The High Court · 2025

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 SRI A. RAIVIAKRISHNA REDDY, Advocate for the Appellant, and SRI C. MOHAN PRAKASH, Advocate appeared for the Respondent No.1 to 4 and none appeared for respondent No.5 & 6 This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Motor Accident Civrl [\,4iscellaneus Appeal L,e anri is hereby par y allowed.

2. fhat the appella nt-insura nce company be and is here:by directed to pay the compensation amount at the ftrst instance to respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein as directed by the Tribunal and to recover the same from respondent Nos 5 and 6

3. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeerl Itfrue Copyll SD/- A.V.S. PRASAD )EPUTY REGISTRAR G SECTION OFFICER To

1. 2 The Court of the lX Additional Chief Judge, City Civrl C:ourt at Hyderabad Two CD Copies. GE \^/ HIGH COURT DATED:2410712025 DECREE MACMA.No.764 ot 2023 4t:'7 .t: i\\ ,a,','.;! .-\<r l,: - .$, 5: t\ it.l l!.-- ii ij ' (:- ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS \r ."rtel \r-^" ,,/.d). 'a(\\q' I I IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD 134421 THURSDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE RENUKA YARA MoToR AcCIDENT clvlL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 764 OF 2023 Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Acl, against the order and decree dated 15-12-2022 passed in M V O P.No.646 OF 2018 on the frle of the Court of the lX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Cou(, at Hyderabad. Between: HDFC ERGO General lnsurance Co. Ltd.,, Represented by its Regional Manager, 0/o ll Floor, 6-3-346/1 , Road No.1 , Banlara Hills, Hyderabad ...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT NO.3 AND

1. Kurva Anuradha, Wo Late K. Kistappa, Age- 33 years, Occ. Housewife 2. Kwva Gouri Shanker, S/o Late K. Kistappa, Age. 19 years, Occ. Student 3.. Kurva Mahesh, S/o Late K. Kistappa, Age. 12 years, Occ. Student 4. Kurva Ashamma, Wo Venkataiah, Age 57 years, Occ. Household (Respondent No.3 is minor and is being . Represented by his mother and natural guardian K. Anuradha r.e. Respondent No.1 herein) All are R/o H.No.16-7-540, Malakpet, Hyderabad

5. Boyini Sanjeev Kumar, S/o Boyini Mallesham, Age. 23 years, Occ. Tractor Driver, R/o H.No.3-20l-ll1 , Yenkepalle, Bomraspet, Mahaboobnagar District, Telangana State

6. Urubaity Lakshmappa, S/o Sayappa, Age. Major, Occ. Owner, R/o H.No.1-17, Yelal Mandal, Vikarabad ...RESPONDENT NOS.s & 6/ RESPONDENT NOS.1 & 2 lA NO:2 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the operation of the Order and Decree dated 15-12-2022 passed in M.V.O.P No.646 OF 2018 on the frle of the Court of the lX Additiohal Chief Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad. :,1.--a ? .. bF .*tter- -r- Counsel for the Appellant(s):SRl. A. RAMAKRISHNA REI)DY Counsel for the Respondents No.'l to 4 : SRl. C. MOHAN PRAKASH Counsel for the Respondents No.5 & 6 : - The Court made the following: JUDGMENT THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTTCE RENUKA YARA M.A.C.M.A. No 764 of 2023 JUDGMENT: Sri A. Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and. sri c. Mohan Prakash, iearned counsel for iesponcient Nos.1 to 4.

2. This is an appeal preferred by the appellant-insurarce company, aggrieved by the order dated 15'12'2022 in M.V.O.P.No.6 46 of 2OlB on the file of IX Additional Chief Judge' City Civil Court, Hyderabad, wherein arr alnount of Rs.1O,25,6OO/- with 970 interest per annum has been awarded in a claim petition filed by respondent Nos ' 1 to 4 herein seeking compensation of Rs. 10,O0,0O0/ -'

3. With consent, finallY heard' 1

4. There is no dispute about the occurrence of accident and quantum of compensation au'arded' The only dispute is about the finding of the Tribunal fastening liability on the appeilant- insurance company when there is substantial evidence in the proof of driving license violation' 2 RY, J \4ACMA 764 2023

5. In paragraph No.12 of the impugned orde -, there is a hnding by the Tribunal that there is driving license viola.tion and that the legal ratio laid dou'n in National Insurance Company Limited v. Swaran Singht is squarely applicable, but ri hile passing the award joint and several liability is fastened on the appellant- insurance company and respondent Nos.S and 5 herein. The said finding is to be modified and the liability is to i,e fastened only on the driver and owner of the offending vehicie u ith an order to the insurance comparry to pay and recover.

6. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is allorpe d directing the appellant-insurance company to pay the compensation amount at the lirst instance to respondent Nos. 1 to 4 her ein ars directed bv the Tribunal and to recover the same from respc,ndent Nos.S ald 6 herein. There shall be no order as to co ;t s. Miscelianeous applications per-rding, if any, shall stand closed. r poy(z) sG,L\ + //TRUE COPYII IJD/- A.V.S. PRASAD T}EPUTY REGISTRAR 6 SECTION OFFICER To, 1 -lheE AAdAcuc\ cU'l"f r.dA", cfrrot,,,tl co..*r c& H\...,^roJ . 2. One CC to SRI A RAMAKRISHNA REDDY Advocate [opucl 3 One CC to SRl. C MOHAN PRAKASH Advocate topue I 4. Two CD Copies GE/gh \4- -.4__i:.-:_ ,:t HIGH COURT DATED:241O712O25 aj:-: .:- ,( z A"- .s' ;r\ tr. JUDGMENT MACMA.No.764 of 2023 ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS ("a .T ('- N-.-^ < (ttoo-

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 SRI A. RAIVIAKRISHNA REDDY, Advocate for the Appellant, and SRI C. MOHAN PRAKASH, Advocate appeared for the Respondent No.1 to 4 and none appeared for respondent No.5 & 6 This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Motor Accident Civrl [\,4iscellaneus Appeal L,e anri is hereby par y allowed.

