'1 . Bandari Sujatha v. Satish B

2. Shriram General lnsce Co. Ltd, Rep. By its Branch lVlanager, Branch Office, Door No. 5-6-570/8, ll Floor, Besides Axis Bank NR, Kapila Hotel, Hyderabad Road, Nizamabad. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellants: AMRUTHA SANJEEVA Counsel for the Respondents: A RAMAKRISHNA REDDY The Court made the following: JUDGMENT 7 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA M.A.C.M.A.No.365 of 2O2O JUDGMENT: The appellants/claimants fiIed the present appeal against the Award and decre,: passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I .\dditionai District Judge, Nizamabad, (hereinafter referred to 'learrLed Tribunal') in M.V.O.P.No.562 of 20 15, dated 2l.Ol.2O2O, wherein claimants had filed the claim petition under Section 166-A an,l 166(1)(c) of M.V.Act, 19BB read rvith Rule 455 of M.V.Rules, seekirLg compensation ol Rs. 15,00,000/ on account of death of Baldari Gurumej Singh (@ Gurumej Singh, (herein after referred as 'deceased'), who died in Motor Vehicle accident occurred on

73.rO.20t4.

2. The brief fa,:ts of the case are that appellants/claimants filed M.V.O.P.No.562 oI 2015 under Secrion 166-A and 166(1)(c) of M.V.Act, 1988 read with Rule 455 ol M.V. Rr-rles seeking compensation for the death of the deceatsed, who died in the accident. Appellant No. 1 is the wife and appellant Nos.2 and 3 are the daughters of the deceased. On

13.10.2014, on tlre instructions of Lorry owner i.e., i.e., respondent 2 /VNR,J MACMA lto-365 of 2o2o No.1, the deceased started driving the Lorry bearing No'AP 25-U-4458 from Koramandal cement Factory and was proceeding towards Nizamabada and when he reached near Williamoon X Road' Tandur City at about 10:00 a.m, however, the deceased drove the l'orry in reverse side due to which he fell dorn'n from the steering seat and sustained multiple fractures and other grievous injuries all over his body' Immediately, the deceased was taken to Government Hospital' Tandur' however, the deceased succumbed to inj uries' The Police registered a case in Crime No.20 5 of 2014 under Section 304-A of IPC against the driver of the offending vehrcle'

3. The contention of the appellalts before the Tribnal was that as on the date of accident, the deceased was aged about 47 years and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month apart from batta of Rs'300/- per day by working as driver under respondent No' 1' Due to the said accident' the appellants lost their dependency' The appellants claimed an amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- under various heads as compensation for the death of t the deceased

4. Respondent No. 1 hled written statement stating that deceased was working as driver under respondent No' 1 and the respondent No l paid -/ 3 I \R,J MACMA No.365 ol20ZO monthiy salary oi Rs. 10,000/- per month and barta of Rs.30O/_ per day and the lorry bearing No.Ap-25-U-445g is involved in the accident was insured with Shriram Genera-l Insurance Company Limited i.e., respondent No.2, and the insurance policy is in force as on the date ot the accident.

5. Respondent No.2 - Shriram General Insurance Company Limited filed a counter-affidavit, denying all the averments made in the claim petition, including the manner in which the accident took place, age, avocation and income of the deceased and submittecr that the driver of the offending Lorry was not holding valid driving licence at the time of accident and further contended that the compensation claimed is excessive and pral'ed to dismiss the claim petition.

6. Basing on the pleadings and averments madb by both the counsels, the learr_. ed Tribunal framed the following issues: i) Whether on i3.lO.2Oi4 at about IO:OO am netrr W liamoort X Road, Tandur, accident occurrec, due to rash and negligent diuing of torry Nc''AP 25 u 4a5i bg tts diuer? ,!-Y:rI., Bandtn acctdent qnd dea of the injunes? iii) Whether the petitioners are entitle(i for competsltion? If so, t(, tDhQt antount and from uthich re,spondent? Singh @ Gurumej Singh receiued injuies itl that -G_urumej iu) To whglrgJjeJ? ..-\\ 4 NflR,J MACMA I'10'365 of 2O2O 'l After perusing the oral and documentary evidences and going into the entire record al1d tl-re evidences placed by both the parties, the learned Tribunal allowed the claim in part by granting compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- along with interest @ 7 5o/" per annum'

