The High Court · 2025

Judgment

1f:.E€FFllay ./ ,/ THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO Nrl I{DIKONDA M.A.C.M.A.NO.300 0F 2020 JUDGMENT: This N1.r\.C.NI.A. is prel'erred b1 tlre appeli:urts pct jtioner-:i undcl Section i73 of the Motor Vehi<:. 's Act, 1988 (for short ('the Act, 19BBJ, aggrieved by the au'arc and decrec, datcd 06.122019 passed in M.V.O.P.No.327 of 2017 b_v thc Motor Accidenls Claims Tribunal cum-Prin(iral District .Jrrclqe. Nizermal;acl (for short, 'the Tribunal')

'2. For the sakc of convenience, the parties ar: ht:reinaftt:r rele:rred Lo as thcl' are arrayed before the Tributr I

3. Tl-rc bricl f:rcts ol the case are as under: (i) that the petitioners filed a claim pe ition under Sec:tion 166 ol the Act, 1988 claiming conl rensation of Rs. I 5,0O,O00/ - lor thc <leath of one Mr. Piska Nz Cipi Ramana (hereinafter refcrred to as "the deceased"), u,t o dicd in a motor r.chicle accident that occurred on 22.O ) 2017 . It is stated that on 22.O5.2017 while the deceased \\. s proceeding rn auto bearir-rg No.TSO1UA5O72 frorn Icho,l ,L Village to Wagdhari Village and when the auto reached irrlr thr: lirnits ot 1 2 Wagdhari Village, the driver has driven the auto in rash and negligent manner with high speed and lost control over the vehicle, due to which the auto turncd turtle and went off thc road side, as a result the deceased sustained multiple injuries. Immediately after the accident, the deceased was shifted to Government Area Hospital, Neradigonda and from there he was shifted to Government HeadquaLrters Hospital, Adilabad and while shifting he died on the same day. The pctitioncrs incurred an amount of Rs.2,00,O00/- for transportation and performing funeral and last rites of the deceased. (ii) That the deceased was doing Agriculture and also doing Vegetables and Milk business and earning Rs.30,OO0/- per month. The petitioners, ,r'ho are the wife and daughter of the deceased, are .depending on the income of the deceased ald on account of the death ol the deceased they lost their source of income. Hence, the petitioners filed the claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 15,OO,OO0/- with interest @ 24% per annum payable by respondent Nos.1 and 2, lvho are the owner and insurer of the auto respectively. 5 / 3

4. Before the Tribunal, respondent No. 1 rema i red ex-parte ard respondent No.2 liled counter denying .1r' averments made in thc clarrn-petition and disputecl th r manner of :rccidcnt occurred and zLlso thc negligence on rlr part of the clrivcr of thc iuto- Respondent No.2 lurther dis[,r 11sal the age, occupation ancl inconrc of the deceased arld al:;' statcd that the policr \\'AS I N force as on the date of acci: :'nt. but the clrir,er of the said vehicle q'as r-rot holding valicl rnd eflective driving licenr:e ar-rd the ou,ner has violated []r' terms and conditions ol the poiic-1 . As such they are not rable to pa1' compensatio n

5. Baslng or-r the above pleadings, the Tribur r I framed the follou Lng issuc s

1. Whcll-rer tl-rc accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of auto bearing No.TS-0 1 UA,5O72 by its drii'er causing death of Piska Nadipi Rar rala?

2. Wl-rethe-r the petitioners are compensatior-r? [f so, to rvhat extent ald fro n rnhom? 'ntitled lor

3. To q hat relieP

6. Bcfore the Tribr-rnal, on behalf of thc petitioners, petitioner No. i'+ras exetmined as PW.l and the r \ e \\'itness to --'='o 4 ':. 'n' ;j the accident was examined as P.W.2 ald got marked Exs.A1 to A5. On behalf of the respondents, R.W. I n,as examined artd trx.B1 to 83 r,r,ere marked 7 . After considering the pleadings and the evidence placed by both the parties, the learned Tribunal has held that the said accident was occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the drrver of the said auto arrd further, held that as the driver-owner/ respondent No.1 did not produce arrv driving licence before the learned Tribunal, the lcarned tribunal took an adverse inference for not having anv driving licence ald also considering the fact that the driver ol the auto was charge-sheeted for the offences under Sectrons 3 and 181 of the Act, 1988 for not having driving licence and it rvas supported by the MVI report, exonerated respondent No.2 and directed respondent No.1 to pay compensation of Rs.7,70,000/- with interest @ 7.5o/. per annum to the petitioners.

