The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. A V K S PRASAD Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3: Sri K.SUBBARAO REP SRI AELLA MADHAVA REDOY Counserl for the Respondents 4 & 5: None appeared The Corurt delivered the following: JUDGMENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR M.A. .M.

0.698 0F2024 JUDGMENT: HeardSriA.V.K.S.Prasad,learnedcounselforthepetitionerand Sri K.SubbaRao, leamed counsel representing Sri A'Madhava Reddy appearing for respondentNos.l to 3.

2. The present Appeal is filed by the appellant-United India Insurance Company Limited assailing the order in M'V'O'P'No'2645 of 2014 dated 21.08.2023 passed by the leamed IX Additional Chief Judge City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short "the Tribunal") allowing the claim awarding the compensation of Rs'28,87,0001- along with 8% interest per annum out of the claim of Rs.21,00,000/-'

3. The facts which reveal from M'V'O'P'No'2645 of 2014 are that the deceased on 24.05.2010 at 6.00 A'M was proceeding along with the claimants in the Toyota Qualis bearing No' AP 09 AN 6126 where the vehicle reached outskirts of Sholapur, one goods lorry vide MHl2 FA 9567 (for short "the crime vehicle"), the driver of Qualis lost control and gave dash hitting to the back side wheel of the goods lorry' which is coming in opposite direction on account of which' the deceased and his brother-in-law T.Venkatesh sustained injuries badly along with 2 others. while undergoing treatment at Sholapur Government hospital, one T.venkatesh died on the account of the accident at Sholapur Governme,nt Hospital on z4.os.2ot0, whereas, the deceased has shifted to Apollo Hospital, Hyderabad, where he succumbed to injury on

02.06.20t0. 4- Basing on the incident, Sholapur police registered a case in crime No. 123 of 2010 under Section 304-,{, 337 and33g of the l.p.c. Thereafter, the respondents/claimants have filed M.v.o.p.No.2 465 of 2014 clainLing compensation of Rs.21,00,000/- along with the interest.

5. Before the learned Tribunal, Respondent No.l who is the dwner of the vehicle remained ex parte, whereas respondent No.2, who is the appellant herein denied all the allegations that the deceased did not die on accounr of the accident and the deceased was not insured by the appellant. The respondent no. 2 therein contended that claimants did not make the driver of the crime vehicle as party to this petition and there is gross negligence on the part of the driver of the crime vehicle. Therefore, respondent No.2 contended that the claim is liable to the dismissed. t 3

6. Basing on the pleadings, leamed Tribunal frarned the following issues for trial: i- whether the acctdent took prace due to the rash and negligence drivtng of Qualis Bearing No.Ap-09-BN-6126 causing death of the deceased D.Raghavendra Chary? ii. whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what extent andfrom whom? iii. To whot relieJ? 7 - on behalf of the claimants, p.w.l to p.w.3 were examined and Ex.Al to A7 were marked and on behalf of the appe[ant-[nsurance company R.w.[ was examined and Exs.Bl and 82 were marked. C.W.l was examined and Ex.Xl to X3 were marked.

8. The learned Tribunal on perusal of the contentions, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Toyota Qualis bearing No.Ap-09AN-6r26. Further, while addressing the Issue No.2 held that p.w.2 is the eye witress who is also one of the occupants of the vehicle and subsequently, after amendment, he filed an additional chief aflidavit correcting the vehicle Number. During the cross-examination, P.w.2 stated that he did not lodge any complaint about the accident at sholapur and admitted that he did not receive ) 4 summons from the Court. g. It is further observed that the claimant examined one G.Venkatesh as P.W.3 who was an employee of the deceased, who died in a road accident and stated that the deceased was running IWs' Naga Auto Electrician Shop and worked as a mechanic, eaming a salary of Rs.8,000/- per month.

10. Then;fore, the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion and awarded a t;ompensation of Rs.28,87,000/- to the claimants holding the liability jointly and severally.

