The High Court · 2025

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRI'MALA DE\ I EADA M.A.C.M.A.NO.S24 0F 2o2r JUDGMENT: This appeai is frled by the Insurance Compan'z aggrieved by fhe Order and Decree dated 08.02.2021 irt M.A.'l O.P.No.16 of 2O 15 passed by the Chairman, Motor Vehicle A<x ident Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge, Kothagu c :m (for short "the Tribunal") .

2. F'or convenience and clarity, the parties. herein r re referred to as they werc arrayed before the Tribunil. ' ". . ,.',.'

3. The case of the petitioner before the TribuniL. was that on 09 .12 .2014 , the petitioner engaged a Bolero Maxi ' ruck bearing No-AP 20 TA 7603 to lransport paddy from Charla rnd while he $,as returning and vvhen the vehicle reached near llamidigudem Village, the driver ol Bolero Maxi Truck has driven 11 e vehicle in a rash and negligcnt manner at a high speed and ( ashed to the culvcrt, aftcr s,hich, it has hit one road side tree at t.r : same speed, due to u,hich the petitioner sustained severe injurie r , immediately he u,a s shiftecl to the Government Hospital and that he suffered a Iot and incurred huge expenses for his treatment. TL.t s, he claimecl a compensation oi Rs.5,OO,0O0/-.

1. The respondent No. I remained ex-parte. 2 ETD,J MACMA No.524 2021

5. The respondent No.2 has frled.counter denying averments of the petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident, age, avocation and income of the petitioner. It is further contended that the petitioner was travelling as an unauthorized passenger in a goods vehicle and that the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation as there is a violation in terms and conditions of the policy.

6. Based on the above pleadings, trial Court has framed the following issues for trial: - 1 2 Whether the aiEident u)ds oantred. due to ro,sh dnd neglqent driubtg of the driter of Bolero Moxi Truck beaing No.Ap 20 TA 7603? Wlether the claim petttions i.s entitled to conpensation) lf so, to uhq.t afiount attd. from u.rl@m?

3. To u.that relieJ?

7. To prove his case, petitioner got examined pWs I and 2 and got marked Exs.Al to A7. On behalf of the respondenrs, RWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.Bl arrd B2 were marked.

8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has granLed a compensation of Rs.5,5O,463/-. Aggrieved by the said award, the present appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company.

9. Heard the submissions of Sri A. Rama Krishna Reddy , Iearned counsel for the Insurance Company. None appe:rred on behalf of the respondents. 3 ETDJ ,IACMA No.524 2021

10. Learned counsel for the appellant has subnr: -ted that the petitioner was travelling as an unauthorized pass :nger in the goods vehicle and that the company is not liab < to pay any compensation in such cases. He further argued tha the tribunal has hxed the liability on the Insurance Company wlL: :h is not just and proper. He therefore, prayed to exonerate t re insurance company from its liabiliry. 1 1. In view of the above submissions, the points ]lat arise for consideration in this Appeal are as follows:- 1 2 Whether the petitioner was trauelling a.s an unaut, orized. passengcr in Mon Truck bearing No.AP-20-TA-761) | at te tlme of the accident. If so, whether the irtsurance t mpang is Liable to p\U co mpensation? Whet her the o rcler qnd decree of the tibunal neec' tng interJbrer rce? To what reLief ?

