The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellant : SRI SURYA BALU MAHENDRA Counsel for the Respondent : SRI A.RAMA KRISHNA REDD'\/ The Court made the following: COMMON JUDGMENT n HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA Srr M.A.C.M.A.Nos.155 Eb 257 of 2O2O COMMON JUDGMENT: M.A.C.M.A.No.155 of 2O2O is filed 'by the insurance company being aggrieved with the order and decree dated

20.11.2019 passed in M.V.O.P.No.432 of 2O15 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, at Nizamabad (for short the Tribunal') ot the ground. that the learned Tribunal granted exorbitant compensation to the injured claimant. 2. M.A.C.M.A.No.257 of 2O2O is filed by the claim petitioner/injured being not satisfied with the compensation award uid.e order and d.ecree dated 2O.Ll.2OLg passed in M.V.O.P.No.432 of 2015 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, at Nizamabad (for short 'the Tribunal').

3. Heard Sri A. Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel for the Insurance Company and Sri Surya Balu Mahendra, learned counsel for the claim Petitioner. 2 NN8/ M.A.C.M.A No.755 & 257 of 2O20

4. For convenience and clarit5r, the parties he::ein are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

5. It is contended that the petitioner claimed compensation of Rs. 10,00,0OO/- but the learned Tribunal "after perusal of the entire recorcl and considering the arguments; of both sides awarded an amount of Rs.1,2l,7OOf- \Mith interest @ 7.Soh per a.nnum from the date of petition till the date of realization.

6. The brief facts of the case are that on 16.03.2013 at about 2L.3o hours, while the petitioner was proceeding on the Tractor bearing No.AP-2 5-AA-429I towards Narsingpally viltage as labourer under employment and on the instructions of respondent No.1 and when they reached at T'hankurdh Canal area, the driver of Tractor droves at high speed and in rash negligent manner and lost his control over the vehicle, due to which, the Tr:actor turned turtle into the Thanakurdh canal and as a result of which, the petitioner fell down from the tractor and sustained multiple fractures and bleeding injuries and immediately, he was shifted to Amrutha Laxmi Multi Speciality, Nizamabad and there he took treatment as inpatient and he underwent major operatioS3;urd a steel rod with screws were 3 NNN M.A.C.M.A No.75S & 257 of 2O20 !\ inserted into the left knee joint. Thereafter he was admitted in Yashoda Hospital, Malakpet, Hyderabad, where he underwent another major operation and replaced with the separate steel plates and screws to the fracture and he spent Rs.3.5 lakhs towards treatment, medical expenditure.

7. It is contended by the petitioner that the petitioner was hale and healthy and was aged 35 years and was earning Rs.25,OOO/- per month as a fisherman, labour and agriculture and due to injuries and fractures sustained in the accident, the sustained permanent disability and lost his future earnings and his amenities of life are affected. The respondent No.1 being the owner of the offending vehicle and respondent No.2 being its insurer are jointly and severally liab1e to pay compensation of Rs.1O,OO ,OOO/- for the tortuious acts of the tractor driver, which resulted in the injuries to the petitioner. 8. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.1 filed written statement denying the manner of accident, receiving injuries and expenditure incurred for healing of wounds. It is further contended that the alleged accident not occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of offending vehicle and that ,n t,-_.i | -.-\ J 4 NNR] M.A.C.M.A No.755 & 257 of 2020 the driver of the offending vehicle had valid driving license and that the offending vehicle is insured with respondent No.2 and the policy was in force as on the date of accidr:nt, as such the respondent No.2/insurance company is onllr liable to pay compensation. g. Respondent No.2 contended that the petition is filed under sections 163-4 and L66 (1) of the Act, which is not at all maintainable under the law and that the claim petitioner was not the labourer of respondent No. 1, but he was ilegally, unanrthorizedly boarded the Tractor and gratuitrtusly travelled as a passenger. As per the registration certifir:ate, the seating capacity of the tractor is only one i.e, driver of the Tractor, there is no provision of seating other than the driver. It is further contended that the petitioner for wrongful gains suppressed the real facts and filed the claim twisting the facts. It is further submitted that at the time of alleged accident., the Trailor was not attached with tractor, so the question of labourers travelling in the tractor and trailor does not arise and aiso contended that the petitioner was travelling as unauthorized passenger on the tractor, there is no coverage to the unautho rized. passenger as t , I t t 5 TV'VRJ M.A.C,M.A No.755 & 257 of 2O2O n per terms of the insurance policy, therefore respondent No'2 is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner' Respond.ent No.2 further denied the age, avocation and income of the petitioner and also contended that the driver of the tractor was holding valid and effective driving licence to drive the tractor at the time of alleged accident. It is further held that the compensation claimed by the petitioner is excessive and exorbitant and hence prayed to dismiss the petition. 10. Basing on the above pleadings, the learned Tribunal framed following issues: (t) Wtrctlrcr on 16'03'2013 at about 21'30 hours, at Thanalurdh canal' accident ocanrred. due to rash and negligent driuing of Tractor bearing No'AP-25-AA-4291 bg ifs driuer? (it)Whetlrcrthepetitionerreceiuedinjuriesin that accident? (iii) Wtrcther the petitioner is entitted for compensation? If so, to uhat amount and from uhich resPondent? (iu) To uhat relief? 1 1. The learned Tribunal having going into the material evidence i.e., evid.ence of P.ws. L to 4 and Exs.A.1 to A'17 and on behalf of respond.ents R.Ws.l to 2 and Exs.B.l to B'3, ( .t i, I f & t: NNR.' M.A.C.M.A No.755 & 257 of 2O20 considered and held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tract,rr. Accordingly responsibility was fixed on both respondent Nos.l and 2 and basing on the calculations made and considering the income of the injured and the injuries sustained Tribu:eal awarded an amount of Rs. L,2r,7oo I - with interest @ 7 .5% per a.nnum from the date of petition till the date of reaJization.

12. As there is no dispute regarding the said a.ccident and also the liability on behalf of the respondents. llhe policy being subsisting as on the date of accident and respo.ndent No.2 being an insurance compzmy hence made liable to pay the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal.

13. Learned Standing counsel for the Insurance company vehemently argued and contended that the petitioner cannot be treated as an authorized passenger on the said tractor and placed reliance on the copy of the Registration Certificate (RC) i.e., Exs.B.2 and 8.3 and also relied upon the evidence of the R.w.2 who is employee of the RTA and who has specifically stated that capacity of the said tractor was only one i.e., tlre driver and he also relied upon the judgment of this High court i# 7 NNN M.A.C.M.A No.7ss & 257 of 2020 irr e'vq.chala us. v.R. r{untar and anotlter"T at paragraph No.S wherein it was held as follows: "Carrying of passenger in the offending vehicle at best amounts to the driver committing a breach of the .terms and conditions of the policy and, so, the insurer has to pay the compensation to the appellants and recover the amount so paid from the owner, cannot be accepted because carrying of passengers in the offending vehicle is contrary to the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder and since the policy issued by second respondent does not even cover the risk of passenger in the offending vehicle. If the insurer covers the risk of some persons and lays down some conditions for its being made liable in respect of those persons, and if the insured violates some of those conditions, then there may be some force in the contention of the learned counsel for appellants. When the insurer did not undertake to cover the risk of passengers in the offending vehicle, question of its being made liable in respect of the risk of such passenger does not arise." Learned counsel for the insurance company further relied upon the judgment passed in i'No;tiotto,l lrts-ttrolnce Compang ' zooa (s) ALD 30 B NNRJ M.A.C.M.A No.755 & 257 of 2O2O l. Linited us. Bonmithi Subbhagammq. clnd Ors.rr2 at n paragraph No.9 (2ol and paragraph No.1 1 wherein it was held as follows: " The effect of the provision containe<l in Section 147 with respect to persons o[her than the owner of the goods or his authorized representative remains the same. Although the owner of the goods or his authorized representative would now be covered b1r the policy of insurance in respect of a goods vehicle, it was not the intention of the legislature to provide for the liability of the insurer with respect to passengers especially gratuitous passengers, who were neither contemplated at the time the contract of insurance was entered into, nor was any premium paid to the extent of the benelit of insurance to such category of people. In view of the aforementioned authoritative pronouncements of this Court, the impugned judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained which is set aside, accordingly. This appeal is allowed. We, however, make it clear that the clairnant respondents will be entitled to recover the amount of compensation granted in their favour by the Motor Vehicles Accic[ents 'zoos 1tz1 scc 243 9 NNN M.A.CM.A No.155 & 257 of 2020 Claims Tribunal from the owner of the vehicle" L4. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company further argued that it is not the case of the claim petitioner from the beginning that he was travelling as labourer in the said tractor and he also referred to the F.l.R and complaint which is lodged by the brother of the injured it shows that petitioner was taken to the hospital by the driver of the said tractor who is none other than the brother of the injured and he was travelling on the said tractor and it is not the case of the claim petitioner that the petitioner was travelling as a labourer on the said tractor. Admittedly, though the policy covers six labourers, it is contended by the learned counsel for the insurance company that it would have been a different case when the tractor was being attached with the trailer then the question of carrying the labourers in the said tractor and trailer would have been permitted and the aspect of payment of the premium to the accident of the labourers travelling with the trailer would have a-rouse, but in the present set of facts there was no trailer attached to the tractor as such the premium which is paid for the labourer would not be applicable to the petitioner herein 10 NNRl M.A.C.M.A No.755 & 257 of 2020 who was travelling in the tractor ar; non-gratious f;' passenger/ unauthorized passenger.