11. Leamed counsel for the appellant contended that when the Insurance Oompany-Respondent No.2 has proved through R'Wl that the car of the insured was given for heir at the time of the accident, which was a clear breach of the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance Ex.B l.Whereas, the leamed Tribunal totally erred in fastening tne liability on respondent No.2-[nsurance Company and further contended that the learned Tribunal committed grave error in taking the monthly income of the deceased at Rs-12,000/- in the absence of the substantial evidence put forth by the claimants and also 1 5 the leamed Tribunal committed an error in adding 50yo ofthe future prospects in the case in order to grant loss of dependency. 12- Leamed counsel for the appe[ant further contended that the learned Tribunal ought to have fastened the entire liability on the respondent No.l/insured who is the owner exonerating the Insurance Company from irs liabiliry.

13. Learned counsel for the respondents (claimants) placed reliance on section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 which states : "33. Relevancy of certain evidence for proving, in subsequent proceeding, the truth offacts therein stated- Eiidence given by a witness in a judicial proceeding, or before any person authorised by law to rake it, is relevant for the purpose of proving, in a subsequent judicial proceeding, or in a later stage of the same judicial proceeding, the truth of the facts which it states, when the witness is dead, or cannot be found, or is incapable of giving evidence, or ts lcept out of the way by the adverse party, or d his presence cannot be obtained without an amount of deray or expense which under the circumstances of the case, the court considers unreosonable : Provided that the proceedingwas between the same parties or their repres e ntot ive s in inte r es t ; that the adverse party in the /irst proceedtng had the right and ) I J 6 oppor tunity to cro s s -e xamine : that ,he questions in issue were substantially the same in thefirst as in the second proceeding. "

14. Leanred counsel by placing reliance on Section 33 of the Indian Evidence l\ct contended that in terms of Section 33 of the tndian Evidence A.ct, the prior testimony of a witness given in earlier judicial proceedingri becomes relevant and admissible in a subsequent proceeding when the witness is dead, cannot be found, has become incapable of giving evidence, or cannot be produced without unreasonable delay or expenses. [t is contended that the statement of such a witress can be relied upon for establishing the truth of the facts stated therein, especially in motor accident claims where the presence of witnesses riometimes becomes impossible due to lapse of time or unavoidabk: circumstances.

15. Leamed counsel further relied on Rule 465 of the A.P' Motor Vehicles Rrrles, which states: '165. Method of recording evidetce :- l'he Cloins Tribunol shall, as examin.uion of u'itttcsscs proccetls, makc a briqf' ntcmorandunt ql the substance oJ-the evidence of each vitness und such nrcmorarulum shall be written arul signed by the members of the ()laims kibunal arul shctll.form part of the racord: '., r i -.,-' 7 Provided that the evidence of any medical u'irness shall be taken down as nearly as moy he v'ordfor u;ord."

16. Th'erefore, learned counsel submits that the procedure before the learned Tribunal is distinct from that before a Civil Court. Under Rule 465, the learned Tribunal is empowered to examine witnesses, prepare a memorandum of their statements, and such memorandum, duty signed by the Tribunal, forms part of the record. It is emphasized that strict rules of evidence and formal chief-examination and cross-examination applicable to civil trials are not mandatory before the learned Tribunal. The rule provides flexibility in recording evidence so that the leamed Tribunal. may adopt a summary procedure to effectively adjudicate claims involving motor accident victims and their dependents.

17. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the order passed by the learned Tribunal is well-reasoned and supported by the material on record. [t is contended that the Tribunal has correctly appreciated the ora[ and documentary evidence, including the testimony of the eye-witnesses, and has rightty fastened liability on the Insurance Company. Therefore, according to the respondents, the award does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference by this Court, and the .4:.;:., t: 1-1. i r"r*l" ''i:.r a - ...4;r - ,J,. ) J I appeal deserves to be dismissed.

18. I have given my eamest my eamest consideration to the submission:; made on either side, and perused the entire record.

