The High Court · 2025

Judgment

This appeal is filed by Insurance Companl-, aggrieved by the order and decrce dated O7.O4.2O21 in M.V.O.P.No.61 ol 2O16 passed b_v the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Nizamabad (for short "the Tribunal") granting a compensation of Rs.2,81,OOO/ -.

For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referrecl to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The case of the petitioner before the Tribur-ral is that on

10. I 1.2015 the petitioner along with others u,as travelling in Toyota Qualis bearing No.AP-25-N-8866 from Hyderabad towards Nizamabad and u'hen they reached near Bhiknoor Church gate at about 9.O0 a.m. the driver of said vehicle has driven it in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and lost control over the vehicle and dashed against the Tractor bearing No.TS-15-UB-2 162 from its behind. As a result, the petitioner and other inmates of the said vehicle sustained injuries. Immediately, she was shifted to Government area Hospital, Kamareddy and thereafter she was shifted to Ganrlhi Hospital, Secunderabad and from there she was shifted- p Yashodha Hospital, Secunderabad wherein she was \ \- 2 ETD,,, MACMA No.681 2o21 treated as inpatient and was operated twice. Thc pctitioner was aged about 48 years as on the date of accident and that she was doing tailoring work, Embroidery works etc., and that she was earning of Rs.20,0O0/ - per month. She fited a pe tition seeking compensation of Rs.8,OO,OOO/- before the Tribunai.

4. Respondent No. 1 remained ex-parte. The respondent No.2/Insurance Company filed counter denying the averments with regard to occurrence of the accident, age, avocation of the petitioner and further contended that the accident has not occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the qualis and that there was contributory negligence of the driver of the Tractor and that the petition is bad for the non-joinder of owner and driver of the tractor. It is further contended that the driver of qualis does not possess valid driving license as on the date of the accident and that their company is not liable to pay any compensation.

5. Based on the above rival contentions, thc Tribunal has framed the follor.r,ing issues:-

1. 2 3 Wlether tlrc petitiaftet/ Akthar Uttlisa Begutn receiuetl iriuries iL the roa.l accident, <Lue to ra^sh and negliger diling of'loltota Qolis beartng No.AP 25 N-8866? whetlter the petitioaer b entitled. for cotnpetLsatiotl? To what relief ? - l ETD,I MACMA No.6a1 2021

6. To prove their case, the petitioner got examined PWs.1 and 2 and got marked as Exs.A 1 to A4 and Ex.C 1 . On behalf of the respondents. RW. L was examined and Ex.B 1 was marked.

7. Bascd on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.2,81,OOO/-. Aggrieved by the said order dated

07.O4.2021 , the present appeal is filed by the Insurance Company.

8. Heard Sri Ch. Venkata Narayana, learned counsel for the appellant ancl Sri P. Radhive Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No. I and Sri T. Laxmikanth Sarma, learned counsei for respondent No.2.

9. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Tribunal has erred in finding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligcnt driving of qualis bearing No.AP-25-N-8866 and that the injured was traveliing in the said vehicle as a passenger and that such risk is not covered by the Act policy under Ex.B1. He further submitted that the owner of the said vehicle has not paid any additional premium to cover the of risk of occupants in the vehicle. karned counsei for the appellant further submitted that the petiti<>n is bad for non-joinder of the owner and insurer of the tractor anr:l that contributory negligence has to be fixed on the driver of the traclor. He further contended that the Tribunal has 4 ETD,.I MACMA No.681 2021 awarded huge amounts under various heads, he therefore prayed to ailow the appeal and set aside the order of the Tribunal.

10. On the other hald, the learned counsel lor the respondent submitted that the Tribunal has passed a reasoned order and that there is no need to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunai and prayed the Court to dismiss the petition.

11. Based on the above rival submission, this Court frames the following points for determination:-

1. whether the policg under Ex.B 1/ coter-s the ris,. <tf the octtLponLs tn cptali-s uelticle beaing No.AP 25 N-8B66 tDhich uas tnuotued in the ecciclent.

2. W@thcr there wo^s anA Lentrtbutory negligeru:e bg the driuer oJ Tractor lrcaing No.TS- 15 UB 2162 in the occurrenrz of the o.ccident?