8. Being aggrieved ald unsatislted by the meager compensatlon amount awarded by the learned Tribunal, the present appeal is filed on the ground that the learned Tribunal ignored the evidence placed by the appellants/claimants as well as respondent No' 1 that the deceased was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month by rvorking as driver under respondent No.1 apart from batta of Rs'3O0/ per day' The Tribunal ought to have assessed income of the deceased (i Rs.4O,0o0/ per annum as per the in United Insurance Compgng Limited a judgment Passed C.Mallikariunat. g. Learned counsel for the respondent No 2-lnsurance Company contended that, as per the settied law' when a person drives a vehicle with the consent of owner of said vehicle, Such person for all practical purposes steps into the shoes of the ou'ner and cannot be considered as I 2006(4) ALD 658 5 iJ lR,J MACMA No.365 of 2O2O third party an<l the Tribunal has right rightly awarded the compensation of Ils.2,00,ooo/- which is just and reasonable and needs no interference by this Court. l0 Learned counsel for the respondent No.2-rnsurance company also relied on the judgments passed by the Hon,ble Supreme Court in t/ National Insurance compang Limited. a.Barjit Kaur & othersz q.nd it) Deepal Glirish Bhai Song Vs. United. India Insurance compang3 and i) National Insntq.nce Compang Limtted. a. Shanthi & Other*. l l Learned counsel for the respondents submits that has contended that considering tlee orai and documentary evidence. the Tribunal has rightly awarded tLLe compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- u.hich is just and reasonable and ner:ds no interference by this Court. 12 The respondr:nts have not filed cross-appeal against the Award and decree passecl by the Tribuna,l. As such, the claimant is satished with the Award and decree and the compensation aw.arded by the Tribunal.. The onll'point arose before this court in this appeal is that: 'z lzoz+; z scc r i 2oo4 (5) scc 38s ' 2022 AC) t032 6 MACMA ^10.365 NI{R,J of 2O2O \ "i) Whether the Tribunal had rightly considered the claimants petition filed under Section 163(A) read with and autarded just comp ensation to the cloimants. ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for the compensation in uieut of the self made accident and seLf negligence."

13. Admitted, the deceased died on 13.10.2014 due to self-accident of the deceased and the petitioners filed claim petition before Tribunal under Section 163-A of M.V.Act. As per settled la'"r', though the risk of the deceased was not covered as a third party, still his risk was covered under a special or additional contract to grant compensation to the legal representative i.e., claimants herein. As per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ningamtna & Anr a. United India Insurance Compang Limtie&, it was held that in order to claim compensation, the recipient had to be a third partv. If the driver is the owner of the I motor vehicle or if the vehicle had been driven by ahother, he would step into the shoes of the owner and therefore, from a reading of Section 163A, it is clear that the legal representative of the deceased is not entitled to comPensation." s (2009) 13 scc 710 7 JV]W,J MACMA tb.365 of 2O2O

14. [n a Judgmenr between Ramkhiladi and Anr Vs The IJnited India Insurance Compang & Anf , the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that to claim compensation in a claim under Sec. 163(A) of the MV Act, the deceased has to be a third party to the policy.

15. In the instant case, the deceased under the instructions of owner of the vehicle, d rove the vehicle and accidentally lell dorvn from the cabin of the lorry and received fatal injuries all over the body and succumbed to rn;uries. Admittedly, there is no vehicle involved in the accident except the offending vehicle. Applying the principle held by the Supreme Court in cited above, the Insurer is not liable to pay compensation, since deceased is not a third party as per the provisions of the M.V. Act, 1,)88.

16. In view of j.dgments discussed above, it can be safely concluded that the decease<l is not third party as he stepped into the shoes of owner and by alrplying the principle held by the Apex Court more particularly in Shanthi's case (cited. aboae), hence the Insurer is not Iiable to pay compensation, since deceased is not a third party as per the provisions of the M.V. Act, 1988. b AIR 2020 SC 527 8 rvnR,J MACMA I,10-365 of 2O2O

17. The only aspect which the appelrants/ petitioners contended that the payment of the compensation can be paid under the personal accident but not as a third party as driver being engaged by the respondent No. I and owner of the vehicle and the learned tribunal having considered the personal accident policy and the payment of the premium of Rs.SO/, was paid to the driver of the vehicle, the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that risk of the deceased was not covered as a third party for grant compensation to his legal heirs. As per Ex.Pl insurance policy, the insurance company has collected additional premium of Rs.10O/- for owner-cum-driver and Rs.50/- torvards driver,s payment. Admittedly, on payment of Rs.50/- ro the driver, the driver was covered with coverage of personal accident to an extent of Rs.2,00,000/-. Being the personal accident coverage in respect of the driver and partly allowed the said ctaim-petition by awarding Rs.2,00,000/- with interest @ 7 .5o/o.

