The High Court · 2025

Smt.S Yadamma, W/o Late Yadagiri or yadaiah, L.p =d 44 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o Devaruppala Village Dist. Janagaon t resenfly residing at Yellareddipallr Vr lage of tndalwai lvlandal, Dist. Nizimab _, l-5O3i i0 S Veeraiah, Sio Veeraiah Aged 70 years, Occ Nil, R/c ),_.varuppala Village, D.ist lndalviai Itrlandal, Dist. N,zamabad-503 i 10 Janagaon Presently iesiding' at yellareddipa I v,illage 'o{ . RESPOND : \TS/PETITIONERS Shivarathri Sailu. Sio Yadagiri. Aged Major. Occ: Owr r of the Tractor No. AP-01-L-0758 R/o H No l -334,- Devaiuppala Villag r , Dist .Janagaon (Wa rangal). ...RESPONDENT/F ESPONDENT No.1 |.A.NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circ -. ,stances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court m.r r be pleased to stay all further proceedrngs including execution of the order dateo t)/10/2021 passed in lt/l.V.o P No.281 of 2017 on the court of the lrrlotor Accidr: r s claims Tiibunat- cum-ll Additional District Judge, Nizamabad pending dispcs rl of the TMACMA before th is Hon'ble Court Counsel for the Appellant: SRI. B YUVRAJ Counsel for the Respondents 1 and 2: SRI KULDEEP JADHA\ The Court delivered the following: COMMON JUDGMENT ,.1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO M.A.C.M.A' Nos. 55 and 118 of2022 Dt. 12.L2.2025 MACMA.No.55 of 2022 Be tu,een: Smt S.Yadamma artd another Shivarathri Sailu and another MACMA.No. 1 18 of2022 Betu,een The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Smt S.Yadamma and two others COMM ON JUDGMENT: Appellants Respondents .. Appellant Respondents Since both the appeals are arising out of the same award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Il Additional District Judge at Nizamabad (for short the ). Tribunal'), the1, are taken up together, heard i rLalogously and disposed of bl a common order

2. Tht appL'al in MACMA No.55 of 2O2il s, tiled by the claimants asszriling the Arvard, dt.29.10.2021 r MVOP.No.281 ol 2Ol7 for enharcement and to awarrl lrsr and fair comlrensation. The appearl in MACMA No. 118 o /C22 is filed bv the Insurance Compant to set aside the award

3. For the sake of convenicnce, the parties rr, I hcreinalter bc referred to as arral'cd bcfore the Tribunal. Brief facts of the Case :

4. The clainrants, \\'tro are q,ile arld father c f l,he decr:ased S.Yaclagiri, filcri a petition under Section 163(\ of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') r/w RL 1-- 455 ol the APMV Rules, lgBU, claiming compensation o1 [ s;. 10,00,OO0/- lor the death of the dcceased in a motor accider r r_hat occurred on 26.02.2077.

5. The casc of the claimants is that on thc ateful day, at about 09.OO hours, while the deceased was I)- ,oeeding from Donkal Village Lowards lndalwar clriving a tractor rearing No.Ap 3 01 L 0758, upon reaching near Donkal Village Shivar, the deceased lost control over the tractor, as a result, the tractor turned turtle into thc adjoining fields and the deceased came under the tractor and succumbed to the injuries on the spot'

6. Basing on the complaint Lodged made by the wife of the deceased i.e., l"t claimant, a case in Cr'No 2 L /2017 was registered and investigation was conducted by the police It is the contention of the claimants that prior to the 7. accident, the deceased was hale and healthy, rvorking as a driver and earning Rs. 15,000/- p.m., and used to contribute his earnings to the maintenance and welfare of the claimant, ald on account of death of the deceased, the claimalts lost their earning member and are undergoing financial hardship The l't respondent being the owner artd 2"'t respondent being the insurer of the offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.

