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 judgment dated 20-11-2018 in M.V.O.P.No.395 of 2015 on the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District and Sessions Judge, At Adilab;rd, pending disposal of the main M.A.C.M.A. and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Appellant: SRI HARTNATH REDDY SOMA Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI C.HARI PREETH Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 and 3: The Court made'the following: JUDGMENT THE HON'BLI SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NAITDIKONDA M.A.C.M.A. No.483 OF 2O2O JUDGMENT: Aggrieved by the order dated 2O.Lt.2018 passed by the learned. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District and Sessions Judge, Adilabad, (for short, the Tribunal) in M.V.O.P.No.395 of 2015, the 3'd respondent therein/Insurance Company preferred the present Appeal seeking to allow the Appeal by setting aside the order of the Tribunal.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter be referred as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the claimant has filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.1,50,000 /- from respondent Nos.1 to 3, for the injuries sustained by him in the motor vehicle accident that occurred on 25.02,.2014 due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tata van bearing No.AP-01- X-9595. It is stated that the petitioner was working as labour for loading and unloading the goods and on 25.O2.2OL4, aftet loading cotton in van at Boppapur Village, the petitioner was proceed.ing in that van for unloading it and when the van reached Godruguda Village, the driver of tJlat van drove it in a 1r ,. 2 rash and negligent manner, due to which, the van dashed to a bridge anrl as a result, the van turned turtle and the petitioner suffered liacture involving proximal shaft of femur involving adjacent lesser trochanta, injury over frontal region of head and injuries o:e other parts of his body. He was inemediately shifted to Goverrrment Hospital, utnoor and later, he was shifted to RIMS, Adilabad, where, Dr. Tippe Swamy, orthopedic surgeon conducte<l surgery on 24.03.2014 and fixed the fracture with implants and was discharged on o4.o4.2o14 with an advise to take follo'r up treatment. It is stated that the claimant incurred. Rs-5o,000/- expenses for treatment, medical expenses, etc. The Police, Narnoor registered a case in cr.No.ll of 2014 under sectioni :137 and 304-A Ipc against the driver of the TATA van.

4." According to the claimant, he was aged about 35 years and was hale and healthy and was earning Rs.6,oo0/- per montle a:s a labour at the time of accident and d.ue to the injuries sruffered in the accident, he not only incurred medical expenses but also suffered permanent disability. Therefore, he has filec the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.1,SO,CIOO/ -.

5. Resrpondent Nos.1 and 2, who are the driver and ovmer of the offertding vehicle did not fire any counter. Respond.ent 3 No.3/Insurance Company liled counter affidavit denying the averrnents made in the claim petition including the manner of accident, rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.l, nature of injuries, treatment taken by the claimant, expenditure incurred for the treatment, age, income and occupation of the claimant and contended that the claimant was not working as coolie on the van as claimed, but was unauthorized passenger and hence, the Insurance Company has no liability to pay him any compensation and further contended that respondent No.2, the owner of the van violated the terms of policy conditions and prayed this Court to dismiss the claim petition.

6. Based on the pleadings of both sides, the learned Tribunal has framed the following issues: i) Whetler the accident dated 25.02.201.4 was due to the rash and negligent diuing of TATA uan bearing No.4P.O1.X.9595 or wlrcth.er there was ang contrtbutory negltgence on the part of the petitioner? ii) Wlether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, what amount and from whom? iii) To uhat relieft

7.' During the course of trial, PWs 1 to 3 were examined and got marked Exs.Al to A14. On behalf of the respondents, RW.1 \s, was examined and got marked Exs.Bl to E}3. The learned 4 Tribunal, after considering the rival contentions and the entire material p,laced. on record, partly allowed the claim petition by awarding compensation of Rs.58,259/- with an interest @ g% per annum. Being aggrieved by' the compensation amount granted by the Tribunal, the lnsurance company has preferred the present appeal seeking to set aside the Award and Decree dated 20.11.2018.

8. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/lnsurance company is that the Tribunal, without consideri:rg the fact that the TATA van driver was not holding valid dri'dng license and the claimant was an unauthorized passenger, travelling on the said van as against the MV rules, has grar:.ted compensation. It is further contended that no person ir; permitted to travel in the vehicle when the van is overloadr:d, however, the claimant had travelled by sitting on the van and the said accident occurred solely due to the self- negligen<:e on the part of the claimant and therefore, the Insuranc:e company cannot be made liable to pay compensation. It is further contended that the interest portion of 9o/o per annum rvhich was awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side and pral'ed this Court to allow the present appeal. 5

9. Learned counsel for respondent No.l submits that after consid.ering the entire evidence available on record, the learned Tribunal has awarded just compensation, which needs no interference.

