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 STAY the operation of the Order and Decree dated 1211212019 passed in 7 M.V.o.P.No.'172 oF zoiT on the fire of the court of the Mr ror Accidents craims Tribunal (District Judge), at Khammam. Counsel for the Appeltant(s):SRl. A. RAMAKRISHNA REDf y counsel for the Respondent Nos.'r to 3 & s : sRr. G. RAV| : HANDRA SEKHAR Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : - Counsel for the Respondent No.6 : - The Court made the following: JUDGMENT THE HON'BLE SRT JUSTICE NARSTNG RAO NAIIDTKONDA M.A.C.M.A. No.4 79 of 2020 JUDGME NT: This MACMA is filed under Section 173 of M.V.Act, lggg by the Appellanvlnsurance company/respondent No.2 against the Award and decree passed by the chairman, Motor Accident craims Tribunal (District Judge), Karimnagar, (hereinafterreferred to'Tribunal') in M.v.o.p. No. 172 of 2017, dated 12.12.2019, wherein claimants filed the claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation of Rs. 12,00,000/_ on account of death of husband of the petitioner No.r, namely, Sri Manikravu Satish, (hereinafter referred as 'deceased') who died in Motor Vehicle accident occurred on the intervening night of 71g.02.2016. 2' For the sake ofconvenience, the parties are hereinafter rererred as arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The brief facts of the case are that on the intervening night of 718.02.2016 while the deceased was travelling on the TATA Ace goods vehicle bearing No. AP 20 TB 78i7 from Venkatapuram to charla and when they reached the outskirts of ps Ramaya Nagar, the driver of the said rATA !r-\ *1 2 /{I\n,J MActIA I\b.479 of 2O2O Ace vehicle lost control due to rash and negligent drivin6. rnd hit the cuivert whereby the vehicle fell in the ferry, due to which the decr lsed suffered fatal injuries and died on the spot. The Police, Charla register r d a case in Crime No.l4 of2016 for the offence under Section 304-A Ipc zr ainst the driver of the TATA Ace Goods Vehicle.

4. The contention of the claimants was that, i s on the date of accident the deceased was aged 33 years. He was working z; a coolie and was earning ni[. Due to the death of the deceased, the cl imants lost their dependency, as such, claimed an amount of Rs.12,00,000/- : ;compensation.

5. Before the leamed Tribunal, respondent Nr TATA Ace vehicle remained ex-parte. The responde . l-Owner of the rt No.2 - The Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limiter filed a counter- affidavit, denying all the averments made in the claim peti i rn and contended that there was no rash and negligence on the part of the d- ver of the TATA Ace goods vehicle and did not admit the death of the decear;r d in the accident. The respondent No.2 also denied the age, avocation anc eamings of the deceased and further contended that the accident occurred r n account of self negligence of the deceased. A 3 lt?YR'r/ MACM r\b.4?9 ol 2o2o

6. Basing on the pleadings and averments made by both the counsels, the leamed Tribunal framed the following tssues, which reads as I under: D ii) Whether the accident is occurred due to rash and negligcnt act of driver of the TATA ACE bearing No.Ap 20 TB 7g77 and resulting in the death of M. Satish? Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? It_ so, to what quantum and from which of the respondents? iii ) To whar reliep

7. After perusing the oral and documentary evidence placed by both the parties and after going into the entire record, the reamed Tribunal herd on issue No'1 that the accident was the resurt of rash and negligent driving of the TATA Ace Goods Vehicle by its driver and further, after considering the entire material and evidence on record, alrowed the craim of the petitioners in part and granted compensation of Rs.7,90,000/_ with interest @ 7.5%o per annum and further held that the respondent No.2 should pay the awarded amount and recover the same from the respondent No. l under the same decree and Award. 4 lllw,J MACMA I\b.479 oJ 2O2O

8. Being aggrieved by the colossal compensati,) r amount awarded by the leamed Tribunal, the present appeal is filed by the i ppellant/lnsurance Company/respondent No.2 on the ground that the leame,l Tribunal ought to have considered that there are no documents to show rre income of the deceased and also the learned Tribunal failed to apprecia r that the driver of the said vehicle was not holding valid driving licu ce and that the quantification of the compensation is also basing the I ere surmises and conjectures. It is also contended that the Insurance Compar / was not liable to pay the compensation to the persons travelling in goods vr; icles, as such, the leamed Tribunal ought to have exonerated the Insurarr :e Company, but erroneously fastened the tiability on par with the Insured ,/ith a direction to pay and recover the same. It is also contended that the d. ver as well as the owner committed breach as to the terms and condition. of the poticy by permitting passengers to travel in a goods vehicle and as : rch, the appellant lnsurance company is not at all liabte to pay the compensatr( n.

