The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI V KRISHNA RAO Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2: ____ The Court made the following: JUDGMENT IN THE HTGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TI;LANGANA AT I{YDERABAD THE HON'BLE SRI WSTICE G.M.MOHIL DDIN M.A.C.M.A.No.438 OF 2O2O DATE:|L.12.2o25 BetweeD: Athmakuri Rajamani and another. Juttu Lachaiah and 2 others. AND ...Appellants . Respondeots JUDGMENT Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation ru,arded by the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-crr n III Additional District Judge at Karimnagar (hereinafter "Tribunal ' lbr brcvity) in M.V.O.P.No.7O3 of 2Ol2 by order and decree dated

9.1'2.20t7 , the appellants/ petitioners have frled the present r r pe:r[ seeking enhancement of compensation.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant; have lllcd the claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor VeL i 'les Act, 1988, (for short, 'the Act) before the Tribunal claiming t r mpenszrtron of Rs.6,OO,00O/- from the respondents for the death of t. rc deceased by name A-Lachaiah @ Devadas. Appellant No.l is the r.vrf and appellant \ 1 No.2 is the daughter of the deceased. On 31.10.2009, the deceased went to Vengalapet Village to attend the 2 lst day function of his relatives and after the said function while he was returning to Nancherla Village on his cycle; and when he reached at the outskirts of vengalapet at 7:3o P.M., R&B road culvert, respondent No.r drove his Hero Honda Splendor motorcycre bearing No.Ap-36-L- g462 (hereinafter 'crime vehicle' for brevity) in a rash and negligent manner with high speed dashed against the cycle of the deceased; as a result, the deceased fell down on the road and sustaincd grievous injuries on head and face and died on the spot. Alter considering the ora.[ and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition awarding compensation of Rs.4,19,00o/ with interest at 7.50/o per annum from the date of claim peLition ri[ rhe date of realization, holding the respondent Nos- 1 and 2 are ri:rbre for the same and respondent No.3-Insurance company was exoncfared from the liability. Dissatisfied with the quantum oi compensation, the presenI appeal seeking appellants/petitioners have filed the enhancement of compensation.

3. Heard Sri A.Mahboob Hussain, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri V.Krishna Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.3-lnsurance Company. There is no representation on behalf of respondent Nos. I and 2. perused the record. !--.r-'-, 3

4. The main contention of the leamed counsel for r ppellants is that though the appellants proved their case by adducin3 cogent evidence apart from relying on the documents under Exs'A-1 trr A-5 ald Exs.X- 1 and X-2, the Tribunal without considering the samr: has erroneously awarded meager amount. It was further contendecl t lat the Tribunal ought to have considered the income of the decease,l realistically and on a higher side and ought to have awarded just ancl reasonable compensation along with future prospects conside ri r g the age of the deceased and also contended tJ:at the Tribun:rl ought to have considered the principle of 'Pay and Recover' and prz yed to allou' the appeal by granting just and reasonable compensation.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel for responder.t No.3-lnsurance Company has contended that the Tribunal has rig I ly zrssesscd thc income of the deceased, and awarded just Lnd reasonable compe nsation and rightly exonerated the Insuralce rl tmpany from its liability to pay compensation. Therefore, in the imp r gnect ordcr and decree, interference of this Court is unwarralted.

6. Nor.r' the point for consideration is: Whether the impugned order and decree passed by '.t e Tibunal calls Jbr inlerJbrence bg this Court? lf so, ut, elher the' oppellants/ claimants are entitled for any enhar. :enu:nL o.f compensation?

7. It is pertiner-rt to note that respondent No.3 has r ot preferrcd any appeal challenging the impugned order. There is ro clisputc u,ith 4 regard to the relationship between the appellants and the deceased. There is also no dispute with regard to the occurrence and the manner of accident. The Tribunal by relying on the oral evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 coupled with the documentary evidence under Ex.A1-FIR and Ex.A2- inquest .epo.t has arrived at a conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle.

