The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellant: Sri N Mohan Krishna Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3: Ajay Kumar Madisetty Counsel for the Respondent No. 8: Sri M. Rama Krishna The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA M.A.C,M.A. N0.5()5 0F 2021 JUDGMEN T: 'lhis appeal is filed b1, tho Insnrancc Company aggner.ed bv the Order and Decree dzited 16. 12.2O2O ir.r M.V.O.p_No,40 of 2015 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accider.rt Claims Tril:unal_cum_l Additional District Judge, War:rngarl (lor short .,the .lribr_rnal,,).

2. Iror conve nience and clarit1., the parties here rn arc rci.erred to as thev rvere arrayed bcfore the,lribunal.

3. The case of the petitio'rci bcf.rc *re Tribunar is trrat o. 15.06.2014 the deceaseri Avnnoori Aruna alor.rg u,rrh hcr husbancl and others r,vere returning to Lhcir Vi[agc Allipurarn af[er eittending thc funeral of a rclative a1 Hanamkonda in :rn Auto bcaring NO.Ap 36 Y-961 3 and when they re.lched near- pcnsionprira Church al around 2:3O p.m., a bike bearirrg No.Ap_36_AK_21a2 driven by irs rider V. Ramulu/respondent No.I hcrein came in opposite direction in a wrong route in i.r rash and negligcnt manner al a high speed and dashed the auto, as a rcsult of rv}-rich, Aruna who was sitting in the rear seat on the right sicle, felt dow.n and the motorcycle hit her and dragged her to some distance resulting in injuries. Immediately, she was shifted to M.G.M I{ospital, whcre 2 Et 0,l Aal\']A No.5C 5 2021 'i she sLlccumbcd to iniuries on the same day Husban land chiidren of tlrt' deceasecl claimed a compensation of Rs 8'O0'l) )tli

4. Respondent No. L has filed counter admiltrlrli ou,ner of the offending bike bearing No AP-36-A l< - insured u'ith responclent No 2 and the policy is irr datc of thc accidenl, but he denied that the accidetrt Lo his rash and negligence lt is further coulende ': vchrcle is insured q'ith respondent No'2, it is rhe rvhich is liable to pay compcnsation if any awardcd tira; he is Lhe I18-l u'ht cll rs trcc as on thc rooir placc cl r-ic ' hat Sin(te h1s spor-rdcn - No.2 r tlLc Court.

5. Respotldent No.2 1-ras filcd countcr de nf iL-rg ll thc petition rvith regard to thc occurrence of the 'r( a,,,ocation and income of the deceased' It is furlher r alertrten ts rlf .; ide r-r L, lhc age, crontcnded LIttll the driver of the Auto allou'ed 5 pcrsons to travei i - t lic au to rr hich is not permissible and that the auto was ovcrloa ' l ricler of the motor bike had no valid driving l' Con-rpany is not liable to pay compensation lt is f L rd and tltirt the ensi: anrl their rther conLendccl that the policy issued by them is not valid as o.r t hc date of the accident.

6. Respondent No.3 has filed counter admittir g his ownership of Auto bearing No AP-36-Y-9613 and contended hat it is tnsured 3 ETD,] MACMA No.505 2021 u,ith respondcnr No.4 and that the policy is valid as on thc date oi the accident. He denied his 1iability to pay any compensation. 7 Respondcnt No.4 remained ex-partc

8. Respondent No.5 has filed countcr denying Lhe avcrments of thc petition u,ith rcgard to the occurrcnce o[ thc accident, age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is further conlended that there is contributory negligence on part of the rcspondent Nos.1 and 3 resulting in the death of the deceasecl atlci LhaL respondenL No.5 clone is nor liable to pay cumpensarjuir. t). Based on the rival contentions ol the parrie s, ther Triltun:rl has framed thc following issues for trial: i) ti) iii) iu) Whether the accident occurred on 15 O6.2Oj4 tucts due to rl6-sh cln(l negLtgent diuing on Le parT of ttrc rider of the Hero HotLtlcr SpLertdor Motor Cycle bearing No.Ap-36 AK,21g2 and tLre clitter of the Bajaj Passenger Auto beanng No.Ap 36_y_9613? Whether the pottcies were tn force and ualid on <tccident? Lhe date oj Whether the petitioners are entitlecl for compensqtiort? II so, to wtLclt ertent? To what relieJ?

10. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined pW1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P6. On behalf of the respondents RW1 and RW2 were examined and trxs_Rl to R3 were marked. --r EiJ),] MA( MA NO 'JC! ] J1 4 1l Basecl on the evidence on record, the TribuniL has au'a:cied a compensation ol Rs 6,92,000/ . Aggrieved by the s 'i rLe, lhe prcsent appcal is prclerrecl lly the iusurer of Speldor l)lr s llll<c beariug No.AP'36-AK 2182.

12. Heard the srtbmission of Sri N. Mohan I( ishua, lcartrccl counsel for lhe Insurance Company and Sri !1. Rama Krishna, Ie:rrned counscl [or rcspondcnt No.8

13. Lcarncd counsel lor appeilant ilas submittt'r that the order passed b1, thc TribLrnal is contrary to the facls of tl €r case ard lhal thc Tribuna I failed to consider the contributo r ' negligcnr:c of drivers of both the vehicles involved in the acc:t ent, I Ic lurther submittecl that the driver of thc motor bike d i'l not havc va Ltd driving iiccnsc as on the date of the accidcr-r ' zrnd tl'rat tI'rcir compan!'is rLot liable to paJ' anv compensatiotl, I uL (he 'I:ibunai l-ras ignorcd the sziid fact. He further submitted t.) rl in case if lhis Court comes to a conclusion that compensation r rs to be paid b5r the Insurance Company, then pay and recovery nay be ordered. Ile further argued that the Tribunal has assessed I re income of the deceased rvithout any proof and has awarded ol cess amounl of compensation. He thereforc, prayed to set aside he order passed bv the Tribunal. E-- 5 ETD,J MACMA No.505 2021

14. Learned counsel for respondent No.B/Auto bearing No.Ap_ 36 Y-9613 has submirted that the Tribunal has fastened the li:rbilit1, on both the lnsurance Companies and that rhey have complied the orders of the Tribunal by pal,ing 50% of the compen sation.

15. tsased on the above rival contentions, this Court frames the [ollou,ing points for determination: 1 2 3 Whether tlle conlpensatiotL granted bt1 tlrc Tr[burLq[ ts rust ottd t eo sortable.' Wretlrcr the ider of the ntotor btke ha-s tlol po-s.s<:sseci r,,a1id diuing Licetse as orl the date of the acc:ident? Whetller the order ctnd decree of the Tibunol rrcetl ang interfe rence? 4 . To what relieJ?

16. POINT NO.1: .1) PW 1 assertcd that the deceascd \vas an Agric,-rltur:rl labourcl- and rvas earning Rs.6,000/ - per month. No proof is filcd in this regard. tr) In Ramachandrdppa. Vs. Manager, Rogal Sund.ara.m Alliance Insurance Compang Ltmitedl, the Apex Court has held Lhaio in the absence of any proof of income with regard to a labourer, Rs.4,500/- per month can be safely taken as the income. In the present case, the deceased is stated to have been an '(2oll) i2 scc 236 6 ETD,] t,4AC\rA No.505 2021 agricultural labourcr :rs pcr thc contention of the c The Tribunal has assessed the income of th t Rs.3.OOO/- per mitnth. 'lhc record revcals that thc 'r im petitioncrs. dcceascci zts ,leccasecl Lacl!' r.r,::l s agccl abor-tt 3O vears. In the facts and cil-c'r lnsLancc s, the income of thc deccased as assessed by the Tribur-ra I , e., Rs.3,000/ - pcr rnonLh appears to be just and rcasonable. c) Tl-rc Tril:unal has taken the right multipl :r '17' thal is appropriatc lbr thc agc of the deceased. The Trilr rnal has takcn into considcration ail the othcr principles laid clo tt in Nationol Insurance Cornpang Limited Vs. Pranag Sethi % Others2 and has au'ardecl compensation oi- Rs.6,92,O00/- TI-tct gh Lhc counsel has argued that the Tribunal has assessed lhe inc tl-re said argumcnl is not tenable as the Tribunal i income ol the decea'rscd to be Rs.3,00O/ on11 rme to be high, ls assessed lhe rvhich is quite reasonable. Therctbre, thc quantum of compe rsalion is not interfered bv this Court as i1- is found to be just anc reasonable. Point No. I is ansrvered accordingly ' ep 2ort scc 51 57 1 ETD,] MACM^ No.505 2021