9. Heard Sn A.Ramakrishna Reddy, leamed counsel for the appellant - Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Complr y Limited and Sri G. Ravi Chandra Sekhar, learned counsel for the respondr: Lls, who appeared virtually. 5 JYnm,., MACUA ,{0.479 of 2OZO l0 Now, the point which arose for consideration before this Court in the present appeal is that: I Whether with the Tribunal? the appellants made any ground to interlere Judgment and decree passed bv the Point No.l:

11. Having heard the rival contentions of both the parties and on perusal of the entire materiar praced on.record, the main grievance of the appellant-Insurance Company is on the question of liability and that they are not liable to pay the compensation as there is breach of terms and conditions of the policy i.e. Ex.Bl. A perusal of the Award passed by the leamed Tribunal would discrose that the learned rribunal had passed the Award by taking into consideration the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme court in Manager, National Insurance Company Limited vs. Saju p. paul ACJ 554 (SC)l; New India Assurance Company Limited v. Asha Rani [2003 ACJ I (SC)l followed in Oriental fnsurance Co. Ltd. vs. Devi Reddy Konda Reddy J2003 ACJ a6g (SC); Narional Insurance Co. Ltd vs. Ajit Kumar [2003 ACJ l93l (SC)l; National lnsurance Co. Ltd. vs. Bommithi Subbhayamma [2005 ACJ 721 (SC)l; National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Prema Devi [2009 ACJ ll49 (SC)l; New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. V. [2013 6 T{IYR,J MAoMA No.479 oJ 2O2o Vedwati [2007 ACJ 1043 (SC)l and also in National Ir surance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680 and Sar a Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC 121. The Hon't,l : Supreme Court in the above cases held that in cases where deceased v as travelling as a gratuitous passenger, the Insurance Company shall pay the compensation amount in the first instance and recover the same frorr the owner of the offending vehicle. Hence, this Court is of the opinion t rat no grounds are made out by the appellant- Insurance Company to interfe r: with the findings given by the leamed Tribunal in fixing the liability al, inst the appellant. Further, the leamed Tribunal has rightty protected the inte. st ofthe appellant- Insurance Company under the same Award by directi I 3 the appellant to recover the said amount fiom the respondent No I thougt rbserved that there is breach of terms and conditions of the policy. As suc I , this Court is not inclined to interfere with the Award passed by the learnec tribunal in respect of any of the findings and the quantum of compensation i I there is no appeal preferred by the claimants. For the above said reasons, thi point is answered accordingly in favour of the respondents and against the ap1 ellant.

17.. In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirnr ng the Award and decree dated 12.12.2019 passed in M.V.O.P. No. I 72 of 20 1,, by the Chairman, \ \ 7 ,IVI\IR,J MACMA No.479 oJ 2O2O Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (District Judge), Karimnagar. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed SD/- T.SRINIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// CTION OFFICER To, Khammam. '1. The Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge), at

2. One CC to SRI A RAMAKRISHNA REDDY Advocate tOpUCl 3. One CC to SRl. G RAVI CHANDRA SEKHAR Advocate IOPUC] 4. Two CD Copies GE/PSL 1 Y-$a- )4-- HIGH COURT DATED:29/0712025 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.479 ot 2020 n ,,'1 i) c C) :rr JAr{ 2026 rl) ,:'.irlcl 6).\ *' DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS 6 \5 leh I I i l IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD [ 34431 TUESDAY,THE TWENry NINTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 47I OF 2020 Between: Cholamandalam M.S. General lnsurance C. Ltd, Represented by its Authorized Signatory, Dare House, 2nd Floor No.2, N.S.C. Bose Road, Chennai'-600 001, lndia AND ...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT NO.2

1. Manikravu Vijaya Rani, Wo Satish, Age.26 years, Occ.Coolie 2. Manikravu Nagamaokshagnya, D/o Vijaya Rani, Age. 7 years, Occ. Student

3. Manikravu Bhavgnya, Age.5 years, Occ.Student

4. Manikravu Laxmi, Wo Rajanna, Age.60 years, Occ. Nil

5. Manikravu Rajanna, S/o Ramulu, Age.65 years, Occ.Coolie (Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are minors and are being Represented by their mother and natural guardian Manikravu Vijaya Rani i.e. Respondent No.'1 herein) All are R/o H.No.7-84, Behind Police Station, Charla, Bumullanka, Charla Manda!, Khammam District, Khammam District, Presently Residing at H.No.5-1- 189, Kaviraj nagar, Khanapuram Haveli, Khammam Corporatioh, Khammam Distict

6. Gunji Janaki Rao, S/o Ramanaiah, age.33 years, Occ. Owner of TATA ACE bearing No. AP 20 TB 7877 , Rlo D.No.5-52, Ricepeta Village, Cherla Mandal, Khammam District ...RESPONDENT NO.6/RESPONDENT NO.1 Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V.Act, against Order and Decree dated 1211212019 passed in M.V.O.P.No.172 OF 2017 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge), at Khammam. 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. RAMAKRISHNA REDDY, .,, Advocate for the Appellant and SRt G. RAVI CHANDRA SEKHAR, Advocate appeared for Respondent No.1 to 3 & 5 and none appeared fit Respondent No. 4 & 6. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: 1 . That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appe z I be and is hereby dismissed.

2. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal lfirue Copyll To SD/- I SRINIVASA REDDY ASSI STANT REGISTRAR \ $ ECTION OFFICER \

1. The Motor Accidents Ctaims Tribunat (District Judge) lt Khammam 2. fwo CD Copies. GE/PSL \* HIGH COURT DATED:29/0712025 DECREE MACMA.No.479 ot 2020 DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS ?L \6\\