8. Aggrieved by the said award of exoneration o[ respondent No.2, the petitioners preferred the present appeal on the following grounds:- 5 (i) that the learned Tribunal ought to hav: awarded the compensation considering the Gazette and mi r imum wages prevailing at Llre f.imc of accidcnt (ii) thaL lhe Tribunal did not consider tl c agc of the dcceasccl an<l that hc was earning an arnount ,; Rs.30,OO0/ per month. irurther. it is also averred that thor- gh there 'u,as no liccnce, rcspondcnts have not proved a t,r ,ut the non- possessrng ol- valid driving licence by the ,lriver of the offending ve hicle. cxoneriltinq respondent \ r .2 from ti're liabilitv is contrar\. to tht: juclgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court. As per the Judgment of Honble Suprr: ne Court pay and recover_r' onght t o have been ordered L . the learned Tribunzrl. As the M.\'.Act bcir-rg the bcneficial I gislation and pral,ed to a,llo$, the appeal

9. Havingi heard Mr. K. Uday Kumar, lez rned counsel repre scnting Mr. S. Surender Reddy, Iearned rt runsel for the appcllants and Mr. A. Ramakrishna Reddy, lt: rned counsel appearir-rg for respondent No.2. None appeared cr respondent No.1 6 i: .r.: '.:. .

10. After going into the contentions and rival contentions of both the parties the points that arise for consideration before this Court are:- 1) Whether the petitioners are entitled for enhancemenr of compensation as prayed for? 2) Whether the learned Tribunal was erred r n considering the pay and recovery. while awarding compensatron and exonerating respondent No.2"? i 1. The main grievance of the appellants before this Court is that the learned Tribunal awarded meager arnount oi Rs.7,70,00O/- u'ithout considering the income of the deceased at Rs.30,OO0/- per month.

12. Admittedly, it is not in dispute that the deceased was aged about 45 years ar-rd the learned Tribuna-I, having taking into consideration the fact that the petitioners did not place aly evidence to prove the income of the deceased, has taken the notional income of the deceased at Rs.5000/- per month The marn contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that if no evidence is placed by the petitioners, the Learned Tribunal ought to have taken or consider the-minimum u/ages and even if the same is taken into consideration the Tribunal /, 7 ought to have taken an amount of Rs.B,OO0/- p'r month arld relied upon thr: Judgment of this Court in 1\ thera Bee (4 Mohamrned Taheera Bee and others u, ApSRTC, Hgderabad and anotherr. But considering tl r: fact that the minimnm u,ases rvhich u,as prevailing in the y, ar, 2Ol7 per dav would have been Rs.250/ . By taking th: same as the income of the deceased, the monthty income ol the deceased comes to Rs.2507'- x 30 : Rs.7,50O/ Therefor,' this Court is of the opinion that the incomc of'the deceased cz n be taken al Rs.7,500/- nhich u,ould be reasonable income. As from the recorcl, the deceased \\/as aged about 15 years ald the learned Tribunal ought to have taken the fut tre prospects at 25ok in vieu' of thc judgmcnt of the Honble 1,pex Court in National Insura.nce Compang Limited Vs. I ranag Sethi and othersz. Thercfore, monthly income ol Lhe deceased comes to Rs.9,375/ (Rs.7,500/- + Rs 1,875/ and annual income would be Rs.9,375/- x 12 = Rs.1,12 ,OO/-. From this, 1 / 3.a is to be deducted tou,ards living rnd personal expenses of the deceased follow,ing Sarla Ve,t ma u. Delhi ' zorg(q)nro sos (rs) 2 2017 heJ27 0o 8 Transport Corporation3 as the claimaats are t\r,o in number. After deducting 1/3.d amount towards the personal and living cxpenses, the contribution of the deceased to the familv riould be Rs.75,0OO/- per annum. Since the age of the deceased at the time of the accident was 45 years, the appropriate multiplier for the age group 4l to 45 is ,14, as per Clause 4 of the Schedule prescribed by the decision reported in Sarla Vertna u. Delhi Transport Corporation (3 supra) Adopting multiplier '14', thc total loss of clependency ri ould bc Rs.75,000/- x 1.1 = Rs.10,50,000/ . Aparr from rhe above, the claimants are also entitled to an amount of Rs.36 ,3OO I _ tow.ards loss of estate and luneral expenses and Rs.4g,4OO/ _ each tou,ards loss of consortium. Thus, in all the claimar-rts are entitled to Rs.1 1,83,100/-. 1 3. The other aspect r.r,hich the learned counsel for the appellants has raised is that there was no licence is possessed by the driver of the offending vehicle and the learned Tribuna,l ought to have consider the pay and recovery imposed liability on respondent No.2. He relied upon the 3 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) 9 Judgment of Hone'ble Supreme Court in Si n-gh Ratn u Nirtnalaa, r.l,herein the Honble Apex Court hel,1 rs under:- "8. In the presenl casc it is ncccssary'to note. aS ,) the Tribunal, that the or,"ner did not depose it'L c' stayed av,,ay from tl-re rvitness box. Hc produt r:t ll,hich was lound Lo bc fal<c. Another licence u'hic r to producc had already cxpired before the zrccidt r not rene\r'ed within the prescribed period. lt u a well after t$/o ycars had expircd. Thc appella.r'rt tt, evidently farlcd to tahe reasonable care (propos I Swaral Singhs) since he could not have been ur facts which were within his knou.ledge. rsen ed by lcncc ald a Iicence [re sought t and was ; renewed rrvner had on (r,ii) of r-rindful of

