Heard Sri T. Mahender Rao, learned counsel for the v. Brahmaiah Chowdary

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI T.MAHENDER RAO Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 5: SRI BRAHMIAH CHOWDARY Counsel for the Respondent No.7: SRI A.KRUPADHAR REODY The Court made the following: JUDGMENT I 1 THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA M.A.C.M.A.NO.470 0F 2o.2t JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 24.03.2021 in M.V.O.P.No.l3 of 2018 passed by the Motor Accideni Claims Tribuna-l-cum-Ix Additional District Judge, Siricilla (for short "the Tribunal").

2. For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The case of the petitioner before the Tribunal is that on

16.10.2012 at about 4:45 p.m., the deceased-K. Naryana was going on motor bike bearing No.AP- 15-42-2497 along with pillion rider- Ganagoni Laxmi and in the mean time, an auto trolley bearing No.AP- 15-TA-6417 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the motor bike of the deceased, as a result of which the deceased fell down and sustained multiple injuries and died while he was being shifted to the hospital. Thus, the petitioncr has claimed Rs.7,OO,OOO/- of compensation.

4. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 who are the driver and or,r'ner of the auto trolley have jointly filed a counter denying the averments of the petition. They further contended that the accident has not \ I i \ ETD,] MACMA No.470_2021 2 occurred due to the rash and negligence of the driver of the auto trotley, but it occurred due to the rash and negligence of the deceased himself and that in case if they are held liable, it is the Insurance Company i.e., respondent No.3 who has to pay compensation.

5. The respondent No.3 has filed counter denying the averments and also further contended that the driver of the auto trollcy did not have valid driving license and that their company is not liable to pay any compensation. They further contended that the accident occured due to the rash and negligence of the deceased, but not due to the rash and negligence of the driver of the auto trollev.

6. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issucs for trial: -

3. whether the accident had. ocanrred due to rash dnd. negligent driuing of the offendiq uehicle i.e., Auto Tlolleg bearing No.AP- 15'TA-6417 diven bg its diuer/ responderi No.1? Whether the petitionets are entitled to @ml,€,,ls,atbn? If so, to Luhat amount and from uhom? To tuhat relief ?

7. To prove their case, the petitioners got examin€d PWs 1 and 2 and got marked Exs.Al to A5. On behalf of the respondents, RWs I and 2 were examined Exs.Bl to Bl0 are marked. I I I / 3 ETD,J MACMA No.470_2021

8. Based on the evidence adduced before it, the Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.11,41,000/-. Aggrieved by the said Order and Decree dated 24.03.2021, the present appeal is Eled by ttre Insurance Company.

9. Heard Sri T. Mahender Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V. Brahmaiah Chowdary, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2, 3 and 5.

10. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Tribunal has grossly erred in awarding more co{npensation than what is claimed by the appellant and that the liability is only on the owner of the auto and that the Tribunal has wrongly fastened the lnsurance company with a liability. He further submitted that as on the date of accident i.e., on L6.LO.nl2 the Insuralce Policy was not issued and therefore, their company is not liable. He further contended that the owner of the auto failed to produce the original cover note, despite receiving notice under Ex.88. Therefore, the Tribunal cannot rely upon the attested copy of the Cover Note produced by the owner as Ex.Bl is tlte fake one and thus, the Tribunal ought not to have considered the same. He further contended that since the accident occurred due to head on I colllsion between the motor bike and trolley, the Tribunal ought to hru.\h.ld that there was contributory negligence of the deceased. / I I 4 ,^ar^*.arr-N He further argued that the income of the deceased is also excessively asscssed by the Tribunal and the compensation arrived at is much more than the claim of the petitioners and therefore, prayed to set aside the orders passed by thc Tribunal.

11. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand has submitted that there is no inlirmity in the orders passed by the Tribunal and that it is a just compensation awarded by the Tribunal and that the Tribunal has powers to grant more compensation than the claim amount and therefore, prayed to uphold the same. L2. Based on the above rival submission; this Court frames the following points for determination: -

1. Wlrcther the accident hr;.s not ocanrred due to the rash and. negtigiarce of tle drirnr of auto trolleg beanng No.AP- 15-TA-6417?

