The High Court · 2025

the affidavit filed in support of the petitron, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings of the execution of the Judgement and decree passed in Ntl.V.O P.No.434l2O14, dated 2410112020, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Cum V Addl. District Judge Kothagudem pending disposal of the above appeal in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Appellant : SRl. KONDADI AJAY KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.1 and 2 : SRI NAGESWARA RAO REPAKULA Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : - The Court made the following: JUDGMENT THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DE|I EADA M.A.C.M.A.NO.472 0F 2o2L JUD GMENT: This appeal is filed by the Insurance Compan.r aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 24.O1.2020 in M.V.O.P.lJ r.434 of 2Ol4 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-curi: V Additional District Judge, Kothagudem (for short "the Tribunal" .

2. For convcnience and clarity, the parties herein i rc referred to as thel"u.ere arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The case o[ lhe petitioner before the Tribunz I was that on

13.03.2014 thc deceased and his friends were retrrl ning to their village on bbl,cles after attending Nagulamma Jathaara at Amararam Village ancl rvhen they reached in front cI tl-re house of Dubba Go'",ardhan on R & B Road, Janampet Vil t ge, at about 1 1:30 p.m., one Tata l"ilagic Van bearing No.AP-2O-'I \ 0345 drivcn b). its ciriver in a rash and negligent manner, came at a high speeci and dashed against the bicyc)e of the deceased. A:; a result, the deceased and the pillion rider on the bicycle f: 1 dorvn and susLaincd grievous rnjuries. Th.e deceased succumb: .l to injuries, rvhile he was bcing sh ilted to hospital. Thc claim.L rLs sought a compensation of Rs.6,OO,0oo,' . 4 Respondenr Irlo- I remair,eC ex parte 'I 7 ETD,J MACMA No.472 2021 .- \.-'F{'! '\1 '.1

5. Respondent No.2 frled counter denying the averments ol the petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident, age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is further contended that the driver of the crime vehicle did not hold a valid driving license as on the date of the accident and that their company is not liable to pay any compensation.

6. Based on the above rival contentions, the Tribunal has lramed the following issues:-

3. Whether the accident had occanred d.ue to rash and neglige driring of diuer of Tato Magic beaing No.Ap 2O TV-O345? Whether the petitioners are entitled. for compensatton. if so, to tl)hqt amount and front which of te respondents? 'I'o what relief ? 7 . To prove their case, the petitioner got examined pWs 1 to 3 and got marked Exs.A1 to A6. On behalf of the respondents, RW1 r,r'as examined, but no documents were marked.

8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.6,00,0O0/_. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company.

9. Heard the submissions of Sri Kondadi Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the Insurance Company and Sri Nageswara Rao Repakula, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 3 ETD,I IACMA No.472 2021

10. Learned counsel for the appellant has submi ted that they have not issued policy to the crime vehicle and th:r they are not liable to pay any compensation- He further argued t)r rt, there is no evidence before the Tribunal to show that their :ompany has isSued any valid policy to the crime vehicle. That n Ex.AS/MVI Report only the policy number is mentioned and a cc py of the said policy is not filed bcfore the Court and that thc Tribunal has believed Ex.A5 and has u,ent ahead in awarding < ompensation, which is not correcL. 'lhe Tribunal has failed to se: that the MVI Report is not conclusive proof to establish that th :re is a valid policy issued to the crime vehicle. He therefore, prar r d to set aside the orders of the Tribunal by allowing this appeal.

11. Learned counsel for the respondents on the cl rer hand has argued that, thcy filcd cover note of the policy and he Insurance Company contends that they have not issued the crr er note. That the cnme record i.e-, the charge sheet and also t r : MVI Report mentioned the said cover notc number. He furtlrr: argued that though the Insurance Company has disputed the sa: ae, it has not lead any evidence to shou, that they have not issued he said cover note. It is further contended b-y the counsel that I he Insurance Company has not laken zrny such plea in their corr rter, but it is only during the evidcnce that thcy har.e dispuled t'r r existence of t-I\ -- ^-r 4 ETD,] MACMA No.472 2021 policy. He further argued that the S.H.O who is examined as PW3 also has dcposed that they have collected the MM Report, which discloscs the poticy details and its validity. He therefore, argued Lhat the lnsurance Company cannot take such contention without any pleading. Thus, praycd to confirm the order and decree of the Tribunal.

12. Based on the above rival submission, this Court frames the following points for consideration:- 1 . Whether the cnme uehicle beaing No-AP-20-TV-0345 was not hauing ualrd insurance policg as on the date of the accident lf so, whether ttte insurance. contpang is not liable to pag compensation?