9. In the circumstar-rces, thc dircction by th: Tribunal, conhrmed by the i{igh Court, to pal' and recove- cannot be faulted. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed..."

14. In National Insurantce Co. Ltd us Srroran Singh & Ors6, the Apex Court held as under " The breach of policy condiLion e-g. disqlur of the driver or inr,;Llid driung licer.rce of the (l contained in sub-section (2)(a)(ii) of Section 14j be proved to have been committed by the in ; avoiding liabilily by the insurer. Mere absenr:r, inva-lid driving licence or disqualifrcation of the r; driving at the relevant timc, are not in tl ( defences avarlable to thc insurer against c t insured or [he third parties. To avoid its liabilitl, the insured, the insurer has to prove that thc was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise rt:i care in the rnatter of fulhlling the condition of r1 fication iver, as has to Lred for fakc or -iver for mseh,es -rer the .ou.ards insured sonable e policy AtR 2018 SC 1290 AtR 2004 5C 1531 ArR 2004 SC 153r. 5 a 1 10 .J regarding use of vehicle by a duly licensed driver or one rvho ',vas not clisqualihed to drive at the relevant time. ir') Insurance comp:rnies, horvevcr, with a view to avoid their liabiiiry musl not onlt' cstziblish the availablc dcfcnce(s) raised in the said proceedings but must also cst;rblislr -lrreach" on the pan of thr: onner of thc vehicle: the burden of proof rrhercfor rlould be on them- v) 'lhe court carrrlol lay dorvrt alny critcria as to how the szrid burden woulcl be discharged, in as much as the same rvoulcl clepcnd upon thc facts and circumstances of cach casc. ','r) Even rthcre thc rnsurer is able to provc breach on the part of the insured concerr.ring the policy condition regarding holding of a valid liccnce by the driver or his qualihcation to drir c during the relcvant period, the rnsurer uould not be allor'"cd to avoid its liability towerrds the insurcd unless thc said breach or breaches on the condition o[ drir.irrg licencc is/are so fundamental as are found to hare contributed Lo the cause of the accident. The Tribunals in intcrpreting rhe policy conditions would apply "the rule oI rnain purpose" and the concept of 'fundamental breach" to allou, defcnccs available to the insLrrer under Section 149(2) ol the Act. vii) The qucstion, as Lo whether the owner has taken reasonable care to fincl ortr as to rvhethcr the driving licence produced b,y tJ-re driver (a fake onc or otherwise). does not lulhl the requircments of law or not will have to be determined in each case".

15. The learned counsel for the respondents have vehemently argued that in view of the respondent/ driver not holding valid licence and the owner knowing fully has handed over the said vehicle to the driver who is not holding licence As such, the question of pay and recovery does not arise. But considering the Judgment of the Honble Supreme Court which is similar to the facts of the present case, this Court is 11 of the opinion that the strbmission made b1 the learned counsel for respondent No.2 does not hold ald - jected

16. Thc lacts in the ltresent rrrrd the fzrcts in rl e c:rse bcfore the Hon'ble Apex Court are simrlar in nature. (, nsiclering the juclgment of thc Hon'ble Apex Court in Swarar jineh case (6 supra) respondertt No.2-insurance company is tound to pay and recover the same lrom the owner ,.r' thc vehicle. Respondent No.2 is directed to pay the arnr,,nr, r 'rich is awardecl, modified ard reasscsscd bv this ( our-r at first ir-rstance ald then recover the same from thr. or,i.ncr of the said vehicle i.e., respondent No. I 17 . With the zr-foresaid observation and asse sr; rten t madc bv this Court, both the points are ars\\'ered in avour of Lhe appellants,