15. Considering the said submissions made by the learned counsel for the insurance company it appears tlrat the petitioner was travelling in the said tractor not as an authoized passenger but he was travelling as unauthorized passenger which is totally against to the provisions of the M.V. Act. As per the Registration Certificate, the persons were permitted to tra'rel only one but additional person travelling in the said tractor in the subject vehicle would be against to the provisions of thr: M.V. Act and as such the question of considering the case of lray and recovery also does not arise.

16. Learned Tribunal has held in imposing the liability on the insurance company considering the Ex.B.1 policy and learned Tribunal ought to have exonerate the insurance company. On this ground, the appeal filed by the insurance company is liable to be allowed. L7. Coming to the liability and enhancement of the compensation, on perusal of the entire material placed on record and considering the findings given by the l'ribunal and also 1L NNfr.I M.A.C.M.A No.15s & 257 of 2020 considering the injuries sustained by the petitioner as it is seen from the discussion made by the learned Tribunal the question in respect of compensation which the petitioner is entitled to. The learned Tribunal has rightly awarded an amount of Rs.1 ,650 l- towards medical expenses, Rs.25,0OO/- towards grievous irjr.y and Rs.10,OOO/- towards pain and suffering, Rs. 10,OOO/- towards extra nourishment, Rs.S,OOO/- towards attendant charges, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of income in all \ \ that petitioner was awarded an €unount of Rs. 1 ,2L,65O /- which / ( was rounded to Rs. |,2I,7OO / -.

18. Considering the above circumstances and reasons stated this Court do not see any grounds for granting enhancement of the compensation and therefore appeal filed by the claim petitioner/injured is liable to be dismissed.

19. In the result, M.A.C.M.A.No.257 of 2O2O is dismissed and M.A.C.M.A.No.155 of 2O2O is allowed. It is pertinent to direct the Insurance Company not to recover the amount from the claim petitioner which was already deposited by the insurance company though they are not liable to pay the balance amou.nt and the balance amount if any the insurance company is at t2 NNN M.A.CM.A No.155 & 257 of 2020 liberty to recover from the owner of the vehicle i.e., respondent ,E No.1 in the M.V.O.P. So also the claimants are entitled to recover the balance compensation from the owrrer of the vehicle with interest and costs under the sarne decree There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any are pending, shall stand closed. ,,TRUE COPY" OH D. ISMAIL RE TY ,. SECTION OFFICER ,{ um-l Additional District To,