2. Whether the Order and Decree passed by the Tribunal need atry interkrence?

3. To what relrcf.)

13. Point No.1:- a) The contention of the appellant's counsel is thal they have not issued any policy to the crime vehicle. A perusal of the counter hled by [hem before the Tribunal does not disclose the said pleading. They have just stated that their liabilify would be as per the terms and conditions mentioned in the policy The record discloscs that neither of the parties have hled a copy of the policy before the Tribunal. However, in the charge sheet, it is mentioncd that, exccpt driving license, they could find all the documents of the crime vehiclc to be correct. In the MVI Report, thc numbcr of 5 ETD,] 1ACMA No.472 2021 the cover note and its particulars are mentioned ir the Column No.14 that the Relizrnce Gencral Insurance Comparl issued cover note bearing No. 18A1i915 valicl trom 20.06.2013 r Ig.06.2O14. Hc further contcndcd that the said cover note as mr r tioned in the MVI Report denores that the vehicle has a valid insu., nce policy as on the date of the accident. [n support of their (]onl(.r tlon, they got examined PW3. b) 'J'he evidence of PW3/ the Investigating Officr I reveals that the Tata Magic Van bearing No.Ap-20-TV-0345 wa,.; having cover note for the period from 20.06.2013 to 19.06.201.1 ssued by the Reliance Gcneral Insurance Company and the sam(. s certified by the Motor Vehicle Inspector who has issucd MVI Rtlp ,rt i.e., under Ex.AS. In his cross examination, it is elicited from h r r lhat, as per his knowlcdge , from 2O l0 onrr.ards thc insurant r policies are issued through online process. He stated that he rl ,es nol know whether the validity of thc covcr note is only for thrr t davs and he admitted that thc accident occurred on 13.03.2O1+ that means after nine monLhs from thc date of issuance of cover I )te. c) The contention of the appellant,s counsel is trat the cover note u'ould be valid onlv lor threc days and thus, tl I c()ntents o[ Ex.AS do not prove that the vehiclc lvas coi/er( r bv a valid insurance polic1,. Hou,ever, once the petitioncr r:r r ld place his 6 ETD, ] MACMA No.472 2021 evidence on rccord to provc his case, it is for the lnsurancc Company to disprove the same. He got examined RWl to support his contention. d) RW1 is the Legal Officer of Reliance General Insurance Company. He stated that their company has not issued policy to cover the period of the crime vehicle bearing No.Ap-2O-TV-0345. In his cross examination, the Xerox copy of cover note was confronted to the witness, and the u,itness has denied it saying that it does not pertain to their company and it is not their Letter pad. RWI being a Legal Officcr of the Company, denies the genuineness of the cover note and it is not placed on record as to whether they have taken any steps with regard to the alleged fakeness o[ the cover note. If at all the cover note issued is fake, then the lnsurance Comp:Lny must have initiated some proceedings and they could have also produced thc Rcgisters from their company to show the series of cover notes issued by their company and that the said cover note does not fall in their series or with that particular cover note number any other policy is issued by their company. No records or Registers have been produced by the lnsurance Company to disprove that the said cover note mentioned in Ex.AS is not issued by their Company. Moreover, they havc not taken any such plea in thcir counter. Once the case and the crime l ETD,] MACMA No.472 2021 record were filed, they must have gone through r te records and verified them which was not done. e) The pctitioners could put forth that thc r:o.er notc details mcntioned in the Ex.AS proves the validity of Ins: -ance policy on the crime vehicle. The respondents failed to adducr: ,rny cvidcnce to prove their contention. Mere contention withoLlt a ty evidence on \ \ record, does not aid the case of the rcspondents o disprove the case of the pctitior-rers. Though a copy ol poli<:r j not filed, the particulars of cover note and its validit_v covering t te lnsurance of the crime vehicle is mentioned in Ex.A5/MVI Rcp:: -r. Hence , it is held that the crimc vehicle has vzrlid insurancc p rlic-v as on the date of the accident and therefore, it is held r hir the insurance company is held liable to pay the compensation. Point No.1 is ansu,ered accordingly l4 POINT NO.2: In vien of the findings arrived at point No. l. herr: is no need to in lerfere with thc order and decree passcd br, I<. Tribunal and thercfore, the same is upheld. Point No.2 is anslvered accordingly.

15. Point No.3:- In thc result, the appeal is dismissed uplr I cline the Order and Decree clated 24.01.2020 in N4.V.O.P.No.434 ol 20 L4 passed by 8 €TD,] MACMA No.472 2021 the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge, Kothagudem. No costs Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appeal, shall stand closed sD/- SI . OSMAN IG ISTRAR //TRUE COPY// CTION OFFICER Kothagudem. '1 . The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge, 2. One Cc to SRl. KONDADI AJAY KUMAR Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRl. NAGESWARA RAO REPAKULA Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies GE/gh To, * HIGH COURT DATED:2510712025 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.472 ot 2021 rFiq \ \ ,:) r) ;. t,. t2 \t..'.'\

1..-r I ,l .,r' -1, ,/t DISMISSING THE MACMA WTHOUT COSTS Ip IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD 134/,41 FRIDAY,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLA NEOUS APPEAL NO:472OF 2021 Between: Reliance General lnsurance Co.Ltd., Rep. by its General Manager, D.No.4-1-327 to 337, 4th Floor, Sagar Plaza, Abids, Hyderabad-500 001 AND ...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT NO.2

1. Boddupalli Anjaiah, S/o.Ramachandraiah, Age 45 years, Occ Carpenter. R/o. Janampeta Village, Pinapaka Mandal, Khammam District. 2 Boddupalli Saroja, Wo.Anjaiah, Aged 35 years, Occ. House Hold. R/o. ' Janampeta Village, Pinapaka Mdndal, Khammam District 3 Polisetti Gopal Rao, Sio.Venkataiah, Aged Major, Occ Owner of Tata Magic Bearing No-AP20W0345, R/o.H.No.'1 -3-29, No.2 Basthi, Yellandu Town, Khammam District .... RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS ...RES,.NDENTS/RES,.NDENTS Appeal filed under Section '173 of M.V.Act, against Order and Decree dated 24.01 .2020 passed in MVOP 43412014 on the file of the court of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional Distrrct Judge, Kothagudem. 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 arguments of SRI KONDADI AJAY KUMAR' Advocate for the Appellant and SRI NAGESWARA RAO REPAKULA' Advocate appeared for Respondent No.1 & 2, and none appeared for Respondent No.3. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: '1 . That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneus Appeal be and is hereby dismissed.

2. That there shall be no order as to costs in this apgx al Itf rue Copyll S D/. M. OSMAN ALI BAIG I,SSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To 1 . The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-V / .dditional District Judge, Kothagudem 2. Two CD Copies. GEI HIGH COURT DATED:2510712O25 DECREE MACMA.No.472 of 2021 DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS