The High Court · 2025

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 grant stay of operation of decree and judgement dated 27-02-2020 in M.V.O.P.No.65 of 2018 on the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, At Nizamabad, pending disposal of the main M.A.C.M.A. Counsel for the Appellants : SRl. HARINATH REDDY SOMA Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 5 : SRt. P. RADHTVE REDDY The Gourt made the following: JUDGMENT I HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the lnsurance aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 27 of 2018 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- Principal District Judge, Nizamabad (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 petitioners before the tribunal was that on

05.01 .2018 at about 7:00 a.m., the bearing No.TS-1 6E-M4394 from Saloora motor bike when he reached Saloora check post on Bodhan to Nanded road, one hog suddenly crossed the road and as a result, he took the vehicle to the left side, lost control over it and fell down from the vehicle, due to which he sustained severe injuries. lmmediately he was shifted to Government Hospital, Bodhan and from there to Maxi Cure Hospital, Nizamabad where he died on 06.01.2018,' while undergoing t treatment. The claimants sought a compensation of Rs.i5,OO,O0O/-. "' 2 ETD,J MACMA No.130 2021 4- The Respondent No.1/owner of the motor bike filed c,ounter denying averments of the petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident, age, avocation and income of the deceased. lt is further contended that the accident has not occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the vehicle and that the deceased was having valid driving ticense, and the vehicle was road worthy and , I' that the vehicle was insured bearing poticy No.41zo11t31t1glo1og77 and that in case, if the court awards any compensation, it is the respondent No.2 who is liable to pay compensation.

5. The Respondent No.2 filed counter denying the averments of the petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident, age, and income of the deceased. tt is further contended that petition filed under section 163-4 is not maintainable as the income of the deceased is stated to be more than Rs.4o,ooO/_ per annum and that the driver of the motor bike is not a third party. Therefore the provisions of section 163-4 is not applicable to him. tt is further contended that the accident occurred due to the gross negligence of the deceased and they also disputed the validity of policy and the driving license of the deceased. 3 ETD,J MACMA No.130_2021

6. Based on the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal has framed the following issues for trial: 0 i0 tMhether Mallepula Bhikshapathi Goud died in while riding the motorcycle bearing No.ISl Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? lf so, to what extent and from whom? iii) To what relief?

7. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PWs 1 to 3 and got marked Exs.A1 to A7. On behalf of the respondents RW1 was examined and Exs.B1 to 85 were marked.

8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has a compensation of Rs.4,24,500/-. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company

9. Heard the submissions of M/s Harinath Reddy Soma, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Radhive Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents. , ,,,.;1,.1 ,...l- ,,.,r, .

10. Learned counsel for appellant has argued that the deceased was a driver-cum-worker under the respondent No.1 and therefore, he is not a third party and thus, his claim cannot be covered under Section 163-A. He submitted that Section 163-A is applicable only to third parties and since the deceased is not a third party the same I I 4 ETD,J MACMA No.130_2021 ernnot be made applicable and that the tribunal went wrong in awarding compensation under lhe said section.

11. Learned counsel forlhe respondents has submitted that the tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation by following the Second Schedule and therefore, he prayed to uphold the same.

12. Based sn the above,rival contentions, this Court frames the following points for determination 1

2. Whether the deceased is not a third pafty to the policy. lf so, to what extent is the insurance company liable. Whether the order and decree of the Tibunat need any inteierence?

3. To what relief?

13. a) The contention of the appellant's counsel is that the deceased is not a thhd party, but he was a driver_cum_worker under respondent No.1 and hence, he falls under the term driver. He therefore, contends that the award passed by the tribunal is erroneous. b) A perusal of the record reveals that pW1 is the wife of the deceased, she deposed that her husband was driver-cum-worker 5 ,:' under the employment of respondent No.1 and was earning Rs.25,000/- per month. ln her cross examination, she denied a suggestion that her husband never used to work under respondent No1. But for that suggestion no other fact contradicting her evidence in chief examination is elicited during her cross examination. Therefore, her statement in the chief examination cannot be dislodged. lt is also borne out by record that the deceased was- on the motor bike belonging to respondent No.1 c) The Insurance Company got examined RW1 contending that the deceased is not a third party. In his cross examination, it was elicited that the policy under Ex.B1 was in force as on the date of the accident. Ex.B4 is the charge sheet, which reveals that the profession of the deceased is mentioned as driver and the same tYas admitted by RWI in his cross examination. Further the Motor Vehicle , lnspector report under Ex.85 discloses the driving license number of the deceased i.e.,AP02520120003414 which is valid up to