3. Whelher the cotnpersotioll granted bg tle Tribunal is just antd rea-sornble?

4. Whc,ther tlte Order and Decree passed by tle TibunaL need any ittterfer.tl.??

5. To what retieP !2. Point No.1:- The contention of the appeliant is that the policy bearing No.05O7O031 14P11O276758 issued to crime vehicle is an act policy and it does not cover the risk of occupants. A perusal ol Ex.Bl/copy of Insurance policy reveals that it was issued in favour of respondent No. I for qualis bearing No. AP-25-N-8866 and it was valid from 24.02.2015 Lo 23.02.2016 while the accident occurred on 10.11.2015. RW. 1 admitted that an amount of Rs.4,159/- was received towards third party liability. Further, it is contended that the occupants of the qualis do not come under the - 5 ETD,] MACMA No.68l 2021 dehnition of third pa-rty, because the policy issueci to the qualis bearing No.AI'-25-N-8866 is 'Liability only policv' and not a 'comprehensive policy' and that In case of liability only policy, the risk of occupants of the car rvill not be covererl a) In support of his case he has filed a de,rision of Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Balakrishnant Wherein the Supreme Court has distinguished betrveen an 'Act only Policy" and a "Comprehensive/ Package policy". The comprehensive/ package Policy" rt,ould cover the liability of the insurer for pa-yment of compensation for the occr-rpant in a car There is no cavil that an "Act Policv" stands on a dilferent footing from a "Comprehensive/ Package Policv" rurd that the comprehensive policy covers the liability of third party risk of al occupant in a czrr. But the Act poiicy cannot cover the third party risk of an occupant in a car. b) In IIDFC Ergo General Insurqnce Compang Ltd vs. Snt. Rqibalrr & Ors.t, Wherein Rajasthan High Court held that "the vehicle was evidentlr, insured as a 'Private Car t,iability Only Policy/ Act Only Policy' u,herein the risk of the or:cupants was not covered ar'rd also no premium u.as received b1-the appellant ' aln zot3 sc +z:. '? 2024 LiveLaw(Raj) l0 l9 6 ETD,I MACMA No.581,2021 insurance compary for the occupants of the vehicle. Therefore, insurance company is not liable. c) In the present case also the injured petitioner is an occupant in the car and the policy issued to the crime vehicle is 'private car liabiliq, only policy'. A perusal of the policy reveals that the premium collected is towards the third party liability arrd to cover the risk of the driver and no premium is collected towards the occupants ofthe car. d) RW1/M.V.Krishna Rao, is an Administrative Oflicer in United India Insurance Company Ltd., it is elicited from his evidence that the insurance policy is act policy (Liability only policy/Third party policy) and that no premium is paid for the occupants or passengers and that the occupants are not covered in the said policy and the owner is responsible for all the consequences. In his cross-examination, he admitted that the seating capacity of the accident vehicle is 10 but he has stated that there is no extra payment to cover the risk of occupants. Thus, evidence of RW 1 coupled with Ex.B 1 discloses that the policy issued towards qualis is "Liability only Policy (Act Policy)". In the light of above cited decisions ald in view of the foregoing discussion, it is held that the insurance company is not i.tf" to pay compensation to the petitioner herein while I ETD,J MACMA No.681 2021 owner of thr: crime vehicle is liable to pay compensation. Hence, point No. 1 ans\\lered accordingly

13. Point No2 The contention of the appellant is that there is contributory negiigence on the part of the driver of GMR tractor and that the accident has not occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the qualis. Perusal of Ex.Al /F.l.R. and Ex.A2lcharge sheet, reveals that on 10. 11.2O15 at about 7.O0 hours while the petitioners along with other irersons r"vere travelling in qualis bearing No.AP-25 N-8866. when they reached Bhiknoor church at around 9-00 hours at NH-44, the driver of the qualis drove in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the GMR Tractor bearing No.TS- 15- UFI -2162 from behind and the charge sheet is filed against the driver of the qualis. Further, perusai of the Dx.A4, copy of the crime detail form, also cliscloses the said fact that the qualis hit the tractor from behind. PW 1 , who is the injured petitioner a-iso stated during her evidence that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligence of the driver of qualis. Therefore, it is said that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligence of the driver of the quaiis and there is no contributory negligence of 8 ETO,., MACMA No.681 2021 the driver of the GMR Tractor bearing No.TS- 15-UB-2162. Hence, the point No.2 is answered accordingiy. L4. Point No.3: - The petitioner's case is that she sustained severe head injury, left temporal contusion, right zygoma fracture, thin RIM of SDB in high right parietal region, laceration on over right eye, contusion around right eye and abrasion over left knee. PW.2/Dr.B.J. Rajesh issued Ex.A3/injury certificate, which reveals the said injuries sustained by the petitioner and Ex.C1 case sheet issued by Yashoda Hospital discloses the nature of treatment underwent by the petitioner for the injuries sustained by her. The evidence of PW.2 further reveals that their hospital issued Ex.C 1, which discloses that the petitioner took inpatient treatment from

