners lost their love and affection and financial support, accordingly, prayed for granting just and fair compensation.

7. The ort,ners of the lorry and Motor Cab i.e., respondent Nos.3 and 4 herein, remained ex parte before the Tribunal and the insurance companies of the respective vehicles have contested the case and participated in the adjudication process.

8. The appellant herein was the respondent No.2 and respondent No.5 herein was the respondent No.4, before the Tribunal, who are the insurers of the above lorry and motor cab respectively and filed their counters before the Tribunal denying all the allegations in the claim petition, as regards to the accident to the deceased, his age, avocation, health condition, earning capacity and involvement of the crime vehicles. It is further contended that insurer of the motorcycle on which the deceased was driving is a necessary party to the claim c* Ga 4 MACMA No.25 petition and in the absence of the same, the claim petition is not maintainable and prayed to dismiss the claim petition against the insuranc: cornpanies. 9- Bar;ing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the followinlJ issues: i) ii) whether the accide.t took place due to the rash and negligent driving of one Motor Cab bearing No.Ap-2g- l'V-0289 causing death of B.Raja Shekharan ? \vhcther the pc,titioners are entitrec'l for compensation? [f so, to what extent and from whom? iii) To what relief ?

10. 'rhe' Tribunal, after appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence frorn ['.ws.1 to 3 and R.w.1, and Exs.A1 to A14 and 81 to 83, came to a conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the drivers of lorr,v and auto and held that they were jointly responsible for the accident ancl further held that the owners and insurance companies of both crime vehicles are vicariously liable to pay compensation in the ratio of 50:50 basis and fixed the liability on all the respondents jointly and severally by awarding compensation of Rs.33,44 ,000/ - along with interest @ 2.5% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization ., 5 SCR,J MACMA No.25 of 2022

11. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Tribunal, the appellant- insurance company of lorry filed the present appeal, inter alia, conterrding that the appellant i.e., insurance company of the lorry is not liable to pay the compensation as there is no evidence to show that the driver of the lorry was responsible for the accident

72. The learned counsel for appellant while reiterating the contents of counter-affidavit filed before the Tribunal, has mainly contended that the Tribunal committed serious irregularity in holding that the acc:idc,nt occurrc.d duc to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry even though there was no evidence to prove the negligence on the part of driver of lorry. He further contended that the deceased was initially hit by the driver of the auto, due to which the deceasecl fell down and there was no chance for the driver of the lorry applying brakes as the deceased fell down suddenly, as such, the insurer of the auto is only liable to pay the compensation. [t is further contended that as there is no negligence on the part of the lorry driver in causing the accident, the appellant-insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation, and therefore prayed to set aside the order of the Tribunal in respect of the appellant-insurance company and finally contends that the apportionment fixed 50:50 in respect of both e* ! t I 6 MACMA No.25 insuran<:e companies and the owners of the vehicles is bad in law as a the Tribirnal has not justified the rationale behind the said fixing up of the liability

13. Before delving into the merits of the case, on a perusal of the record, it is an admitted fact with regard to the manner of accident and its cccurrence. The learned counsel for the irrsurer of the motor cab i.e., respondent No.5, has also not disputed the occurrence of the accident, in which the deceased died.

74. Insofar as the negligence on the part o[ both 'ehicles is concerne,l, a perusal of Ex.B3-scene of offence panchanama with rough skr3t6ft which was tnarked on behalf of the insurer of the auto i.e.; respr>ndent No.5 herei. shows that lorry a.d the auto both co.tribut:d to death of the deceased on the fateful day. Normally, the impar:t of lorry will be more when cornpareci to auto and more so, the head of the deceased was totally crushed as the lorry passed over it and in this sort of accidents, the rationale in coming to a conclusiolr of which vehicles contributed more for the death cannot be assessed.

15. P.w.3-Molakanda vijay, who is an eye witness to the accident, deposed that orr the fateful da' of the accident, the cleceased was / / 7 scR,t MACMA No.25 ol 2022 proceeding on his motorcycle from Aramghar to Durga Nagar and reached Saibaba Nagar cross-roads, at that time, auto cab bearing No.AP-28-TV-0289 came from Saibaba Nagar in rash and negligent driving and hit the motorcycle of the deceased, due to which, he fell down from the motorcycle an{ at that time, lorry bearing No.MH- 34-A8-4986 came and rash and negligent manner and the front wheel of the lorry ran over the head of the deceased, resulting in crushing injury and ciiecl on the spot arrd the saitl fact was supported b,v the certified copies of Ex.41-FIR, Ex.A2-ft'rquest report, Ex.A3-Post- mortem examination report and Ex.A6-charge sheet'

76. ln view of the above discussion and findings, this Court is of the c.onsidered opinion that the acciclent occurred due to rash and negligent driving of both the drivers of lorry and the motor cab' The contention of the learned counsel for appellant-insurance comPany that the insurance company of the motorbike, on which the deceased was fravelling, was a necessary party is hereby reiected as this already held that both lorry and the auto are resPonsible for the accident. As such, drivers and owners of both the vehicles and their respective insurance companies are liable to compensate for the death of deceased and, therefore, the Tribunal was justified in b-.r I i ; ! i , : i I; I t. t: L t; fastening the liability on owners and the insurers of the auto and the 8 MACMA No.25 of lorry eqtrally.