2. Whether there was ang contibutory negligene of tle rider oftle flator bike bearing No.AP- 15-AZ-2497?

3. Whether ttte Policg issued bg the respondent No.3 uas not ualid as on the date of the accident?

4. Whetler the petitioners are entitled to co,np€,nsafjon as antatdd bg the Tibunal? lf so from which of the respondents?

5. Whether the order and decree of the Tibunal need, ong interferene? 6. To what relieP I / ,,/

13. Point Nos.l & 2: 5 EIDJ MACMA No.47O 2021 a) In this case PW2 is the eye witness and he supported the case of the petitioner stating that the auto trolley was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed and dashed against the motor bike of the deceased. Nothing material could be elicited during his cross examination to discredit his evidence. The contents of charge sheet also reveal that ttre accident occurred due to the rash and negligence of the driver of auto trolley and thus, it is filed against him. There is nothing on record to show that the deceased was rash and negligent. Therefore, considering the evidence of PW2 coupled with charge sheet/Ex.A2, it is held that the accident occurred due to the rash ald negligence of the driver of the auto trolley bearing No.AP- 15-TA-64L7 and that there was no contributory negligence of the deceased-K. Narayana who was going on his bike bearing No.AP-I5-AZ-2497. Hence, Point No.1 and 2 are answered accordingly.

14. Point No.3:- b) lt is pertinent to take note of the fact that the cover note number mentioned in Ex.B I is the same as it is mentioned in Ex.B6 issued by respondent No.3. But a careful perusal of Ex.B1 discloses that on the face of the document it is mentioned *rat the -"" 6 ETDJ MACMA No.470 2021 cover note is not valid if issued beyond 3O.O9.2O12 and at the bottom of the document, the date of issuance is mentioned as

13. f 0.20 12. The argument of learned counsel for the appellants appears to be tenable that the Ex.Bl is not a genuine document. It is pertinent'to mention here that Ex.Bl is an attested copy of cover note and the owner failed to produce the original document inspite of receiving notice under Ex.B8 issued by the Insurance Company. Since it is mentioned on the Ex.Bl at the topmost corner to the right that it is not valid if it is issued beyond 3O.O9.2O12, Ex.Bl cannot be held to be valid as it is issued on t3.lo.2ol2. A perusal . of Ex.B6 reveals tJlat it is the Insurance Policy issued to the crime vehicle and is valid from 01.12.2012 to 30. 11.2013. Thus, the crime vehicle is not covered under the said Insurance Policy/Ex.B6 as on the date of accident and therefore, the Insurer/ respondent No.3 cannot be held liable to pay compensation in this case. Thus, it is only the respondent Nos.l and 2 who are tiable to pay compensation. Point No.3 is answered accordingly

15. Point No.4: c) With petitioners regard to income of the deceased, the case of the is that the deceased used to earn Rs.5,000/_ pe. :nonth, he was aged '34'years and that he used to do agriculture. / €m,J MACMA No.470_2021 Though no proof is filed in this regard considering the decision of the apex Court in the case of Ramrrchandrappa Vs. Manager, Rogal Sundaram Alliance lrnsura;nce Compang Llmltedl aad the age of the deceased and also considering the fact that he was an able bodied person, aged'34'years and he was an agriculturist, running a family consisting of hve members, an amount of Rs.S,OOO/- assessed by the Tribunal on a reasonable hypothesis appears to be justified. d) The Tribunal has further considered the principles laid down it NatTonal Insurrrnce Conpang Linlted Vs. Pra nag Sethl & Others2, and has awarded amounts towards future prospects and also considered all the other components and assessed the compensation to be Rs. 1 1,4 1,00O/- and it is held that the petitioners are entitled for the said compensation. e) Since, it is already held in Issue No.3 that the crime vehicle is not insured with respondent No.3 as on the date of the accident, respondent No.3 is not liable to pay any compensation. Therefore, the compensation is to be paid by respondent Nos.1 and 2 who are the driver and owner of the vehicle bearing No.AP-15-TA-6417. I"' 'q2ot t1 tz scc u;6 'AIR 20l7 scc 5 ti7 8 ETD,J MACMA No.470 2021

16. Point No.S:- In view of tJre discussion held supra, it is held that the order and decree passed by the Tribunal needs to be set aside with regard to the liability and the Insurance Company is exonerated from its liability, while respondent No. I and 2 are held to be liable to pay compensation. Point No.S is answered accordingly.

