The High Court · 2025
Judgment
This M.A.C.M.A is filed under Section 173 of M.V.Act, 1988 by the Appellant/ Insurance Company/respondent No.1 against the Award and decree passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Districr Judge, Nizamabad) (hereinafter referred to 'learned Tribunal') in O.P.No.35 of 2OO7, dated 19.09.2011, wherein claimant filed the claim petition under Section 166 (1) (c) of M.V.Act seeking compensation of Rs.4,O0,00O/ on account of death of Meka Manohar, (herein after referred as 'deceased') who died in Motor Vehicle accident occurred on 17 11.2006
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as thcv are arraved before the Tribunal.
3. The brief facts of the case are that claimant filed O.P.No.3S of 2OO7 under Section 166(1)(c) of the M.V.Act, 1988 seeking compensation for the death of the deceased, who died in the accident allegeci to have caused due to rash and negligent manner of the Lorry. It is contended that on 17 .11.2006 while deceased was returning from school to the house at about 4.30 P.M., from a cycle, lorry bearing No. AP-09/C O741 came in rash and negligent manner and dashed the 2 AI]VR,J M.,, C u. L No., 5O4 ol 20 I 2 deceased at Subashnagar, Nizamabad. As a result, they fell down and sustained grievous injuries all over the body and died on the spot. The Police registered a case against the driver of the offending Lorry.
4. The contedtion of the claimant was that, the deceased was aged about 14 years, studying 9th class in Holy.Mary School, Subashnagar, Nizamabad. Apart from his studies, the deceased was selling milk in the morning and evening and earning Rs.3,000/- per month and same was contributing to the welfare of the family and due to his sudden death, the petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 who were parents of the deceased lost love and affection of their son and the claimants was put to suffer mental agony, pain and irreparable loss and loss of future dependency. The claimant claimed an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation for the death of the deceased under various heads.
5. Before the learned Tribunal, respondent No.2 (owner of the Lorry) filed counter allidavit and contended that the accident was occurred due to negligent driving of lorry bearing No.AP-09/X-O741 by its driver and also contributory negligence of the deceased who was pedalling the cycle on the national high way witJrout observing the traffic rules. Respondent No.1 (The United India Insurance Company Limited) also filed counter affidavit that denying the averments made in the claim petition, 7- r' 3 t4tE J X.LC,A./LI.b. I 5O1 ol 2ol2 including the manner in w,hich the accident took place, and submitted that the compensation claimed is excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim petition
6. Basing on the pleadings and averments made by both the counsels, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues which reads as under:
1. Whether the accident utos tlrc resultant and outamc of the rash and negligent diung of the lorry beaing No.AP-9/741 bg its diuer?
2. Whether the petttioner is entitled for ang ompensatian? If so, to wlLat .iust omount artd from which of respondents?
3. To what relieJ? 7 . After perusing the oral and documentary evidences and going into the entire recorcl ancl the evidences placed by both the parties, the learned Tribunal alloted the claim in part and granted compensation of Rs.3,O3,5OO/- along $'ith interest @ 7 .5o/o per €ulnum.
8. Being unsatisfied and aggrieved by the colossal compensation amount awarded by' the learned Tribunal, the present appeal is hled by the Insurance Company/appellant/respondent No. 1 on the ground that the cleaner of the lorry driver was driving the olfending vehicle at the time of accident a,d )qper the Ex.A13 which clearly demonstrate that the clealer vras driving the vehicle at the materiatr time of accident 4 JYnlR'.r u.A-C.u-L I{o. r 5O4 of 2012 without a driving license and the learned Tribunal ought to have held that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation as there was no driving license to the person driving the offending vehicle and the same is in gross violation of the conditions of the policy of lnsurance.
9. Heard, Srt M.Raui Kumar representing Sri Kota Sameer Kumar learned counsel for the appellalt and Srl M.Gauthann Red.dg, representing, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.l & 2. None represented on behalf of respondent No.3.