18. In the result, the appeal is partl,r' allou'cd nhancing the compensation from Rs.7,70,000/- to Rs. I I ,t 3,100/- r.r,ith interest at the rate of 7 .Sok p.a. on the enhancec amount from the date of petition till the date of realization. '11 e appellant is directed to deposit the said amount together. r. ith costs ald interest after giving due credit to the arr tunt alreadv I 1,2 deposited, if any, r,r,ithin two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The compensation amount shall be apportioned among the respondent.s/ claimants in the sarne manner ald ratio as ordered by thc Tribunal. On such deposit, the claimar-rts are permitted to r,i.ithdraw the same without furnishing ar.ry surety. There shall be no order as to Miscellaneous petitions, il a11., pending in this appeal shall staad closed. D/- M.JAWAHAR R SS ISTANT RE RAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Prin I District Judge) at N izamabad.

2. One CC to Sri S.surender Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri A.Rama Krishna Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies Yk HIGH COURT DATED:2210812025 JUDGMENT + DECREE ES!{ a' ( 3 1 ti,r,R 20ffi Z 6l MACMA.No.300 of 2020 .:/ * 'ri9 PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA ^l

6.oP*-r*-, -t(nPb \- I IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD [ 34431 FRIDAY,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 300 OF 2020 Between :

1. Prameela Nadipi, Piska Prameela and Another, Wo. Ramana or Piska Nadipi Ramana, Age.41 years, Occ. Household, R/o. H.No.1-146, Wagdhari Village, Neradigonda ftilandal, Nrrmal, presently residtng at Yellammagutta, Nizamabad Town, Nizamabad District.

2. Shirisha Piska, D/o. Ramana or Piska Nadipi Ramana, Age. 23 years, Occ. Student, R/o. H No. 1-146, Wagdhari Village, Neradigonda Mandal, Nirmal, presently residing at Yellammagutta, Nizamabad Town, Nizamabad District ...AppellanUPetitioners AND

1. Konda Ramanaiah, S/o.Not Known, Age. ltrlajor, Owner of auto bearing no. TS.01.UA.5072, Rio. H.No '1-101, Wagdhari Village, Tarnam Mandal, Adilabad District.

2. Cholamandalam M.S.General lnsurance Company Ltd., Through its Branch Manager, Branch Office, Door No. 6-3-698/2, 1st Floor Venkat Plaza-ll, Punjagutta, Hyderabad. (Policy No. 3368/0091 11281000100 valid from 24102t20 1 7 ro X t02120 1 B) ...Respondents/Respondents Appeal filed Under Section 'l 73 of Motor Vehicles Act, 19BB against the Order and decree in M.V.O.P. No. 327 of 2017 daled 0611212019 on the file of the Court of the Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge) at N izamabad . 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 and upon hearing the arguments of Sri S.Surender Reddy, Advocate for Appelllant and of Sri A.Rama Krishna Reddy, Advocate for Respondent No.2. e-.- This Court doth order and decree as follows: 1 That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be rnd hereby is parfly- allowed enhancing the compensation rom Rs.7,70,00(,- to Rs..l 1,g3,1007- with interest at the rate of 7 -5o/o p.a. on the enhanced anr runt from the date of petition till the date of realization. 2. That the appellant is be and hereby directed to dep:;it the said amount together with costs and interest after giving due credit tc the amount already deposited, if any, within tv,,o months from the date of rec:r ipt of a copy of this judgment. 3. That the compensation amount shall be appo.1 oned among the respondents/claima nts in the same manner and ratio as ordered by the Tribunal. 4. That on such deposit, the claimants be and hereby are : --rmitted to withdraw 5. That save as aforesaid, the decree of the tribunal shall st rnds confirmed in all 6. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal the same without furnishing any surety. other respects. and //TRUE COPY// \ SD/- ltrl JAWAHAR REDDY TANT REGISTRAR c t ,1 iECTION OFFICER To, 1 The chairman [\ilotor Accident craims Tribunar (principar t) ;trict Judge) at Nizamabad. 2. Two CD Copies Yt- HIGH COURT DATED:2210812025 DECREE MACMA.No.300 of 2020 PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA ' w-, Lp cog(as -k -i(a\su