The High Court · 2025

in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased To stay the €,xecution of Decree and Order passed in OP.No.39 of 2018 dated 27-11-2018 on the file of the (MACT)Ill Additional District, Asifabad. For the Appellant : Sri Kota Subba Rao, Advocate For the Res;pondents Nos. 2to 5: Sri Rudresh Deshpandae, Advocate For the Respondent No. 7: Sri K.Ajay Kumar, Advocate The Court nrade the following: JUDGMENT D a ,/', i 1 macma_124_2019 NBK, J BLE M.A.C.M.A No.124 of 2019 JTJDGMENT: This is an appeal filed against the Judgment and Decree dated 27 .11.2018, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Ill Additional District Judge, Asifabad, in O.P. No. 39 of 2018. By the impugned judgment, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 8,40,6001- with interest at 9oh per annum to the claimants, on account of the death of one B. Mahender (hereinafter, 'the deceased') in the motor vehicle accident that occurred on ll.O4.2}t5. The deceased was proceeding on a tractor-trolley (Nos. AP-OlQ- 8675 & AP-I5V-2783) when the driver of the tractor drove in a rash and negligent manner and applied sudden brakes to give way to an oncoming lorry. Consequently, the attached trolley, which was loaded with bricks, tilted to one side, causing the deceased to fall, sustain multiple injuries, and eventually die instantaneously. The Tribunal held the driver, owner, and insurer of the tractor- trolley jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Tribunal, the insurance company (i.e., FIDFC General Insurance Company Limited) filed this appeal. For convenience, the parties will be referred to as the claimants and the insurance company, respectively.

2. Heard Mr. Kota Subba Rao, learned Standing Counsel forthe appellant- insurance company; and Mr. R. Deshpande, learned counsel for the claimants. a Perused the record.

3. Learned Standing Counsel for the insurance company essentially contends that there is no contractual liability of the insurance company under Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, read with Rule 3 of the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989; that the owner and driver of the subject tractor-trolley \ \ 2 macma_124_2019 NBl( J \ remained ex parte, and therefore, the evidence adduced on behalf of the insurance company remains unrebutted; that the driver of the tractor-trolley had no valid driving licence; further, the burden of proof of possessing a valid driving licence rests on the owner and driver of the tractor-trolley and not on the insurance company, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pappu vs. Vinod Kumar Lambat;that the deceased was not working as a coolie but was an unauthorized and gratuitous passenger; and that the Tribunal did not properly decide the quantum ofcompensation. Learned counsel for the claimants submits that the Tribunal held that the

4. accident o<:curred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver ofthe subject tractor-trolley and awarded the compensation and that the grounds urged by the insuran ce company are not tenable.

5. Having considered the respective submissions and perused the record, it may be noted that the occurrence of the accident on I 1.04.2015 on the outskirts of Rebbena village (near Govemment College, Rebbena), when the deceased was travel..ing on the tractor-trolley, and the death of the deceased due tcr injuries sustained fiom falling off the tractor-trolley, are not in dispute. The Tribunal fi'amed an issue regarding whether there was rash and negligent driving by the driver of the tractor-trolley and recorded a finding based on the evidence o:iPW-2, who was a coolie travelling in the same tractor-trolley, that r the driver clrove in a rash and negligent manner and applied sudden brakes to give way lo. an oncoming lorry. Further, it was elicited during the cross- examination of PW-2 that the deceased, PW-2 as well as Mallesh had been performing loading and unloading of bricks on the subject tractor-trolley for the last ten years. The Tribunal found no evidence contradicting PW-2's version. In tight of the clear and unrebutted evidence of PW-2, it is established r (2018) 3 sCC 2C8 3 macma_124_2019 NBK, J that the deceased was working as a coolie on the subject tractor-frolley and, on the fateful day, was sitting on the brick load along with other coolies and died due to falling from the brick-loaded trolley caused by the rash and negligent driving and sudden braking by the driver.