10. Admittedly, the respondents/claimants have not filed any appeal and cross appeal against the Award passed by the learned Tribunal. As such, the respondents/claimant appears to be satisfied with the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal. Therefore, the points ',vhich arose before this Court in the present appeal is that: 1) Whether the Tribunal has righflg assessed the income of the deceased. 2) Whether the Tribunal l:as a uarded excess compensation amount to the claimant, if so, to what erte!& I ,/' 1) . -7 ,/t' /a/ ,/ 5 Mn., L. A-C-,(.1L tib-, 5O1 ol 20, 2
11. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company further contended t]lat the learned Tribuna] has taken the notional income of the deceased Rs.f5,0O0/- as per Second Schedule of Section 163 of M.V.Act., for computing compensation wherein the claim petition was filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act and further contended that the learned Tribunal ought to have seen that the Insurance company is not all [able to pay compensation for the reason that the owner/insured has committed breach as to the terms and conditions of the policy and prayed this Court to set aside the Award passed by the Tribunal and to allow the present appeai.
12. Learned counsel for the claimants/ respondent Nos.1 and 2 I submits that after considering the entire evidence available on record, the learned Tribunal has au'arded the just compensation, hence needs no interference by this Court and prayed this Court to dismiss the appeal. Point No.l & 2 13. Admittedly, the deceased died due to accident occurred on
17.\L2OO6. As on the clate of accident, the deceased was aged 13 years, hale and healthy arrd n,as studying 9th class in Holy Mary School. PW2, who was the eye-witness clearly deposed before the Tribunal that due to I I 6 ]V}'R,J U.A-C.N.L ito.l sO4 of 2012 injuries sustained in the accident the deceased died and the accident occurred due to rash and negligent m€ulner of the offending vehicle. RW.3 is the driver of the crime vehicle and his evidence before that Tribunal was that he was driving the offending vehicle at the time of the accident. During the course of hearing before the Tribunal, Insurance Company relied on the contents of Ex,A13 charge sheet, but failed to examine the Investigation Offrcer who prepared and frled the charge sheet. Hence, the Tribunal linds that Insurance Company failed to prove the contents of Ex.A 13 charge sheet by not examining the relevant person as witness to prove that cleaner drove the offending crime vehicle, who does not have the driving licence 3t the time of accident. RW.3 driver of the offending vehicle deposed before the Tribunal that he drove the vehicle at the time of accident and the Insurance Company counsel failed to adduce rebuttal evidence to show that RW.3 was not driving the crime vehicle at the time of accident, therefore this Court also finds that that there is no documentary evidence adduce by the appellant/ lnsurance to prove that the cleaner was driving the offending vehicle at the time of accident.
14. As far as computation of compensation is concerned, as the deceased was minor and non-earning member, the Tribunal has calculated the notional income of the deceqge5l as per Second Schedule .' 7 ,r!{&J A. LC.U.L rlo. t 5O4 ol2Or2 under Section 163-A of M.V.Act and taking the notional income of the l, deceased @ Rs. 15,000/- per annum which appears tp be reasonable and based on ground realities.