3. 12. Point No.1: a) PWl is the injured petitioner, he stated that h engaged the Bolero Maxi Truck to transport the paddy from Charlr It is elicited from him that he is an agriculturist. b) The contention ol the insurance companl' is that the petitioner was travelling as an unauthorized pasr :nger in the goods vehicle , they got examined RW 1. It is elicitt J during the cross examination of RWI that the insurance policy u as in force as on the date of the accident. They further got examin: I RW2 who is 4 ETD,J MACMA No.524 2021 a motor vehicle Inspector working at Kothagudem. It is elicited in his evidence that the crime vehicle bearing No.Ap-2O-TA-7603 is a iight goods vehicle and the seating capacit5z of the said vehicle is two including the driver arrd that it is not meant for passengers. Thus, it is elicited that the crime vehicle was a transport vehicle meant for transportation of goods and it had the seating capacity of two including the d river. c) A perusal of the charge sheet under Ex.A2 reveals that it is hled against the driver of the said Maxi Truck as the accused who has caused accident, due to his rash and negligent driving of the said vehicle and that the petitioner Apalna Sathyam carried his load of paddy by engaging the said vehicle. It further reveals that the petitioner is the only injured in the accident as listed in the charge sheet. Therefore, it is elicited that the crime vehicle is a transport vehicle and that the petitioner was travelling with the driver, along with his paddy. The Insurance Policy/Ex.B1 is valicl as on the date of the accident. It is elicited from RW2 that the seating capacity of the crime vehicle is two including driver. Thereflore, there is no violation of the terms and conditions of the policy and the petitioner cannot be treated as an unauthorized passenger. The vehicle is meant for transportation of goods and thus, paddy was being transported. Since the seating capacity includes one person other than the driver, there is nothing u,rong 5 ETD,J I ACMA No.524 2021 if the petitioner is permitted to travel along will the driver. Therefore, it is held that there is no violation : terms and conditions of the policy and that the petitioner cannot be held !o.be an unauthorized petitioner. Hence, the insurance con pany is held liable to pay compensation. Point No.1 is answered accordingly.

13. Point No.2:- In view of the finding arrived at Point No. 1, th: 'e is no need to interfere with the order and decree passed by the tribunal and therefore, the same is upheld. Point No.2 is answered accordingly. ; . .. - , :

14. Poiut No.3:- In the result, the appeal is dismissed upholdi rg the Order and Decree dated 08.02.2O2 I in M.A.T.O.P.No.16 o 2015 passed by the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tli :unal-cum-V Additional District Judge, Kothagudem. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in thir; appeal, shall stand closed. SD'- MOHD.ISMAIL TII PUTY REGISTRAR \ n //TRUE COPY// \ SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-: lm-V Additional District Judge, Kothagudem l I I I I I I I I I I I l l i

2. One CC to SRI A RAMAKRISHNA REDDYAdvocate [OPUC] 3. Two CD Copies GE/PSL Ay I ----t i I I i I I I I HIGH COURT DATED:01/0812025 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.S24 of 2021 DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS q \ t0 ,4 ((' (( 'L-l J 1 /:, ) Lt [[[ * r'15.1t'i" 1 I IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD [ 3il44l FRIDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA MOTOR ACC IDENT CIVIL MISC ELLANEOUS AP PEAL NO i 524oF 2021 Between: United lndia General lnsurance co. Ltd.,, Represented by its Branch Manager, Local Branch, Bhadrachalam ...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT NO.2 AND

1. Appana Sathyam @ Sathyanarayal.a, S/o- Veeraiah' AS9: 69.years' Occ- ' nEli",iituri"i.- nyo SEetnanalaram'Village. Dummugudem Mandal, Khammam .. RES'.NDENT N..1/PETIT.NER District'

2.PuwalaHarinath,S/oRammurthy,Age-!{ajgrOcc-OwneroftheBoleroTruck - U;;ilffi'AF'rblA zoo5, mo ii t't6 1-80,'Parnashala, Dummusudem Mandal' Khammam District ...RESPONDENT NO.2/RESPONDENT NO'1 AppealfiledunderSectionlT3oftvl,V.Act,againstorderandDecree dated 08/02/2021 passed in M.A.T.O.P.No.16 OF 2015 on the file of the court of the chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge, Kothagudem. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal,thejudgmentandDecreeoftheLowerCourtandthematerialpapersin the case and upon hearing the argument of SRI' A RAMAKRISHNA REDDY' Advocate for the Appellant and none appeared for Respondents' This Court doth Order and Decree as follows

1. That the Motor Accident civil Miscellaneus Appeal be and is hereby dismissed.

2. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal llTrue Copyll : SD/. MOHD.ISMAIL REGISTRAR =PUry CTION OFFICER To

1. The Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribr- ral-cum-V Additionai District Judge, Kothagudem.

2. Two CD Copies. GE/PSL ry. I . I \ \ HIGH COURT DATED:01/0812025 DECREE MACMA.No.524 ot 2021 DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS q v6 t\ i0