2. fhat the appella nt-insura nce company be and is here:by directed to pay the compensation amount at the ftrst instance to respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein as directed by the Tribunal and to recover the same from respondent Nos 5 and 6

3. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeerl Itfrue Copyll SD/- A.V.S. PRASAD )EPUTY REGISTRAR G SECTION OFFICER To

1. 2 The Court of the lX Additional Chief Judge, City Civrl C:ourt at Hyderabad Two CD Copies. GE \^/ HIGH COURT DATED:2410712025 DECREE MACMA.No.764 ot 2023 4t:'7 .t: i\\ ,a,','.;! .-\<r l,: - .$, 5: t\ it.l l!.-- ii ij ' (:- ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS \r ."rtel \r-^" ,,/.d). 'a(\\q' I I IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD 134421 THURSDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE RENUKA YARA MoToR AcCIDENT clvlL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 764 OF 2023 Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Acl, against the order and decree dated 15-12-2022 passed in M V O P.No.646 OF 2018 on the frle of the Court of the lX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Cou(, at Hyderabad. Between: HDFC ERGO General lnsurance Co. Ltd.,, Represented by its Regional Manager, 0/o ll Floor, 6-3-346/1 , Road No.1 , Banlara Hills, Hyderabad ...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT NO.3 AND

1. Kurva Anuradha, Wo Late K. Kistappa, Age- 33 years, Occ. Housewife 2. Kwva Gouri Shanker, S/o Late K. Kistappa, Age. 19 years, Occ. Student 3.. Kurva Mahesh, S/o Late K. Kistappa, Age. 12 years, Occ. Student 4. Kurva Ashamma, Wo Venkataiah, Age 57 years, Occ. Household (Respondent No.3 is minor and is being . Represented by his mother and natural guardian K. Anuradha r.e. Respondent No.1 herein) All are R/o H.No.16-7-540, Malakpet, Hyderabad

5. Boyini Sanjeev Kumar, S/o Boyini Mallesham, Age. 23 years, Occ. Tractor Driver, R/o H.No.3-20l-ll1 , Yenkepalle, Bomraspet, Mahaboobnagar District, Telangana State

6. Urubaity Lakshmappa, S/o Sayappa, Age. Major, Occ. Owner, R/o H.No.1-17, Yelal Mandal, Vikarabad ...RESPONDENT NOS.s & 6/ RESPONDENT NOS.1 & 2 lA NO:2 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the operation of the Order and Decree dated 15-12-2022 passed in M.V.O.P No.646 OF 2018 on the frle of the Court of the lX Additiohal Chief Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad. :,1.--a ? .. bF .*tter- -r- Counsel for the Appellant(s):SRl. A. RAMAKRISHNA REI)DY Counsel for the Respondents No.'l to 4 : SRl. C. MOHAN PRAKASH Counsel for the Respondents No.5 & 6 : - The Court made the following: JUDGMENT THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTTCE RENUKA YARA M.A.C.M.A. No 764 of 2023 JUDGMENT: Sri A. Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and. sri c. Mohan Prakash, iearned counsel for iesponcient Nos.1 to 4.

2. This is an appeal preferred by the appellant-insurarce company, aggrieved by the order dated 15'12'2022 in M.V.O.P.No.6 46 of 2OlB on the file of IX Additional Chief Judge' City Civil Court, Hyderabad, wherein arr alnount of Rs.1O,25,6OO/- with 970 interest per annum has been awarded in a claim petition filed by respondent Nos ' 1 to 4 herein seeking compensation of Rs. 10,O0,0O0/ -'

3. With consent, finallY heard' 1

4. There is no dispute about the occurrence of accident and quantum of compensation au'arded' The only dispute is about the finding of the Tribunal fastening liability on the appeilant- insurance company when there is substantial evidence in the proof of driving license violation' 2 RY, J \4ACMA 764 2023

5. In paragraph No.12 of the impugned orde -, there is a hnding by the Tribunal that there is driving license viola.tion and that the legal ratio laid dou'n in National Insurance Company Limited v. Swaran Singht is squarely applicable, but ri hile passing the award joint and several liability is fastened on the appellant- insurance company and respondent Nos.S and 5 herein. The said finding is to be modified and the liability is to i,e fastened only on the driver and owner of the offending vehicie u ith an order to the insurance comparry to pay and recover.

6. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is allorpe d directing the appellant-insurance company to pay the compensation amount at the lirst instance to respondent Nos. 1 to 4 her ein ars directed bv the Tribunal and to recover the same from respc,ndent Nos.S ald 6 herein. There shall be no order as to co ;t s. Miscelianeous applications per-rding, if any, shall stand closed. r poy(z) sG,L\ + //TRUE COPYII IJD/- A.V.S. PRASAD T}EPUTY REGISTRAR 6 SECTION OFFICER To, 1 -lheE AAdAcuc\ cU'l"f r.dA", cfrrot,,,tl co..*r c& H\...,^roJ . 2. One CC to SRI A RAMAKRISHNA REDDY Advocate [opucl 3 One CC to SRl. C MOHAN PRAKASH Advocate topue I 4. Two CD Copies GE/gh \4- -.4__i:.-:_ ,:t HIGH COURT DATED:241O712O25 aj:-: .:- ,( z A"- .s' ;r\ tr. JUDGMENT MACMA.No.764 of 2023 ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS ("a .T ('- N-.-^ < (ttoo-