15. The other ground raised by learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal cannot grant compensation under 163-A, when the claim petition was filed under Section 166 of M.V.Act. Before proceeding further, it is pertinent to look into the judgment of Bhagwatl and others o. Mohd Vokeel (National Insurance Compong) dnd r:nothersl, the Delhi High Court on 22.05.2O25, held that if the claim petition flled under Section 166 ol the M.V.Act may be considered under Section 163,{ of the M.V.Act, r.r'hich is extracted hereunder for ready reference and the para No. l7 reads as:
17. As regards tLLe Leamed 'l'ributaL's decision to treat tLe claim under Section 166 of the MV Act as one under Section 163-A of tle MV Act, this Court hos ctlrearly settled the permissibilitg of such anuersion. In Raj Narairt Jlta u. Jagdish and Ors. (M/s New India Assurance Co. Ltd.) : MAC. APP. 383/2017, this Court leld. tlnt a claim filed under Sectiort 166 of tlrc MV Act mag be ansidered under Section 163A of the MV Act Luhere the circumstances so warrant. The Court obserued as under: "2. The Court would tote that in terms of the decision of this Court in United IndkL Insurctnce Co. Ltd. us Rita Deut in MAC \ \ ' 2025 SCC Ontine Del 4173 I /J B ,vlvR,J U-A-C.E L No. I so4 o, 2072 APP. No. 256/2007 decided on 05.12.2014, tuherein it has been heid inter alia, that the decbion of tle leamed Tribunal to conuert a Claim Petition fiIed under Section 166 to under section 163A of the Motor Vehicle Act, uas just and the same could not be faulted uitlt Therefore, in order to ensure that the cloimant uould not be rendered remediless, resulting in miscarriage of justice, the learned Tlibunal ought t:t haue considered the claim under section 1634 of tte Act and grant of compensation to the claimant under tlle p rinciple of no -fault liabilitg. " "
16. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that that the Tribunal has rightly considered arrd granted just compensation to the claimants/respondents Nos.1 and 2 herein and the appeal filed by the United India Insurance Company Limited fails and falls to the ground. As such, needs no interference. Therefore, the appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. L7. Accordingll,, M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed by confirming the Award and decree passed by the Tribunal in O.P.No.35 of 2OO7, dated 19.09.20 11.
18. Miscellaneous petitions, il any are pending, shall stand ciosed. / //TRUE COPY// SD/- N. SRIHARI EPUTY REGISTRA CTION OFFICER To, records, if any) '1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- lll District 2. One CC to SRl. KOTA SAMEER KUMAR Advocate tOpUCI 3. One CC to SRl. M GOUTHAM REDDY Advocate tOpUCl 4. Two CD Copies \q- ge, Khammam (With HIGH COURT DATED:0310712025 c O 0 t iiB l$tt i. * ( JUDGMENT MACMA.No.1504 ot 2012 DISMISSING THE MACMA G *teX L. /tror'> IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD IHURSDAY,THE THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: '1504 OF 2012 Between: i The United lndia lnsurance Company Ltd., Rep. by its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, H.No. 7-'l-91on, 1st Floor, Pratapreddy Complex, Beside Hotel Mayura, P.B.No.314, Godown Road, Nizamabad. ...AppellanUl't Respondent AND
4. Meka An.jaiah, S/o Narsing, aged 45years, Occ Supervisor in Sukjith Factory 5. Meka Anjali, Wo Anjaiah, aged 4Oyears, Occ Household, Respondents l and 2 are R/o H.No. 6-17-59, Ambedkar Colony, Nizamabad.
6. Liaquat Ali Khan, S/o Hussain Khan, Major, Occ Owner of Lorry Bearing No. AP 9 -74 R/o H.No 5-2-2OO|A1,132, Osmangunj, C/o Swagat Road Lines, Hyderabad. Appeal filed Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act,'l9BB against the Order and decree in M.V.O.P.No.35 of 2007, dated.19l9l2011 on the file of the Court of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- District Judge, at Nizamabad. ...RespondenU2nd Respondent 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 SRl. KOTA SAMEER KUMAR ,Advocate for the Appellant and of Sri M GOUTHAM REDDY, Advocate forthe Respondents. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows : 1 . That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is dismissed by confirming the Arnendment and Decree passed by the tribunal in OP No. 35 of 2007 dated 19-9-201 1 ;
2. That save as aforesaid, the decree of the Tribunal shall stands confirmed in all other respects; and ,[ To,
3. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal //TRUE COPY// SD/. N. SRIHARI REGISTRAR s N OFFICER 1 . The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- District Judge, at Nizamabad. 2. Two CD Copies SNJ/ghw HIGH COURT DATED:0310712025 DECREE MACMA.No.1504 of 2012 DISMISSING THE MACMA u. .{(d F,