77. Ins;ofar as the ratio of cornpensation to be paid by the owners and their respective insurance companics, in AI,SI(TC vs. N.Krishna Reddi arrd othersl, the learned single Judgc of erstwhile composite High Corrrt of Andhra Pradesh, held as under: "5. Since first respondent received injuries due to a collision between the two vehicles, i.e., the van in which he was travelling and bus corning irr its op1-rosite direction, u.rless the drivers of both the vehicles .lre ncgriger-rt, r.he a<:cident could not have taken placc. [rven i[ one of thern was careful, they could have easily averted the accident. obviously that is the reason why the owners of both the vt:hicles involved in the accident were made [rarties to the cl,rim petition. so I hold that the acciclent involving the first respondent took place due to 507o negligerlce of the driver of the van of second respondent and due to 509/, negligence of the driver of the bus belonging to the appellant. The point is answered accordingly."

18. In the light of the above discussion and legal position and the findings urived above in para Nos.14 ancl j.5 of this order, this Court is of the view that the appellant failed to make out any case ' 2oo4 SCC Online AP 357 9 scR,l MACMA No.25 of 2O22 warranting interference of this Court with the findings of the learned Tribunal

19. Accordingly, the Appeal is dismissed. The appellant and the respondent No.S-insurance compan,v are directed to deposit the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The claimants are entitled to withdraw the amounts as per the apportionment awarded by the Tribunal

20. There shall be rro order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications if any shall stand closed Sd/- M. JAWAHAR REDDY SISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII SECTION OFFICER To, : : I I I i ; l I I I I : ! I i I I :,

1. The Chairman Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- XtV Additionat Chief Judge (FTC), City Civil Courts, Hyderabad. (With records)

2. One CC to Sri K. Ajay Kumar, Advocate tOpUCI 3. One CC to Sri A. Ramakrishna Reddy, Advocate [OpUC] 4. Two CD Copies AS/DL &, HIGH COt'RT DATED:21 111lz0Ts t e JUDGMENT MACMA.No.25 ot2022 ,,\ ,ry ;f, STATE NS fit ttuq t D61,r ' '. # r.f) DISMISSING THE APPEAL -JG r+f!rc I I i [ 3485 I IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGAN.A AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENry FIRST DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYiFIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO Between: LM Reliance General lnsurance Com office at3-1-327, TO 337, 4th floor pany Limited, Rep., by its Manager, Branch Sagar Plaza, ABIDS, Hyderabad .APPELLANTS/ R- in MVOP AND

1. Vanaja Rajashekharan, Wo Late B. Rajashekharam, aged about 47 years, Occ. House Wife,.R/o. E-1 .1, ManjuShekara Apartments, Behind Mouiali Rly Quarters, Prasanthinagar, Moulali, Sec,bad

2. Quraj_B. Sajas_!9klpran, S/o.Late B. Rajashekharam aged about 26 years, Occ. Student Fl/o. E-'1 1, ManjuShekara Apartments, Behind Moulali Rly. Quarters, Prasanthinagar, Moulali, Sec,bad ... Respondents/Petitioners/Glaimants

3. Ku.ldeep Slngh Liddad, S/o. Tarasen Singh Liddad, Major, Occ. Owner of the - Crime Vehicle, R/o. Vivekandanagar, Ba[lapur, Chandiapur District ' Maharastra state 4. Lateef Mohammed, S/o. Mohd. Sarni, age Major, Occ. Owner of the Vehicle of Motor Cab, R/o. H.No. 17-109, A, Haji Majid, odamastri Nagar, Quthabullapur Mandal, RR District

5. Cholamandalam MS General lnsurance Company Limited, Rep by its Manager, 302, 3rd Floor, 1-2-7312 and 1-2-6i an.i o+ SR ARCAD'E parklane, Sec,bad ...Respondents/ Respondents Appeal fited under section 173 of M.v.Act, against order and Decree dated Dt. 0010112021 passed in M.V.O.P.No. 2499 of 2014 on the file of the court of the Chairman Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- XIV Additional Chief Judge (FTC), City Civil Courts, Hyderabad. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the case attd upon hearing the argument of Sri K. Ajay Kumar, Advocate for the Appellants rrnd Mr. N. Chandra Sekhar, representing Sri A. Ramakrishna Reddy,, Advocate for Respondent No.S. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That :he lvlotor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and is dismissed; 2. That :he appellant and the respondent No. S-lnsurance company are directed to dettosit the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order;

3. That the claimants are entitled to withdraw the amounts as per the apportionment awarded by the Tribunal;

4. That :;ave as aforesaid, the decree of the Tribunal shall stands confirmed in all oth er respects; and

5. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. Sd/. M. JAWAHAR REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY/ ON OFFICER To, 1'. The Ohairman Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- XtV Additionat Chief Judge (FTC), City Civil Courts, Hyderabad.

2. Two CD Copies ASiDL w' / ,/ HIGH COI'RT DATED:21 11112025 DECREE MACMA.N o.25 of 2022 DISMISSING THE APPEAL Jrs t+l>lz-e ,