8. The Insurance Company filed written statement denying the occurrence of the incident, profession and earnings of the deceased. It was further contended that the accident was 4 occurred due to rash and negligent driving :' the deceased himself and as per the proviso under Section 1.r ' of the NIV Act, the policv shall not be rcquircd to cover an : nployee of thc insured in respl'ct of bodill,injurl'or death ari:;rr S, out ol and ir-r the course of lris emplo,Vment and a spccial -- , rtract cc vering the risk is required b1' paying adclitional prerni rm and in tl.re instant case, titcre \vas no sucir special contr-.r .1. betrr er:n the orvner ald t.he insurance company. It rvas ftl tter contended that as per Sectron 1634 ol the .\ct, the injuretl / leceased must be a third pilrt_v for the insurance conr )any to pa]. compen sation. :rnd as the deceased is the father ,l the owner o[ the vehicle, he is not a third party, as such, t I : clarm under Seition 1634. is not maintainetbie. Furthern ( re, since the deceased himself was negligent, on that ground rlso the claim petition is not mair-rtainablc. 9 . The Tribur-rai basing on the pleadings ,; ' both pa rties, framed the follort ing issues 1) 2) Whetlter the Yadagii @ Yaclaiah died it c road accident, dtte to inuoluement of the Tractor beat r g, NI.AP 01 L o758? Whether the petitioners are entitled for tc tpensation as proged for? f ( 5 3) To what relieJ?

10. The Tribunal upon due consideration of the evidence of PW1 and Bx.A1 to A4 adduced on behalf of the claimants, and RW1 and Ex.Bl adduced on behalf of the Insurance Company, held that the acctdcnt occurred arising out of the use of the insured vehicle and as the policy was in force and the insurance company has collected additional amounts of Rs.3,822/- torvards third partf insurance claim, Rs.50/- tori'ards drivers clause ar-rd Rs. 100/- towards Personal Accident (PA) coverage for the ou.ner-cum-driver, by placing reliance on the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Rannkhiladl dnd Another u. united India Insurance Co. Ltd,l, held that the claimants are entitled to the compensation as contemplated under the insurance policl, contract and accordingly, awarded an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- rvith interest @7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of reaJtzatioo against the respondents No. 1 & 2, as jointl,v and severally liable. ' (2020) 2 scc s5o 6 I I. Heard Sri Kuldeep Jadhav, learned C r r.nsel for the clarmants and Sri B.Yuv Raj, learned Stalcl'r I Counsel for Insurance Companl

12. Learned <:ounscl lor the claimants con t , rded thtt the Tribunal erred rn restricring the compensatiorL rr the linrits of the insurance polic_r. and failecl to conslder the r <:ome and age of the deceascd. He further conlended that i I the deceased was working as driver and carning Rs. I5,000/ 1 c r mont)-r, the Tribunal ought to havc granted the compensatio r as claimed by applying the structured formula under Section I ( l;A of the Act, and accordingl_v, prayed to allow the appeal bv nhancing the compen sation.

13. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for. l- e Insurance Company contended that as the dcceasccl \r,as tI , father of the owner of the ve hicle, therc rvill n ot be any , lationship of employee and employer, and therefore, the dec r rsed stepped into the shoes ol the og'ner ancl cannot be tree t ,(l as a ttrird party. As such the claim under Section 163A of t I I Act rvas not maintainable. It was further contended that the accident occurred due to self negligence of the deceaserj eLncl in such ;( l circumstances, no compensation $'as payable and the Tribunal ought to have dismissed the claim petition.

14. I have given earnest consideration to the submissions made on either side and perused the material on record'

15. The facts not in dispute are that the deceased was aged about 5O years, the acciclent arose out of the use of the insured vehicle and the claimamts are the legal representatives of lhe deceased. It is also not in clisputed that the 1"t respondent is the or'vner of the offending vehicle and son of the deceased, and the 2"d respondent is the insurer of the said vehicle'

16. The issues that arise for consideration in MACMA No I l8 of 2022 are maintainabilitl'' of the claim petition under Section 163-A of the Act, the effect of the deceased stepping into the shoes of the owner, and the alleged negligence on part of the deceased and absence of a valid driving licence lnsofar as MACMA.No.S5 of 2022, the only issue for consideration is the adequacy of comPensation.

17. The main grievance of Insurance Company is that Section 163-,{ of the Act is founded on 'fault iiability' principle arrd as 8 the deceased himself was the tortfeasor and s r:pped t:rto the shoes of the ourner, the claimants are r ( t entitled to compen satlo n.

18. The Honble Supremc Court in Nati<t utl Insura.nce Compang Limited u. Sinitha and Othersz. -reld that the claimants are not required to plead or prove ne:l rlence and it is open to the insurer or the o\\,ner to plea ( ,rnd csr.ablish negligence in order to defeat such a claim. Tht: r )lcvant portion of the said judgment is extracted hereunder '39. It has alreadA been concktded hereinabott ttat in ct claim raised under Section 163 A of thc Act, the, t t.inants haue neither to plead nor lo establish negltgencL:. \e hout, also heLd that negligence (as a|so, "wrongfui r',.,' and "default") can bc establisLLeci bg Llrc ou)ner or tht. t ,;urancc companA ftts tLrc case maq be) to dekat a clc. , url-der Section 163-A of the Act. It u:as therefore rmlrerat-. , for rc petitioner Insurance Compartg to haue pleaded n. Lgence, and to haue established thc santc through cogenl r .c7ence. This procedure tuould ltttue alfortled at7 opporlu,l 1 t to tlle clatmants to repudiate the scime. Ilas the ,:,itiorter discharged this onus?"

19. Subsequently, in United India Insura,nc, Co. Ltd. a. Sunil Kumars, the Hon'ble Supreme Court hr r categorically held that in proceedings under Section 163- i the insurer cannot raise the defence of negligence on tl ( part ol the r t20 I J ) 2 Suprerne Court Lilscs j56 ' Cir il Appcal No. 9604 o, 20 l], dl.24.l I t0 t7 I I -t 9 deceased, as such a defence would defeat the very object of the provision, which is to grant expeditious and final compensation on a structured formula basis. The relcvant portion of the said judgment is hereb,v extracted for better understanding of the said binding precedent as under: "8. From the aboue disctr.ssion, ll is clenr that grant of comperLsation under Sectron 163-A of the Act on the basis o/ the strur:tured _formula is it the natttre of a fnal autard and the adjud.ication thereunder is rcquircd to be made Ll)ithout ang requiremerrt of anq proof of neqLigence of the diuer/ otuner of the uefuclc(s) inuolued tn the accident. This is made explictt l:g Section 163-A12). I'hough the aJoresaid section of the AcL does not speci-ficullA exclude a possible defence of the tnsurer bosed on th.e negligence of the claiman.t as contemplated bt1 Section I 40(4), Lo permit such defence to be introduced by the insurer and/ or to understand the prouisions of Sect{on 163 A of the Act to be contemplating ang such situatiort tuottld go contrary to the uery legisLatiue object behitd intrr.tduction of Section 163-A of the Act, namely, l-LnaL contpensaliop, tuithh o limited time- frame on the basis of tlte structttred formuta to ouercome situations uthere the claims of compensa.tion on the bosis of fault liabilitg were toklng an unduly long time. In fact, to understand" Section 163 A of the Act to permit the insurer to raise thc defence of ncqligence uould be to bing a proceeding under Section 163 A of thc Act on a par u,tith the proceeding under Secttott 1 66 ol the Act which uould not onlg be self-contradtctory buL also deJeat the uery legislatiue intention.

9. For the aforesaid reclsons, u)e arlsrrer the question arbing by holding that tn a proceeding under Section 163-A of the Act, it is not open for the insurer to raise anA defence of negligence on the part oJ the uictim.'

20. The issue that remains for consideration, insofar as the claim under Section 163-A of the Act, is '*,hether the deceased 10 can be treated as a third party or w,hether he I L. 11 steppr:cl into the shoes of the owrrer. 2l. In the instanL case, it is estzrblishecl frorn t te cvidence on record, particularly the cross-examination o1' ,',V I , thar the deceased t'as drtr,ing the tractor belonging to I s; son, r.,ho is the 1't respondent. In vierv o[ the law laid dowr >r. ttre Hon,ble Supreme Court in Sinithcr's case (supra), havir r regard ,o the relationship bet.,r,een the deceased ar.rd the ownt r thc decc-ased must be held to have steppecl into the shoes of ^e ou,ncr arr cl thus, carnot be treated as a third partv. Cor i e quentl), rhe claim under Section 163-A of the Act is not mainLr irable. '22. The Tribunal while holding that the clai r ar-rts arc not entitled to the compensation of Rs.lO,O0,0OO / _, : rrsiclererl the entitlement of the claimants in terms of Ir: t r ance policy contract placing reliance on thc judgment ()' ,he Hon,ble Supreme Court, in Ramkhilo,di and Another a. I nited Ind.ia Insura.nce Co. Ltd.a, wherein it was clarifie C thnt the. pA coverage under an insurance policy is specificalr intended to provide compensation to the owner-driver in the ,r .nt of death a lzozo;z scc sso or bodily injury arising out of the use of the insured vehicle. The relevant portion ol the said judgment reads as under "9.8 Hotueuer, at the sotne time, euen os per the contract of insurance, in case of personal accident the ou-tner driuer is entitled to a sum of Rs.l lakh. Therefore, the deceased, as obserued hereinaboue, u.tho utould be in the shoes of the owner shctll be entitled. to a sum o/ Rs. i Lakh, euen as per the cotltrdct of insurance. 23 . As per Ex. B 1 poiicl, , Personal Accident (PA) coverage extends to the owner-driver holding a valid driving license

24. Insofar as the contention of the Insurance Company that the deceased did not possess any valid driving license as on the date of accident, the lau, laid dos'n by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. us. Su)aran Singh and otherss, makes it clear that mere absence or not holding vatid license is not, by itself, sufficient to absolve the insurer of liability unless a fundamental breach of policy conditions is established. The relevant portion of the judgment is as under: " 1 Lo.(iiil The breach of poticg condit[on e.g. disqualification of the diuer or inualid diuing licence of the diuer, as contained in sub-section (2)(a)(it) of Section 149, has to be proued to haue been committed bg the insured for auoiding 5 lzootl z scc zst 12 liability bg tLLe insurer. Mere absence, fake or inut,t, licence or disqtnhficatiort of the diuer for drit,., releuant timc, are not in thern^selues deknces ctt t the insurer against either the tnsured or the third 1t auoid its lirtbiLity towords the i'tsured, Lhe insLL, t proue Lhat the insured LDas guittA of neglklence utt i exercise reasonclble care in the ma er o.f lL I i conrlitrcn o-f tLLe policg regarding use of uehicles t licertsed diuer or orte who LUas not disqutLltf.ecl t t the releuant titne." I driuing t at the ltdblc to r lics. ?o hrr.s lo t,tik:cl to '1'tlt the tu t lulg t'rtui: at

25. In the instant case, the Insurance Compi I1'has failed to discharge its burden of proving any such a fun,l: ite rital breach. In such circumstances, keeping in view the berr,, i,:r;rl and social welfare nature of the Act, the benelit should t: girren to the victim. Further, Ex.B 1 insurance policy n,as v:rl . ilnd in force on the date of the accident and provides for pr I jrnal Accident covcrage to the owner-cum-driver and as the cl,. ( ased stepped into the shoes of the owner, he is entitled to cor r r.,-r"atio,, ur-rlu to the extent of Personal Accident coverage.

26. The Tribunal, therefore, committed no er.r ( r in greutting compensation of Rs.2,00,OOO/, strictly in I rrms o1' the insurance policy contract i.e., to the extent pA is i.vcred rclying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Suprcrr e Court in Ramkhtlo.di's case(supra) and lixing liabili[r z s jointly and I l3 severally on the lst respondent/ o'"l'ner and 2"d respondent/ Insut'ance ComPanY

27. In view of the above fir-rdings' this Court is of the considered vierv that there arc no grounds to interfere $'ith or u,ith the lastening of either the qua-ntum of compensatron liability upon the Insurance Companl'' 2a. Accordingly, both MACMA No'55 of 2022 hled by the claimants for enhancement and MACMA No 118 of 2022 filed by the [nsurance Company to set aside the au'arr] of the Tribunal' aredevoidofmeritsandareaccordinglydismissed.Noorderas to costs . As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if anY' pending shall stand closed' S s5,$,?'-Ttt6iJi#R //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER 1 The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-ll Additional District Judge' at r.r i rr*au ao (with reco rd s',tn3lriouo"rr" 3ffi 33 B sJ'#Yiff"?,'o'fi&i;ra"uei Two CD CoPies p u cl To