10. Heard Sri Harinath Reddy Soma, learned counsel for the appellant/lnsurance Company and C. Haripreeth, learned -counsel for respondent No.l. None appeared for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

11. Admittedly, the respondents have not filed cross-appeal against the Award passed by the learned Tribunal. The only point arose before this Court in this appeal is that: i) Whether the Award and decree passed by learned Tribunat is liable to be set aside and the appellant- Insurance Company can be exonerated from its tiabilitg?

12. As seen from the record, the contention raised by the appellant/Insurance Company is that the claimant was travelling in the said vehicle as an unauthorized passenger and not working as a coolie on the van and therefore, it h." ,ro liability to pay €rny compensation. Whereas, it is the case of the claimant that he was working as loading and unloading labour on the Tata van and on the date of accident, after loading cotton, the acciftr+t occurred and he sustained injuries. ', i i -t t: 5

13. Though learned counsel for the appelrant/Insurance company contended trrat the Insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation, but as seen from the record, though the appellant has examined Rw-l, nothing has been placed to rebut the contentions raised by the claimant. Admittedly, on the said date, the petitioner was travelling in the said van for the purpose of unloading tlle cotton, which was loaded in the said van.

14. on perusal of the entire evidence placed on record and the relevant <locuments given by the learned Tribunal, this court do not see €my error in the order passed by the Tribunal having coming to the conclusion that the said vehicle was neither overloaded nor the petitioner can be termed as unauthorized passenger for the reason that he was going as a representative of the owne:r of the said goods. Further, as the said policy is a comprehr:nsive policy as admitted by pw-l, the learned Tribunal has rightly made the Insurance company liable to pay the compensation. The contention of the appellant-lnsurance companlr that there was violation of terms and cond.itions cannot be accepted and there was no contributory negligence on the part of the claimant. As such, this court is of the opinion that the, claimant cannot be termed as an unauthortzed passeng()r 7

15. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is of the considered view that the Tribunal has rightly considered and granted just compensation to claimant/respondent herein and the appeal filed by the Insurance Company fails and falls to the ground. As such, no interference is required by this Court. Therefore, the appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, M.A.C.M.A is dismissed by conlirming the Award and decree passed by the Tribunal in M.V.O.P.No.395 of 2Ot5, dated

20.11.2O18. There shall no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. To, I'TRUE COPY/ SD/. C.DEEPIKA ANT REGISTRAR OFFICER

1. The Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District & Sessions Judge, Adilabad.

2. One CC to SRI HARINATH REDDY SOMA, Advocate toPUCl 3. One CC to SRI C.HARI PREETH, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD CoPies AS/nvbw , ? q .. J i.) 1l }1i\t ?U[ o 'frf ,.1 * .l J i:l,^ ,i HIGH COUIRT DATED:01/08/2025 JUDGMEITIT+OECREE c MA.]'1O.483 OF 2020 DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS

6.@ KP I n [ 3443 I IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA Between Bharti Axa General lnsurance Company Ltd.,, Represented by its Branch Manager, Branch office, Plot No.6-3-666/B/6, 3rd Floor, Gokul Towers, Opp. Model House, Punjagutta, Hyderabad - 500 034 ...AppellanU3'd Respondent AND 1 Kamble Achith S/o Gyanoba, Aged. 36 years, Occ. Loading and unloading coolie (Hama), R/o. Boppapur Village, H/0 Khairdhatwa, Narnoor Mandal, Adilabad District - 504 311. . . . RespondenUPetitioner

2. Kamble Subhash, S/o Laxman, Aged. 35 Years, Occ. Driver of TATA Van 6earing No.AP 01 X 9595, R/o. Jhari Village, Narnoor Mandal, Adilabad District - 504 311.

3. Kamble Rama, S/o Kondibha, Aged, Major, Occ. Owner of TATA Van bearing no.AP 01 X 9595, R/o. H.No.'l - 100, GudihathnoorVillage and Mandal, Adilabad District- 504 308 ...RespondenUl "t & 2n" Respondents Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the order and decree in M.V.O.P.No.395 ot 2015 dated 20.11.2018 on the file of the Court of the Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District & Sessions Judge, Adilabad. 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 Harinath Reddy Soma, Advocate e for the Appellant and Sri C.Hari Preeth, Advocate for the Respondent No.1, and none appeared [or Respondent Nos.2 and 3. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby dismissed by conf rming the Award and Decree Passed by the Tribunal in M.V.O.P No.395 of 2015 dated 20.11 2018

2. That save as aforesaid, the decree of the Tribunal shall stands confirmed in all otherespects; and

3. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. /TRUE COPY// SD/- C.DEEPIKA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OFFICER To,

1. The Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District & Session:; Judge, Adilabad.

2. Two CD Copies AS/nvb w t q I. HIGH COIJRT DATED:01/08/2025 u ECREE MACMA.NO.4g3 0F 2020 DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS Lt oQftA -&.