16.09.2031. d) PW2/Gourla Rajeshwar is examined as an eye witness. He stated that he has seen the accident and that when the deceased was going on his motor bike bearing No.TS16EM4394 at about 7:00 ?.ffi., on 05.01 .2018 near Saloora check post, one hog crossed the 6 ETD,J MACMA No.130 2021 road, due to which he took the vehicle to the left side of the road and could not control it and fell down from the vehicle, sustained grievous injuries. ln his cross examination, it is ericited that he is not listed as eye witness in the charge sheet. e) The crinre record further shows that there was no other vehicle involved in the accident and it is ericited from the charge sheet under Ex.B4 that the accident occurred as the deceased was going to Biloli while on the way at saloor check post, one wild pig came across the road, he tost control over the bike and fell down on the road, as a result he sustained injuries and died during the treatment. Therefore ' ,.,.]' it is evident from:tne'recolo that the deceased was going on a motor bike belonging to respondent No.1. The owner of the motor cycle is mentioned as M. Praveen Kumar Goud in M.v.l Report and the lnsurance Policy also shows that it is issued in his name. Therefore, it is elicited that the deceased was going on the motor bike belonging to respondent No.1/M. praveen Kumar Goud. 0 Now it has to be examined whether the deceased is a third party or not? ln Ex.Bl, there is a clause defining the term .driver,, :.,l.ii which reads as follows:- "Any person incruding the insured provided that a person driving holds an effective driving license at'the time of the accidint and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a license. 7 fi,DJ MACMA No.130_2021 Provided atso that the person hotding an effective Leamefs ticense may also drive the vehicle when hot used for the transport of goodvpasselgers at the time of the accident and that such a person safisfes the requirements of Rule 3 of the ceniat Motor VehicleRuleg lggg." ,'' g) ln the present case, the deceased was riding the motor bike of the respondent No.1 and he has a varid driving ricense. Therefore the deceased fafls under the term 'driver'. Hence the riabirity of the insurance company is limited to Rs.1,00,000/- towards owner-cum- driver as mentioned in the policy. Therefore, it is held that the deceased is a driver as per the terms of the poricy and the craimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- only. Point No.1 is answered accordingly. \ \ \

14. Point No.2:- a) ln view of the finding arrived at point No.1, the order and decree of the Tribunal need to be modified reducing the compensation from Rs.4,24,500 to Rs.1,00,000/_ . Hence, point No.2 is answered accordingly.

15. Point No.3:- ln the resurt, the appear is parfly ailowed, reducing the compensation from Rs.4,24,500 to 1,00,000/- @ T.s% per annum from the date of ctaim petition tirr rearization. However, it is noticed from the record that the insurance company has already deposited 8 ETD,J MACMA No.130 2021 50o/o of the amount and that the claimant is permitted to withdraw the same. Therefore, keeping in view the object of the beneficial legislation, this court is not inclined to interfere with the amount that is already withdrawn by the respondent-claimant. Thus, the insurance company shall not re@ver any amount from the petitioner. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appeal, shall stand closeci. SD/- MOHD.ISMAIL OEPUTY REGISTRAR G /,TRUE COPY" SECTION OFFICER To, Nizamabad

1. The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cumPrincipal Diskict Judge, 2. One CC to SRl. HARINATH REDDY SOMAAdvocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRl. P RADHIVE REDDYAdvocate [OpUCi 4. Two CD Copies GE/PSL M- HIGH COURT DATED:0110812025 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.13O of 2021 'rI HES 12 iltl ?1?5 * () ( * PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS D IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD J34441 FRIDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF AUGUST NA/O THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA MOTOR ACCIDENT CTVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 130 OF 2021 Between: Shriram Generat tnsurance Company Ltd, Represented by its Branch Manager, Branch office, Saraswathinagar, Hyderabad Road, Nizamabad. ...APPELLANT'2Nd RESPON DENT AND

1. Malleputa Rupa, Wo Late Mallepula Bhikshapathi Goud, Age.d..32.Y.e!{s, Qcc' Housb hoH, Wo. Saloora Village,'Bodhan Mandal, Niazamabad District-503 185 2. Mallepula Manemma, Wo Late Mallepula Satya Goud, Aged.- 55 yeqp-, Qcp. Housb hou, R/o. Saloora Village, Bodhan Mandal, Niazamabad District-s03 185.

3. Mallepula Ajay Goud, S/o Lqtg Mallepula Bhikshapathi .Goud, 4gqd..11.y9glsr 'Student," R/o. Saloora Village, Bodhan Mandal, Niazamabad District-503 Occ. 185.

4. Mallepula Amrutha, D/o Late Mallepula Bhikshapathi Goud, 4geO 12 years, Occ. Studdnt, R/o. SdodraVillage, Bodhan Mandal, Niazamabad District-sO3 185. (Petitioners no.3 and 4 are being minors rept. By their mother and natural guardian, Petitioner no.1 ) ... Respondents / Petitioners

5. M.Praveen Kumar Goud, S/o Mogula Goud, Aged. 30 Years, Occ Business and Owner of the Motorcycte bearing-no.TS 16 EM 4394, R/o. H.No.5-2412, Saloora Village, Bodhan Mandal, Nizamabad District-SO3 185. ...RESPONDENT/1 "t RESPONDENT Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V.Act, against Order and Decree dated 27-02-2020 passed in M.V.O.P.No.65 of 2018 on the file of the court of the Chainnan, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cumPrincipal District Judge, Nizamabad. 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 anO upon hearing the argument of SRI HARINATH REDDY SOMA, Advocate for the Appellant and SRI P. RADHIVE REDDY, Advocate appeared for Respondent No.1 to 4, and none appeared for Respondent No.5. This Court doth Order and Decrce as follows:

1. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneus Appeal be and is hereby party allowed.

2. That the c,ompensation award be and is hereby reduced from Rs.4,24,500/- to Rs.1,00,0001- @ 7.5Yo per annum from the date of claim petition till realization.

3. That the insurance company has already deposited 50o/o of the amount and that the claimant be and is hereby permitted to withdraw the same.

4. That the insurance company shall not re@ver amount. that is already withdrawn by the respondent-claimant.

5. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. llTrueCopyll SD/- MOHD.ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR G SECTION OFFICER To 't . The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Vlll Addl. District Judge, Nizamabad.

2. Two CD Copies. GE/PSL HIGH COURT DATED:0110812025 DECREE MACMA.No.130 of 2021 PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS 1 l\ # 1t)