2. 3. 4. Pr/ba d I t ;iffiD . ,. 1t'lt . -, !'- 6't J: q f, o (J s J. HIGH COURT DATED: 1211212025 COMMON JUDGMENT MACMA.Nos.55 AND fi8 AF 2022 DISMISSING THESE MACMA'S ,L IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO M.A.C.M.A.N OS: 55 AND 11 80F 2022 M.A.C.M.A. NO: 55 OF 2022 Between:

1. 9mt. S.Y_adamma, Wo. Late yadagiri.@ yadaiah, Aged about 4g years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. Devaruppara - vril-5ge, District. presenilv Rl/o.yeilareddipafii viilage, tridatwai Mandii,'Niz-;;;b;d Di;i;;t. ' '| '!vw'!'|', 2. S.Veeraiah, S/o. Veeraiah, Aged about ll y9afs, Occ: Nit R/o. Devaruppala Village, .Jangaon District. Fresenuy R/o'yetiiieddipaili Vitlage, t;;.rfi; Mandal, Nizamabad District. --.tirigaon ...APPE LLANTS/PETITIONERS AND

1. Shivarathri Sailu, No.AP 01 L 0758, Warangal Diskict 2 S/o.. Yadagiri, Aged. Major, Occ: Owner of the Tractor R/o. H.No. 1-34, Devaruppala Village, Jangaon District (Old H[r?Fjll!:,il:i:,"r8'"p;,"p',',H;t"ff fr ,"0J,'3'."'Jffil,yf ,?,1?:li Nagar, Nizamabad. ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS M.A.C.M.A,N 0:118 OF 2O22 Between: The Oriental lnsurance g.orpjny Limited, rep. by its Branch Manager, Branch office, D.No. 1-13-39514, 2"d ?roor, Hero'non'tta snowroom-vffik-*g"r, N iza ma bad (vide poricv No. 43 r 5e 1 /i 1 / zo t t t zsei T ara i - t -io:f ii-d: r - 2018) -iioi' AND ...APPELLANT/RESpONDENT No.2

1. 9mt.S.Y.adaqrma, Wo Late y_a-dagiri yadaiah, Aged 44 years, Occ: Housewife, Rr/o Devaruppara viilag-e, Drst. Jinagaon, "presenfl y' iJii.iing it Yellareddipalli Vittage of lndalwai MEndat, Dist- Ni2bmabad_5031i0 _@

2. S.Veeraiah, S/o Veeraiah, Aged 70 years, Occ.Nil, F! r Devaruppala Village, P-ist. Janagaon, Presently iesiding at Yellareddip r ri Village of lndalwai Mandal, Dist. Nizamabad-5031 iO

3. Shivarathri Sailu, S/o Yadagiri. Aged Major. Occ: O'r rer of the Tractor No. AP-O1-L-0758 Rl/o H.No. 1-334, Devaruppala Vi I (re, Dist Janagaon (Warangal). RESPOII )ENTS/PETITIONERS ...RESPONDEtI TRESPONOENT No.'l Appeal filed under Section '173 of the M.V.Act., agz i rst the Judgment and Decree dated 29-10-2021 in M.V.O.P.No.281 of 2017 on t re file of the Court of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-ll Additionrr District Judge, at Nizamabad. These appeals coming on for hearing and upon pt: lsing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Court below and 1le material papers in the MVOP and upon hearing the arguments of Sri. Kulder: r Jadhav, Counsel for the Appellant in MACMA.No. 55 of 2022 and Respondent i MACMA No. 118 of 2022 and of Sri B.YuvRaj, Advocate for the Respondent No : in MACMA.No. 55 of 2022 and Appellant in MACMA No. 118 of 2022. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appoi I be and hereby is dismissed;

2. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. SD/ M.OSMAN ALI BAIG ASI; STANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To

1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-ll Additior r Niza mabad. 2. Two CD Copies o District Judge, at HIGH COURT DATED: 1211212025 COMMON DECREE MACMA.Nos.55 AND 118 0F 2022 DISMISSING THESE MACMA'S 0) i