17. Point No.2:- a) 'lhe contention of the appellant counsel is that lhe rider of thc motor bike did not possess a valid driving Iiccnse ancl thus their Company is not liable to pay any compensation. b) 1'o provc their contention rhey got examined RW 1 rvho r,r,orks as Junior Assistant in RTO Office, Warangal. His evidencc reveals that their office has issued license on 17.12.19g5 for driving Light Motor Vehicle and Motorcycle to one O.Ramulu S/o Narsaiah and thc samc is v.rlid up to 08.07.2019. trx.R1 is thc ExtracL ol Driving l,iccnse issuecl by the ir Olhce to O. Ramulu w.ho is the riclcr of the motor bikc. A pcrusal of Ex.R1 reveals that he possessed licensc to drive LMV non transport and Motorcycle with gear. The license to drivc moLorcl,clc was issued on 17.l2.i 9a1 and is valicl up to 08.rJ7.2019. In the renewal column also it is shown Lhat it vr,a s rcneu,cd from time to time. c) The Insurance Company also got cxamined RW2 u,ho is a Senior Assistant in the National Insurance Company. He deposecl that O. Ramulu, rvho is the rider of the motor bike, did not possess vaiid driving license as on the date of the accident and that he was charge sheeted under Section 18 1 of the Motor Vehicles Act ancl Section 3O4-A of Indian Penal Code. In his cross examination he 8 ETC,] 4,\CMA No 505 2021 denicd the suggestion givcn by the petitioners counsel that respondent No. I rvas having valict driving license ct) A pcrusal of 1hc chzrrgc sheet rcveals that 11 filecl charge shcct undcr Section 181 of the M V Act u e, I)olicc havc lso against O. Ramulu r'r,ho is arral'ed as against accused No discussecl suprzl, a copy of clrivrng license filed und: that the erccused had valicl clriving liceuse as on i accident and it is frLrthcr deposecl b5' RW 1 that lll vzrlid driving license issued bv lhcir Olfice u'hir t 17.12.1985 to 08 07.20 19. 'll'ierelbre, considcritr:' RW 1 couplcd rvith Ex.R 1, it is held lhat the cor appellant counsel is untenable in this regard Hence the cirivcr of oflcnding vehicle hacl valid driving licr:r'r Hog'cver, as Dx.RI shoris r,: d:rle of Lhe : accused had is valid from l-Lc ovidcncc of tent.ion of the it is held that ;r: aad that thc Insurance Companv is liabte t'r pa)' compensatior'" Point No.2 is ansu'ered accordinglS''

18. Point No.3:- In vieu' oi the hrrding arrived at point No 1 a' I 2' there is no need to intcrlerc u'ith the Ordcr zrnd Dccree of the 't ibunal and the same is uphcld. Point No.3 is ansr','erec-1 accordingly' 9 ETD,] MACN4A N0.505 2021