1. The Chairman, It/lotor Accidents Claims Tribunal izamabad (with Records) Sri A Ram akrish na ReddY, Advocate 3 One CC to Sri S urya Balu Mahe ndra, Advocate 4 Two CD C opies Judge, at N One CC to 2 (oPU(l) (oPUC;) ,h d . Fj''.*"$*,*.,*-'ts . a J.llll' '' -a' ;e- $ ;r , T,1rS4:'.:.*:d t t HIGH COURT DATED:2510712025 \, t (J C) 1r llfrt ?IU5 rl '..t- r€. ^\..._ 5e--' !-,-.--'_ COMMON JUDGMENT MACMA.No.155 AND 257 ot 2O2A ALLOWING THE M.A.C.M.A.No.155 of ZA20 AND DISMISSING THE M.A.C.M.A.NO.257 OF 2O2O WITHOUT COSTS. &q IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY,THE TWENW FIFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA M.A.C.M.A.No. 1 and257 0F 2020 M.A.C.M. L & T General lnsurance Co. Ltd.,, Now known as HDFC ERGO General lnsurance Co. Ltd., Represented by Bank of lndia, Road No.4, its Person-in-Charge, Branch Office at ll Floor, Upstairs Vinayaknagar, Nizama ESPONDENT NO.2

1. Bardipur Laxman, S/o Bhoomanna, Age: 35 years, Caste- Gundla, Occ- Fisheiman, Labour And Agriculturist, R/o Narsingpally Village, Nizamabad Mandal and District

2. Chinnapuram Sailoo, S/o Not Known, of Tractor bearing No. AP 25 A.A.4291 Nizamabad Mandal and District - 503 ...RES'.NDENT No.1/pETrroNER Age- Major, Occ- Business-cum-Owner , R/o H.No.7-81, Narsingpally Village, 230 SPONDENT No.2/RESPONDENT NO.1 of2O2O:. Bardipur Laxman, S/o Bhoomanna, Age: 35 years Labour And Agriculturist, R/o Narsingpally Village, , Caste- Gundla, Occ- Fisherman, Nizamabad Mandal and District .APPELLANT AND

1. Chinnapuram Sailoo, S/o Not Known, Age- Major of Tractor bearing No. AP 25 AA 4291, R/o H.No. Nizamabad Mandal and District - 503 230 , Occ- Business-cum-Owner 7-81, Narsingpally Village,

2. L & T General lnsurance Co. Ltd.,, Now known as HDFC ERGO General ranch Office at ll izamabad lnsurance Co. Ltd., Represented by its Person-in-Charge, B Floor, Upstairs of Bank of lndia, Road No.4, Vinayaknagar, N (lnsuran.ce Policy No.9't5106001 1071 10000 valid from 22-07-2013\ 23-07-2012 to RESPONDENTS Appeal U/s 173 oI M.V.Act against the Order and Decree made in M.V.O.P.No.432 ot 2015 dated 20.11 .2019 on the file of the Court of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -Cum-l Additional District Judge, at Nizamabad. 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 papers in the Suit and upon hearing the arguments of Sri A.Ramakrishna Reddy, Advocate for the Appellant in M.A.C.M.A.No.155 of 2O2O and Respondent No.2 in M.A.G.M.A.No.257 of 2020 and of Sri Surya Baru Mahendra, Advocate for the Respondent No.1 in M.A.C.M.A.No.155 of 2020 and Appellant ir M.A.C.M.A.No.2S7 of 2020. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows : 1. That the M A.C.M.A.No.2S7 ol 2020 be and hereby is dismissed and the M.A.C.M.A.No.155 of 2O2O be and hereby is allowed. 2- That the lnsurance company be and hereby is directec not to recover the amount from the claim petitioner which was already deposited by the insurance company though they are not liable to pay the balance amount. 3. That the insurance company is at liberty to recover the balance amount from the owner of the vehicle i.e respondent No..l in the M.V.O.p.

4. That the claimants are entifled to recover the balance compensation from the owner of the vehicle with interest and costs under the sarrre decree. .

5. That there shall be no order as to costs in these appeals. //TRUE COPY// To,

1. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunat Judge, at Nizamabad Two CD Copies 2 SD/. MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUTY REGIS sEcTtoN oFFtCER -l Additional District , , HIGH COURT DATED i2510712025 COMMON DECREE MACMA.No.1SS AND 25T of 2020 ALLOWING THE M.A.C.M.A.No.1SS of 2020 AND DISMISSING THE M.A.C.M.A.NO.257 OF 2O2O WITHOUT COSTS.