6. Even as per Pappu (supra), merely making a plea that the driver did not possess a valid driving licence is not sufficient for the insuranco company to avoid liability. The insurer must lead cogent evidence to prove that the driver was not duty licensed and that the owner was guilty of willful breach of the insurance terms. The burden initially lies on the insurance company, and only after it produces credible evidence does the onus shift to the owner or driver. The Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasized that unless this burden is discharged, the insurer cannot be absolved of its liability to pay compensation. In the instant case, the insurance company merely pleaded before the Tribunal that the driver had no valid driving licence, without adducing cogent evidence; hence, the contention that the driver had no licence and that the Tribunal failed to appreciate this aspect cannot be countenanced. In view of the same, this Court does not find any merit in this appeal.

7. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. , SD/. T. SRINIVASA REDDY "-asiisliiiif CEcr'sfnan ' ,/ G //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER (M.A.C.T.) lll Additional District Ju99?,-A:!t3UaO (With Records' if any) Ubt"dri kitb'bJuul nio, Advocate [oPUc] 33 3 Sil [H?["''*l;ml"tz,3t5?",33 CD CoPies roP u c] To,

1. The 2. One 3. One 4. One 5. Two WKNK HIGH CC,URT DATED:2',Bl0Bl2O25 JUDGME:NT + DECREE MACMA, No.1 24 of 201 9 ATE q 5 q) 1\$\ +. \$\ t\ * rlEgf 2 / I l APPEAI. IS DISMISSED, NO COSTS 5 \ I \ IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAI(A MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVI MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 124 oF 2019 L Between: HDFC General lnsurance Company Limited, Rep. By its Managing Director, Regd. Office, 1"'Flodr, HDFC House, 165-166, Backbay, Reclamation HT Parekh Margh, Churchgate, Mumbai. AND ...AppellanURespondent No.3

1. Baddi Mounika, Wo Late Mahender (died) (her LRs already on record Memo filed on 17-7-2018)

2. Baddi Kalyan, S/o. late Mahender, aged 10 yis, Occ- Student (Minor Rep. by Res.No.S)

3. Baddi Kirthana, D/o late Mahender, aged 7 years, Occ- Student ((Minor Rep. by Res.No.S)

4. Baddi Chinnakka, Wo Baddi Mallaiah, Aoe 48 vears. Occ- Household. ny'o H.tlb.s-t sa, Pegadapalli village, Mdl. Tandur, Dist. Macherial..

5. Baddi Mallaiha, S/o Bheemaiah, aged 51 years, Occ- Coolie. R/o H.No.3-158, Pegadapalli village, Mdl. Tandur, Dist. Macherial.. (Resoondents 2 and 3 are minors U/G of their natural guardian l.e. ilespondent No.5 as per lA No.665/20'18 Dt.22.11.2018). ...Respondents/Petitioners

6. Bodasu Raju @ Kumar SwamY, S/o Venkati, age 35 yrs, Occ- Driver of Tractor and trolley, Rl/o Dulipet Of Goleti village, Mdl, Rebbena, Dist. Kumram Bheem Asifabad a

7. Pothula Rayamallu, S/o Odelu, aged major Occ: Owner of tractor and trolltiy R/o H.No.D-7, Near bus stand, Goleti Township, Rl/M- Rebbena. Dist. Kumram Bheem Asifabad. ...Respondents/Respondents 1 & 2 Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V. Act, aggrieved by the Order and Decree made in o.P.No.39 of 2018 dated- 27.11.2018 on the file of the (M.A.C.T. ) lll Addl. District Judge, Asifabad. DE(]REE: This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Order and Decree of the Court below and the material papers in the case and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Kota Subba Rao, Advocate, for the Appellant arnd of Sri Rudresh Deshpanday, Advocate, for the Respondents Nos. 2 to 5 and Sri k..Ajay Kumar, Advocate, For the Respondent No. 7. The Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. Thal:this Appeal be and is here by Dismissed.

2. Thal there is no order as to costs to this Appeal //TRUE COPY// SD/. T. SRINIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR G SECTION OFFICER To,

1. Ihe,',M.A.C.T.) lll Additional District Judge, Asifabad 2. Two CD copies t_ I / / t t HIGH COURT DATED:11810812025 DECREE MACMA.I lo.124 of 2019 APPEAL I$ DISMISSED, NO COSTS \ 6 -e'i