19. Point No.4:- h-r thc rcsult, thc appeal is dismissecl upholding the Order :rrrd Decrec cl:rted 16. 12.2O2O in M.V.O.p.No.4O of 20 l5 passcd br. the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum_I Additional DistricL Judge, Warangal. No costs. Miscellarrcr>us peritiuns, pencling il any, in this appeal, shali stand closed SD/- U.SUDHA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The chairman. lvlotor Vehicles Accident claims Tribunal-cum-l Additionar District Judge, Warangal.(with records, if any) 2. One CC to Sri N. Mohan Krrshna, Advocate iopUCl 3. One CC to Sri Alay Kumar Madisetty, Advocate tOpUCl 4. One CC to Sri lril Rama Krishna, Advocate topUCl 5 Two CD Copies VI Ii PSI, at'tR !i. : --\. \ -\ ',:.,, ,./ tlt: 31 Uc't ?i:Tl ,.\',/ ,(- v /,. ".i/' DF ^.) \'! /'' 1 -\:t;. - " ,' ,.!,'! .A.l/ * 1.,' HIGH COURT DATED: 18106t2025 JUDGMENT+DECREE MACMA.No.505 of 2021 DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS \rb l' 4P (trc U I I l IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 505 OF 2021 Between: National lnsurance Company Limited, rep by its Branch Manager, Seetharama Complex, Opp. Suneel Theater, Station Road, Warangal. ...APPELLANT/R-2 in MVOP ANO 1 Avunoori Raju S/o. Veeraiah, aged about 40 years Occ. Labour R/o. Allipuram Village, Hanamkonda Mandal, Warangal district

2. Avunoori Ganesh S/o. Raju, aged about 15 years Occ. Student minor, rep by his guardian natural father, ie. 1st respondent, R/o. Allipuram Village, Hanamkonda Mandal, Warangal district

3. Avunoori Geethika, D/o. Raju aged about 13 years Occ. Student, minor, rep by his guardian natural father, ie.1st Respondent R/o. Allipuram Village, Hanamkonda lr4andal, Warangal d istrict

4. Avunoori Subhadra, Wo Veeraiah, aged about 60 years Occ. House Wife R/o. Allipuram Vrllage, Hanamkonda Mandal, Warangal district

5. Avunoori Veeraiah, S/o. Late Veeraiah, aged about 65 years Occ. nil R/o. Allipuram Village, Hanamkonda Mandal, Warangal district. in MVOP 6. Voranganti Ramulu, S/o. Narsaiah, aged about 64 years Occ. Govt., ...RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANTS/PETITIONERS Employee R/o. H,No. 11-23-118, Tilak Road, Kashibugga, Warangal

7. Amravadhi Prabhakar, S/o. Veeraiah, aged about 48 years Occ. Auto Driover R/o. Allipuram Village, Hanamkonda Mandal, Warangal distnct B. United lndia lnsurance Company Limited, Rep., by its Branch ltrlanager, H-No. 29-2-415, Ramalayam Street, Governorpet, VUayawada, Krishna District ..RESPONDENTS/RESPONOENTS in MVOP Appeal filed under Section 173 of MV Act against tlr dated 16-12-2020 in M V O.P No 40 of 2015 on the f l,r Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal-cunr J udge, Warangal. Award and Decree of the Court of the I Additional District This appeal cominq on for hearing and upon perr ing the grounds of appeai, the Judgment anc Decree of the Court and the rr rlerial papers tn the case and upon heanng the arguments of Sn N Mohan Krr,cl -ra, Advocate for the appellant. Sri Ajay Kumar Madisetty. Advocate for the Re; )ondents 1 to 3 and Sri M Rama Krishna for Respondent No.8. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows

1. That the MACMA be and hereby is dismissed uphc cing the Order and Decree dated 16 12 2020 in MVOP No 40 of 1115 passed by the Chairman, [r]otor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum I Adrl ional District Judge, Warangal; and

2. fhal there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. SD/. U.SUDHA ASS I ;TANT REGISTRAR t\-----l #.r,o* oFFrcER //TRUE COPY// To, '1 . The Chairman, f\ilotor Vehicles Accident Claims Trib rnal-cum-l Additional District Judge, Warangal.

2. fwo CD Copies VH/PSI, Lu,l" HIGH COURT DATED: 1810612025 DECREE MACMA.No.505 o12021 DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS (D rkR .l,"ll) bl'-