18. The Ex.B1 (lnsurance Copy), the insurance had collected a premium of Rs.SO/- toward driver's premium and the Ex.B1 policy shows that the extent of personal accident coverage to an extent of , 9 AINR,J MACMA 1,10.365 oJ 2020 Rs.2,00,000/-, hence the Tribunal granted Rs.2,OO,00O/_ witi, Z.Soh interest to the cl.imants appears to be good and needs no interference .

19. .Therefore, this court do not see any ground to interfere with the order passed by Motor Accident claims Tribunal-cum-l Additional District Judge, Nizamabad, in M.V.O.p.No.562 of 20 i5, dated 21 .o1.2o2o. Accordingiy, this appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs

20. Miscellaneous petitions, if any are pending, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPYII sd/- . OSMAN ALI BAIG ANT REGISTRAR S S CTION OFFICER I

1. The Chairman, l\4ACT-cum- I Additional District Judge at Nizamabad 2. One CC to SI\/T ATVRUTHA SANJEEVA Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRI A, RAMAKRTSHNA REDDY Advocate tOpUCI 4. Two CD Copies To, GR nr' s 5 I HIGH COURT DATED:2010612025 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.365 of 2020 q" ;\. ,: -../, '.:' "l ' ' ,>1!-,<."rr1.ri'' -,.-_...iit-,,:; . - t DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS b $ \9 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTTCE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA MOTOR ACCIDE NT CIVIL MISCELLANE OUS APPEAL NO: 365 0F 2020 Between: 1 2 tha W/o.Bandari Gurumei or Singh or Gurumej Singh-' Aged 36 ''iI"r-iJir:f'"U,- nyo. H.tto.g-ZO-1345, Satishnagar, Autonagar' Bandari Suia years, Occ. Nizamabad. Bandari Nikiitha, D/o. Bandari Gurumej Singh-or Gurumej Singh' Aged 13 - nlo. H.No e:20-1385, Satishnasar' Autonasar' ;#:: oJJ.'"3tuo""tl Nizamabad Bandari Gurumej Singh or Gurumej Singh, Aged 11 --Ryt H.t to.g-20-t 5es, Satishnagar, Autonagar'

3. Bandari Nishitha, D/o. years, Occ. Student, Nizama bad (Aooellants Nos.2 and 3 are minors Represented by the guardianship of their iaiural motrer Appellant No.1) ...APPELLANTS AND 1 2 Satish B, S/o.Dada Rao, Aged 49 years, Orvner of the Lorrl Bearing No AP- 25-U-4458, R/o.6-1 '1 -1 32, Namdevwada NrzamaDao ' Shriram General lnsce Co. Ltd, Rep By its Branch Manaoer' Branch Office' Door No. 5-6-570/8, ll Floo;E;;i;5t"A'*G B';k'NR' Kapiia Hotel' Hvderabad Road, Nizamabad. ...RESPONDENTS Appeal filed under Section '173 of Motor Vehicles-Act aqainst the Judgment and a'^i"a Zl-l-2020 on th'e file of the Court of the decree in M.V.O.p. r:'ro. so)"ot )Oi c;;i;;;, M"toi nccioents-cLims Tribunat cum I Additional District Judge at N izamabad -s The appeal coming on hearing and upon. perusing the grounds of appeal' the Judgmeni'and Decrei oi the Couit below and ihe material papers in the IyVOP and uo6n hearinq the arguments of AMRUTHA SANJEEVA' Advocate for the [p;"tt;;i ,il oiE nnvnr"nlsHNA REDDY, Advocate for the Respondent' This Court doth Order and Decree as follows 1 2 a J That the d ism issed. Motor Accident Civil [Vliscellaneous Appeal be and itii :?ile,.?:,T::?ffiltJ""*' the decree or the rribunar shar stands lhat there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. hereby is confirmed //TRUE COPYII sd/. M. OSMAN ALI BAIG AS T NT REGISTRAR s CTION OFFICER To, 1 2 The Chairman, I\4ACT_cum_ I Additional District Judge at Nizamabad. Two CD Copies GR HIGH COURT DATED:2010612025 DECREE MACMA.No.365 ot 2020 DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS Lt 1l'r-