10. 11.20i5 to 14.11.2O15 and surgery was conducted on

12.11.2015 for evacuation of hematoma, debridement was done. In view ol the injuries sustained by the petitioner and the treatment underwent by her, the Tribunal has granted reasonable amounts under different heads like pain and suffering, medica,l expenses, extra nourishment, transportation charges etc., and thus this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. With regard to loss of earnings, the appellant has stated that she is a tailor. lt is a common observation that many ladies do tailoring \ I \ t _c ETD,J MACMA No.681 2021 work to support their living. However, the petitioner has not filed any proof of her income. The Tribunal has taken the notional income of the petitioner as Rs.3,000/- per month rvhich appears to be reasonable. Thus. Rs.6,O00/ - towards loss o[ carnings is awarded observing that she might have taken t\\'o months for recovery. Thus, it is opined that the Tribunal has passed a well- reasoned order granting an amount of Rs.2,81,00O/- torvards compensation which is found to be just and reasonable. Hence, point No.3 is answered accordingly.

15. Point No.4:- In vieu' of the finding arrived at point No.1 to 3, the order and decree passed by the Tribunal needs to be rlodified on the liability aspect. The insurance compan] is exoner:lted from its liability of paying compensation rvhile the owner of the quaiis bearing AP-25-N-8866 is liable to pay compenszrtion to the petitioner. Point No.4 is alswered accordingly.

16. Point No.5:- In the result, the appeal is allowed, setting aside the Order and Decree dated 07.O4.20221 in M.V.O.P.No.61 of 2O16 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Nizamabad and it is held that the insurance company is exonerated while the owner of the qualis bearing No.AP-2S-N- -.... 10 ETD,J MACMA No.681_2021 \ 8866 is liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. However, with regard to the amount of compensation that is alreadl' deposited b), the Insurance Compaly, it shall recover the same from the ou,ner of the crime vehicle. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appeal, shall stand closed - I Sd/- T. JAYASREE PUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY' TION OFFICER To, l.TheMotorAccidentClaimsTribunal-cum.IAdditionalDistrictJudgeat Nizamabad. ( With records)

2. one CC to Sri. Ch Venkata Narayana, Advocate [oPUC] 3. One CC to Sri P Radhive Reddy, Advocate IOPUC] 4. Two CD Copies AS/DL HIGH COURT DATED:02/05/11025 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.681 of 2021 ALLOWING THE IJIACMA / 4/' '1 ' /3y'o 4s in': S iArra I 0[1 2tr6 * s * ot)J ,^ i 134441 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERBAD FRIDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 681 OF 2021 Between: The United lndia lnsurance Company Limited, Represented by its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Godown Road, Nizamabad. ...Appellant/Respondent No. 2 AND

1. Akhtar Unnisa Begum, W/o Mohammed Shujath AIi, Aged 53 Occ- Tailoring and Embroidery works, Rt/o H.No. 8-6-555, Azam Nizamabad. years, Road, ...Respondent/Petitioner

2. Shaik Shabeer, S/o Shaik Babu, Aged 45 Years, Occ. Business cum Owner of Toyota Qualis bearing No. AP 25 N 8866, R/o H.No. 12-'l -30, Sanath Nagar, Arsapally, Nizamabad - 503001. ...Respondents/Respondent No. 1 Appeal filed under Section 173 of ftilotor Vehicle Act, against the Order and Decree dated 71412021 in O.P. No. 61 of 2016 on the file of the court of the Motor Accident Ciaims Tribunal-cum-l Additional District Judge at, Nizamabad. 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. Ch Venkata Narayana Advocate for the appellant and Sri P Radhive Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent No.1. The Court delivered the following:

1. That appeal be and hereby is allowed, setting aside the order and Decree daled 07.04.2021 in M.V.O.P. No. 61 of 2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-l Additional District Judge, Nizamabad and it is held that the insurance company is exonerated while the owner of the quails bearing No. AP-25-N-8866 is liable to pay compensation to the petitioner;

2. That, however, with regard to the amount of compensation that is already deposited by the lnsurance Company, it shall recover the same from the owner of the crime vehicle;

3. That save as aforesaid, the decree of the Lower Court shall stands confirmed in all other respects; and

4. That there be no order as to costs in this appeal //TRUE COPY// Sd/. T. JAYASREE PUTY REGISTRAR k CTION OFFICER To, '1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -cum- I Additional District Judge at Nizamabad. 2. Two CD Copies AS/DL HIGH COURT DATED:02/05/2025 DECREE MACMA.No.681 of 2021 ALLOWING THE MACMA 4 /rt ,13 ,/lo ,/, tr