19. The r:ontention urged by the leamed counsel for the appellant is that the ovmer, examined as a witness in O.P.No.388 of 2013, had stated that the Qualis vehicle was taken on hire and, therefore' the insured vio lated the policy conditions. However, the owner examined before the claimanls in the present proceedings did not depose regarding hrlving collected any hire charges. In the absence of clear and cogent eviclence establishing the alleged breach, such a contention cannot be ar:cepted.

20. With respect to the further contention regarding award of 5002 future prospects, it is relevant to note that this Court, in M.A.C.M.A.No.2477 of 2017 dated 09.09.2025, holding that while of compensation must be fair and reasonable, the addition towards futrrre prospects should ordinarily be 40%o in the case of a deceased below 40 years who is self-employed or engaged in a private occupation. At the same time, the Court also recognized that 9 enhancement under conventional heads, incidental expenses, and reasonable projection of future earnings in business may be taken into consideration to ensure that the dependants are adequately compensated. The untimely death of a 27-year-old earning member inflicts a huge loss which cannot be measured merely in monetary terms, and therefore, the compensation must be just, fair, and reasonable.

21. Considering the submissions of both sides and the findings of the Tribunal, this Court confirms the order passed in M.V.O-P.No.2645 of 2}l4dated 21.08.2023 which is reasonable and justified.

22. In view of the same, the Appeat is dismissed by confirming the order and decree dated 2t.08.2023 passed by the learned IX Additional Chief Judge City Civil Court, Hyderabad. There shall be no order as to costs.

23. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this Appeal shall stand closed. Sd/. M /TTRUE COPY// OFFICER t To P. l, $r#[s.;t* gmfifrdffiEftTtf,"#:ri Add "na ch er HIGH COURT GPK,.' DATED:17l1 ,lr, I 25 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.698 ot 2024 ST.t o C) 12 tEB 2U5 * :.)i 7i : * DISM!SSED t $ $, IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT FRIDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GAD! PRAVEEN KUII'AR TO Between: M/s. United lndia lnsurance Company Limited, Rep. by Divisional Office, Lenaine Estate, Gunfoundry Hyderabad (Policy No. 051400/31/09/96n1n@, Valid from 1 5-08-2009 to'l 4-08-201 0. nd respondent in MVOP

1. Dharmapuri Anu Radha, Wo. Late Raghavendra Chary, Aged about 32 years, Occ: Housewife.

2. Master Akshith, S/o. Late Raghavendra Chary, Aged about 10 years, Occ: V Class.

3. Master Akhilesh, S/o. Late Raghavendra Chary, Aged 6 years, Occ: lClass. NO -2 and 3 being minor, rep. by their natural mother as a uardian, Respondent No. 1 herein). All are Rl/o 13-6-175 & 176, karwan, Hyderabad. now satyanarayana Nagar, Jaffarguda,

4. D. Srinivasa Chary, S/o. Late Brahmaiah Aged about 74 years, Occ: Retired BHEL Employee, R/o. LIG 606, Bharath Nagar, BHEL, Hyderabad.

5. Syed lmtiaz Ahmed, S/o. not known Aged about Major, Occ: Owner, R/o. H.No. 19-54,U4l39/1, Kishan Bagh, Asadbaba, Hyderabad. RESPONDENTS/Petitioners in MVOP ...RESPONDENT/1"i Respondent in MVOP Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against order and Decree made in M.V.O.P.No. 2465 of 2014, dated 21-08-2023 2021 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal -Cum- lX Additional Chief Judge, City-Civil Court, at Hyderabad. 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 argument of SRl. A V K S PRASAD, Advocate for the Appellant and Sri K.SUBBARAO Representing SRI AELLA MADHAVA REDDY, Advocate for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 and None appeared for Respondent no.4 and 5. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: 1 . Thart the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is Dismissed;

2. That there shall be no order as to costs in this Appeal. Sd/- M.JAWAHAR REDDY REGISTRAR l i OFFICER To

1. The Ccurt of the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal -Cum- lX Additional Chief - fudge, ,3ity Civil Court, at Hyderabad. (With Records if any) 2. Two CD Copies KVR,/PR HIGH COURT DATED:1711012025 DECREE MACMA.No.698 of 2024 DISMISSED \