17. Point I{o.5:- In the result, the appeal is allowed, setting aside the Order and Decree dated 24.03.2021 in M.V.O.P. N.o. 13 of 20 18 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-tX Additional District Judge, Siricilla with regard to the liability. The appellant/Insurance Company is exonerated from its liability while respondent Nos. I and 2 are held to be liable to pay compensation of Rs.11,41,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appeal, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/- C.DEEPIKA STANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFF]CER To,

1. The Motor Accident claims Tribunal-cum-lX Additional District Judge' sircilla' i. o;; cc t snLr.unHeuoER RAo. Advocate [oPUc] I

3. One CC to SRI A.KRUPADHAR REDDY, Advocate IOPUC] 4. One CC to SRi V.BRAHMAIAH CHOWDARY, Advocate [OPUC 5. Two CD CoPies / nvb w HIGH COURT DATED:2810312025 \ JUDGMENT+ DECREE MACMA.N o.470 of 202'l F]E tt$ \ + i nr::cl i" ALLOWNG THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS -+ .odA #... IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD [34441 FRIDAY,THE T\A/ENryErcfiTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FI\E PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 470 OF 2021 Between: Reliance General lnsurance Company. Ltd, (rep.by its Branch Manager, ll Floor, above lClCl Bank, Kyasa Towers, Dr.B.R. Ambedkar Road, Karimnagar. ...AppellanURespondent No.3 ANO

0. Katta Sarojana, Wo. Late Narayana, aged 38 1rears, Occ. Anganwadi Teacher, (First wife of the deceased) I Katta Neerja, Wo. Late Narayana, Aged 41 years, Occ. Household, (Second wife of the deceased). ll. Katta Srividya, D/o. Late Narayana, Aged 2 years, Minor, Occ. Nil. q t. Katta Rangawa, Wo. Chendraiah, aged 60 years, Occ. Household. p. Katta Chendraiah, S/o. Balaraju, Aged 68 years, Occ. Agriculture, All are fuo. H.No.1-19/2, Battcnitallu Village, H/o.Terlumaddi village of Mustabad Mandal in Karimnagar District. (Respondent No.3 being mirrcr is rep. by her mother and Natural guardian, the respondent No. 2 herein) ...RespondenUPetitioners

6. Md. Sajeed, S/o. Peer Moharrvnad, Agpd 41 1ears, Occ. Driver of Auto Trolley bearing No. AP 15TA 6417 , PJo. H.tlo. 5-86, Gollapally, V/o. Yellareddypet Mandal in Karimnagar District.

14.Pasham Deva Reddy, S/o. Linga Reddy, Aged Aged 53 years, Occ. Owner of Auto Trolley bearing No. AP 15TA6417, R/o. H.No.445, Gollapally Vio Yellareddypet Mandal in Karimnagar Disklct. ,..RespondenURespondent Nos.1 & 2 Appeal filed Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, against the Order and decree in M.V.O.P.No.13 of 2018 dated.24l03l2021 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-lX Additional Distric{ Judge, Sircilla. This appeals mming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeals the judgment and decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the case and upon hearing the arguments of Sri T.Mahender Rao, Advocate Appellant and Sri A.Krupadhar Reddy, Advocate, for the Respondent No.1, and Sri V.Brahmaiah Chowdary, Advocate, for the respondent No.1 to 3, 5. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is allowed, sefting aside the Order and Decree daled 24.03.2O21 in M.V.O.P.No.13 of 2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-lX Additional District with regard to the liability

2. That the appellanUlnsurance Company is exonerated from its liberty while respondent No.1 and 2 are held to be liable to pay compensation of Rs.1'1,41,000^ awarded by the Tribunal.

3. That save as aforesaid, the decree of the Lower Court shall stiands confirmed in all other respects. and

4. That there be no order as lo costs in this appeal SD/. G.DEEPIKA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-lX Additional District Judge, Sircilla 2. Two CD Copies nvb \qr HIGH COURT DATED:2810312025 DECREE MACMA.N o.470 of 2021 ALLOWNG THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS l^ oRl& &