8. The frrst and foremost contention of thc learned counsel for the appellants is tl:at though the deceased was carning Rs 5,0OO/- per month as a Tailor, the Tribunal has considercd the salary of the deceased as Rs.3,O00/- per month and awardcd very mcager amount towards compensation. It is an admitted fact that the appellants have not placed any 9. evidence on record to establish that thc clcceased u'as earning Rs.5,0O0/- per month as Taitor. Further, P.W l herse l[ plcaded in her pleadings as well as deposed in her cross examination that the deceased was earning Rs.3,5OO/- only. In the absencc of any salary certificate or any other proof, there is no material to establish that the deceased was working as a Tailor and used to earn Rs 5,OoO/- per month. In the absence of any definite proof o[ incomc, the Tribunal has fixed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs 3,O0O/- on par with the average incorne which a coolie would carn per month' 5 lO. Further, learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insuralce Company vehemently argued that the Tribunal has : ightly assessed the income of the deceased after considering the :ntire evidence adduced by the appetlants. It was further argued t.-r rt the Tribunal after considering the evidence of R.Ws. I and 2 and E> s.Bl to 85 has rightty exonerated respondent No.3 from its l.r bility to pay compensation holding that the driver of the crime l :hicle was not holding valid and subsisting driving license at the time rf accident and the same does not call for any interference by this Courl I l. A perusal of the impugned order discloses tJ:at tt e Tribunal has clearly lallen into an error in law in treating a claim pe ition preferred under Section 163-A ol- the Acr, as if it were one unde: Section 166 of the Act. The legislative intent underlying Section 163-A rf the Act is to provide lor a structured formula compensation on the lt Lsis of no-fault liability, dispensing with the necessitlr of proving neglig:; ce on the parr of the driver or owner. The Hon'ble Supreme Cor- rt in Deepat Girish-bhai Soni u. United. Iudia Insurance Compang Llmltedr has authoritatively held rhat a claim under Section 163_A, f the Act is a final remedy and not an interim one and that it ope: Ltes in a field distinct from a claim under Section 166 of the Act In Oriental fnsurq.nce Comltang Ltmited. v. Meena Var.lgal2, it wz s observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that negligence is wholly i relevant in a '(2004) i scc 3E5 '(2ool) j scc qzs \ \ ) I i I I I I I 6 claim under Section 163-A of the Act. By embarking upon an enquiry into negligerrce and by recording findings thereon, the Tribunal acted beyond the scope of Section 163-A of the Act and thereby misdirected itself in law. The order, therefore, suffers from a manifest illegality in treating a no-fault claim as one founded on fault liability.

12. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, according to the appellants, the deceased was aged 33 years (as per Exs.Al to A3) and was engaged in Tailoring work and used to earn Rs.3,5O0/- per month. However, since the appellants failed to produce any material to show that the deceased was earning Rs.3,5OO/ - per month, the Tribunal had taken the income of the deceased at Rs.3,OOO/ - per month, which is not in accordance with Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Therefore, as the petition having been lrled under Section 163-4 of the Act, the income of the deccascd can be takerl at Rs.4O,OOO/- per annum. Since the claim petition is filed under Section 163-A of the Act, no future prospects can be granted Recently Division Bench of Hon'ble Sikkim High Court in case of The Brqnch Md.nager, Shrlram Cieneral Insurance Compang Limited u' Dilu Rai and otherd, held as follows: ''lt needs no reiteration th.at tle SuPreme Coull ha.s clearly spelt out as euident from tle decisli]ns cited supra that compensattott to be computed. under Sectton 163 of the M.V. Act is on the stnrctnred fomrula as it is based on no fattlt liabilitg. Once a person inuokes the prouisions of Smtion 163A, thc questton of inclusion of r (M.A.C.App. No.l0 of 201t, dated 04.04.m22) 7 Pecuruary compensation for non_tangibles and. fufure t, ,spec[s does nol arise. 2O,......... under Section 163A future prospects or a.r, other d!:P"q non-pecuniary heads find pi"n'ii*i^pir's tion in a Ctaim petition under Sectrcn tfe of ihe u.i. *i ii. ti'iri"a y?pyt?d on thc sttuctured formuia prouidecl ii 1..ona Schedule to tlle Act.,, -to' "o

13. Therefore, considering the above decision and in the factual matrix in the present case, the annual income of the d() eased is taken as Rs.40,0OO/-. The deceased was having two depenc r nts, therefore, as per the decision of Hon,ble Supreme Court in Sor oila Vennq. u. Delhi Transport Corporation, I I 3rd has to be derl rcted towards personal expenses of the deceased. After deducting t/3.d amount towards his personal and tiving expenses, the contr.i )ution of the deceased to the lamily would be Rs.2Q662 | _ per annuij (Rs.40,0OO/_ - Rs. 13,333/-). As per Exs.Al to ,{3, the age of the years as on the date of accident. Since the age of the above 3O years and below 35 years at the time of thr ' accident, the appropnatc multiplier is 'l Z, as per the second scherl rle. Adopting multiplier ' l7', the roral loss of dependency would be Rs i 6,662 /_ x 17 = Rs.4,53,339/-. Ttrus, thc loss of dependency on a( lount of the demise of deceased is Rs_4,53,339/_. I :ceased is 33 leceased was l4 The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. l0,OOO/-tov ards funeral expenses, Rs.l0,o00/- Rs.10,000/- rowards towards consortium and o estate, Rs.S,OOC 7 - towards o (2oog) o scc r: r \ \ t , I I i I I i I 8 transportation, as per the principle laid down in National Insltta,nce Comltdng u. Prdtudg *thi dnd.othersg. It is a well settled principle that in a claim petition under Section 163-A of the Act, the compensation payable is to be determined strictly in accordance with the structured formuia provided under the Second Schedule of the Act. Therefore, the compensation under conventional heads, such as, loss of consortium, funeral expens€s, and loss of estate must also be awarded strictly in terms of the limits prescribed in the Second Schedule, and not in accordance with Section 166 of the Act. Thus, considering the Second Schedule of the Act, the claimants are zrlso entitled to Rs.2,OOO/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.2,SOO/- towards loss of estate. Further appellant No. I i.e., wife of the deceased is entitled for Rs.S,OOO/- towards spousal consortium. Thus, in all, the appellants are entitled for Rs.4,62,8391- i.e., (Rs.4,53,339/- + Rs.2,O00/- + Rs.2,500/- + Rs.5,OO0/-).

15. It is pertinent to note that the Tribunal after considering the fact that respondent No.l i.e., driver of the crirne vehicle was not holding a valid and subsisting driving license as on the date of accident, came to a conclusion that respondent No.3-Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation and exonerated from its held liability to pa-v' compensation and respondent Nos.1 and 2 are held liable jointlSr and severally to satisfy the compensation amount awarded. ' (20 t?) 16 scc 680 9 t L6. It is well established law that even if the dli .er of the crime ime of accident, vehicle was not holding a valid driving license at the in such scenario also respondent No.3-lnsurance ( ompany cannot shun its liability to pay compensation, claiming th€.r at the relevant point of time, the vehicte was driven by a person raving no valid driving license' The lnsurance company can be macrr iabre initiary to pay the amount that is awarded and later, the same c rn be recovered from the owner and the driver of the crime vehicle, whc have been held liable for the compensarion.

17. It is an admitted fact that in the present case, re ;pondent No.3_ Insurance Company has issucd a policy which was val < as on the date of accident and when a valid insurance policy has rcen issued in respect of a vehicle as evidenced by the certificate o:. insurance, the burden is on the insurer to pay to the third parties eve. in the absence of a valid driving licensc being possessed by the drive.- of the insured vehicle, subject to hor,vever, to the condition that the ir. nount so paid by the insurer to the third parties can be recovered f-, m the person liable, as per the polic' c.nditions. Thc insurer and tl e insured are bound by the conditions cnumerarcd in the policy anc the insurer is not liable to the insured if there is violation of any policy :ondition. But the insurer who is made statutorily liable to pay comperr, ation to third parties on account of rhe certificate of insurance rss:ed shall be entitled to recover firtm thc insured the amount paul to t1.e third \ l0 parties, if there was any breach of policy conditions on account of the vehicle being driven without a valid Driving License.

18. The Hontrle Supreme Court in Hind. Samsr,lrar Ltd. (Delhi Unlt) v. Natlonal Insurance Compang Llmlted. and other* held. "16. As has been noticed io Geeta Deu (supra) there is no pteading or substantiation of due diligcnce having not been empl.oyed at the time of entrustmcnt. R I W I was the Advertising In-charge of the appellant who produced the liccnce before the Court as .Exhibit RIWI/1. The certillcate issued by the RTO Gurdaspur was also marked as Rl which we referred to from the additional documents. In cross examination, there was only a bland suggestion made to tlrc witness that the Directors o[ R2 knerv that Rl possessed only a fa]e driving licence. There were no questions put to the witness, who was examined on behalf of the owner, as to the actual entrustment of the vehicle or whcthcr R I was employed regularly or temporarily and when such employment commenced, which are crucial insofar as proving or disproving due diligence by the owner at the time of engagement of the drivcr and the entrustment of the vehicle. As has been rishtlv held bv the Drecedents above noticed. he owne r of a vehicle emolovine a driver can only look at teekrns employment and is not expccted to verifu from the licence issuins the licence produced by the De h whether the licence is In this regard, this Court is of the considered opinion that the (emphasis supplied) principle of 'Pay and Recover' will apply to the facts of the present case and the lnsurance Company is liable to pay the compensation awarded 6 2025 SCC Onlrne SC 2185 / ( ) \ I 'los. 1 and 2 i.e., and take steps to recover the same from respondent driver and owner of the crime vehicle. 19. It is to be seen that out of the initially awarded :ompensation of Rs.4,l9,O0O/-, the Tribunal awarded I?s.2,69,0OO/- rr appellant No.l, who is wife of the deceased and Rs. t,5O,OOO/_ to apF( llant No.2, who is the daughter of the deceased. The Tribunal further : rected that out of the awarded sum, appellant No.l was permittr f to withdraw Rs.1,69,000/-. The balance of Rs. 1,00,O00/_ was direct d to be kept in fxed deposit in any nationalized Bank for a period o. one year and appellant No.2 was permitted to withdraw entire sh: -e amount by taking steps under law for major declaration. It is pr,r t.inent to note that the time frame of one year fixed b1. the Tribunal u.i..J regard to the deposit of part of compensation amount irr any nationel zed bank has expired. F.urther, appellant No.2 has already attainr 1 the age of maJority. \ I 1

20. In view of the above facts and circumstances, this ( ourt is of the considered view that the impugned order passed by t^ Tribunal is required to be modified to the extent of above observations 21. In the result, the Appeal is allorved in part by er hancing the compensation amount from Rs.4, t9,OOO/_ to Rs.4,62,I l9/_, which shall carry interest @ 9o/o pcr annum from the date of fil r g the claim application till the date of rcalizarion. The respondent No.3 being \ a. I t2 ulsurer of the crime vehicle shall deposit the compensaticn amount within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and then take steps to recover the sarne jointly and severally from respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in accordance with law. On such deposit, the appellant No. 1 is awarded an amount of Rs.2,g2,g39/- and appellant No.2 is awarded an amount of Rs. l,gO,OOO/_. The appellants are entitled to withdraw the entire amount awarded to them without fumishing any securitlr. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. SD/- A.JAYASREE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1 ' The chairman Motor Accident craims Tribunar-cum-, Additionar Diskict Judge, Karimnagar. . One CC to Sri Mahboob Hussain, Advocate fOpUCl . One CC to Sri V Krishna Rao, ROvocate-fOitif"", . Two CD Copies 2 3 4 ABK/PSL HIGH COURT DATED: 1211212025 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.43B ot 2O2O () c) c I t E SIAT HI t | 6 r[B?m SF'AT ?z ;)\ {- t PARTLY ALLOWNG THE MACMA WITHOTJT COSTS b * \\ I I [ 3484 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERAAAD FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.M. MOHIUDDIN MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO:438 OF 2020 Between:

1. Athmakuri Rajamani, Wo.Late Lachaiah @ Devadas, Age: 32 years, Occ: Household,

2. Athmakuri Renuka, D/o.late Lachaiah, Age: 14 years, Occ. Student Both R/o.H.No.3-7'1 , Yellapur village now Nancherla V/o.Pegadapalli mandal of Karimnagar District. (Appellants No.2 is minor under the guardianship of her natural mother next friend i.e. Appellant I'Io.1). ...Appellants/Petitioners AND

1. Juttu Lachaiah, S/o.Durgaiah, Age: 47 years, Occ: Rider of Fbro Honda Splendor bearing No.AP-36-L-8462, R/o. Chippakurthi V/o. Ramadugu mandal of Karimnagar district.

2. P.Ramesh, S/o.Komuraiah, Age, 40 years, Occ. Owner of Hero Honda Splendor bearing No. AP-36-L-8462, R/o.H.No.'1 1-2448, M.V.Colony, Desaipet V/o.Warangal district.

3. The Oriental lnsurance Company Limited, Rep. by its Manager, Br,Office: Warangal proper and district. (Policy No.43't403/31/2009/3183 valid up to 28t12t2009) ,..Respondents/Respondents l'1o.1 to 3 Appeal Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree in M.V.O.P.No.7O3 of 2012 dated 19-12-2O17 on the file of the Court of the Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-lll Additional District Judge, Karimnagar. ORDER. This appeal coming on forhearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Tribunal and the material papers in the MVOP and upon hearing the arguments of Sri A Mahboob Hussain, Advocate for the Appellants and of Sri V Krishna Rao, Advocate for the Respondent No.3 and none appeared for the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2. / This Court doth Order and Decree as follows

1. That the MACMA is allowed in part by enhancing . amount from Rs.4,19,000/- to Rs.4,62,g39/_, whk;l @ 9o/o per annum from the date of filing the claim date of realization;

2. That the Respondent No.3 being insurer of the crir deposit the compensation amount within one morr receipt of a copy of this Judgment and then take ; same jointly and severally from Respondent Nos.1 with law; 3- On such deposit, the appellant No.1 is awarded ir Rs.2,82,839/- and appellant No.2 is awarded an zrr Rs.1,80,000/-; 4. That the appellants are entifled to withdraw the err 5. That there shall be no order as to cosis in this app, to them without furnishing any security; re compensation shall carry interest rpplication till the re vehicle shall r from the date of ,.ps to recover the and 2 in accordance r amount of rount of re amount awarded ral. iD/- A. JAYASREE ASSI:J TANT REGISTRAR I J.-+ ;ECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, 1 . The Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal_cum_ I 2. Two CD Copies Judge, Karimnagar. Additional District ABK /PSL t ( HTGH COURT DATED: 1211212025 DECREE MACMA.No.438 of 2020 PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS g) le.b