The High Court · 2025

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI M.A.C.M.A.No.2975 OF 2Ol4 JUDGMENT:

1. Aggrieved by the decree and judgment passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum- the Court of IV Additional District Judge (FTC), Siddipet, in O,P.No,72 of 2OI1 , dared lO.O4.2Ol4, the 2"d respondent/ Insurance Company in the said O.P. preferred the present Appeal seeking to set-aside the order of the learned Tribunal.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hrrreinafter be relerred as they werc arrayed bcfore the learned Tribunal.

3. The llricf facts of the casc are that initiall.y, petitioners have filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rules 475/18 of A.P.Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 read q,ith Seclion 140 of M.V.Act, 1989 claiming compensation of Rs.7,50,O00/- along with interest @ 18% pcr annum against the respondents on account of the death of Late Mohammad Althaf Hussain (hereinafler referred as 'the deceased) in a motor vehicle accidenl that occurred on 27.O1.2OI1.

4. It is stated by the petitioners lhat on 27 .01.2071 at about

9.30 P.M., the deceased-Mohammad Althaf Hussain along with another driver Ramulu started from Dubbak on Ashok Leyland Lorry bearing No.AP-24U- 1 166 to dump the wood at Hyderabad and after ciumpir-rg thc said u,ood, when they started return journcy 2 M6P'] MAcMA.No.297soI2au ; on 28.0I.2011 with empry lorry and when the lorry reached near Habshipur X Road at about 7.00 p.m., the driver of the said lorry drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner at high speed nad applied sudden break. As a result, the deceased fell down from the cabin and the rear wheels of the said lorry ran over the deceased and the deceased died on the spot.

5. Based on-a complaint, the Station House Officer of Dubbak Police Station registered a case in Crime No.9 of 2O 1 1 under Section 304-A IPC and hled charge sheet against the driver of Ashok Leyland Lorry bearing No.AP-24-U-1166

6. It is stated by the petitioners that prior to accident, the deceased was hale and healthy, aged 31 years and used to work as RTC driver on contract basis in Dubbak depot for Rs 5,381/ Due to sudden death of the deceased, thc petitioners lost their bread u,inner and were put to mental shock and becamc destitute Hence, filed claim petition secking compcnsation against the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2, who are owner and insurer of subject Ashok Leyland l,orry bearing No.AP-24U 1166

7. Respondent No.1, Owner of the Crime Lorry bearing No'AP- 24 -U - l 166, remained ex-Parte.

8. Respondent No.2/Insurance Company filed its counter made in the claim Petition denying the material allegations including, occurrence of accident, involvement of crime lorry, rash s - 'r:..'. 4 3 MGP,] MACMA No.)975 oI20la and negligen t driving on part of the driver of crime lony, driver of the crime lorr1, having valid driving license at the time of accident l and further contended that the deceased is a gratujtous passenger, as such, respondent No.2/Insurance Company is not liable to pay compe nsation and therefore, prayed to dismiss the claim against it. I . Based on the pleadings made by both the parties, the learned Tribunal had framed the following issues for conducting trial:- I 2 3 Whether the acciderLt had occurred. due to rcLsh qntT n<,qligent drtuing of driuer of cime uehtcle Ashok [,e,r1land Loml bearinq No.Ap,24-U- 1 166? Whether llrc claimants are entitted fo, cornpensatiort? If so, tuhat ertent and from uhom? To uhat relieJ?

10. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the petitioners, pWsl & 2 u,ere examined and trxs.Al to .46 were marked. On behalf of Responde nt No.2/Insurance Company, RWs I & 2 were examined and Exs.B1 to 83 were marked. 11 After considering the evidence and documents filed by both sides, the iearned Tribunal had partly_allowed the claim petition by awarding compensation of Rs.6,7O,O00/_ along with interest @ 7.5'% per annum from the date of petition t l the date of realization payable by both the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 jointly and severally and _adopted thc principle ol pay and rccovery direcrrng rcspondent No.2 to deposit thc compensation amount in the 1lrst instance and I 4 MGP,I MACMA.No.29 t5 oI 20 t4 later recover the same from respondcnt No.1/owner of the vehicle' Aggrieved by the said hnding, the present Appeal is filed by the Insurance Company, who is arrayed as respondcnt No'2 in the O'P'

12. Heard arguments submitted by Smt-Swati Guda, learned Standing Counsel for appellant/ Insurance Company who appeared through virtual mode as well as Sri Paile Sriharinath, learned counsel for respondents. Perused the record'

13. The only contention raised by thc learned counsel for appellant/ Insurance Cornpany ''n'hiie submitting arguments is that though the driver of the crime Lorry do not possess driving licensc to drive Hearlz Motor vehicle, but the owner of thc said Lorry willfully and knowingly entrusted the vehiclc to thc said driver and violated the terms and conditions of policy' As such' the appcllant/ Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation to the claim petitioners. the other hand, learned counsel for L4. On respondents/ claimants contended thal the learned Tribunal after considering all the aspects, had awarded reasonable compensation for which interference of this Court is unwarranted' 15 Now the point that emerges for determination rs, Wvther the order passed bg the leorned Tibunal requires interference of this Court? ..1 5 MGP,) MACMA.No 29.t5 ol 2a14 POINT:- 16. Since there is no dispute about the occurrence of accident and death of the deceased, this Court is not inclined to once again discuss the above issues. The only point that has to be discussed in the present Appeal is with regard to imposing of liability upon lnsLrrance Cornpany though the driver of the crime Lorry do not possess vali<l driving license to drive the said vehicle .

17. During [he course of arguments, learned counsel for the Appellant/ Insurance Company contended that though the appellant/ In surance Company proved through the evidence of RW2 that the driver ol crime Lorry do not possess valid driving license to drive Heary Motor vehicle, but the learned Tribunal did not consider thc same and had wrongly imposed liability upon In surance Company.

18. In this regard, il is pertinent to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Courr in the case between MUKUND DtrWANGAN Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED r wherein, the Hon'ble Court held that a light motor vehicle includes transport vehicle and a holder ol' light motor vehicle license can drive all the vehicles of tlre class including transport vehicles. [t is also made clear througir circular Memo No. 1963 lR I 2OlB, datecl 24 .O4 .2OlB issued by the Transport Commissioner, Hyderabad, wherein, it is clarified that Light Motor Vehicle includes transport vehicle upto ' 1ZOtz.1 t+ Suprenrc Coud Cases 66J9 6 MGP,] MACMA.No 29/5 oJ 2011 7500 Kgs and no separate endorsement on the license is required to drive the transport vehicle of light motor vehicle classes. There is no requirement to obtain separate endorsement to drive the transport vehicle if the driver is holding license to drive the light motor vehicle, he can drive thc transport vehicle of such class without any endorsement to that effect. lg. In view of the above judgment and as per circular instructions issued by Transport Commissioner, the Respondent No. 1/owner of the subject Tractor and Trailer who possess driving license to drive LMV is also entitled to drive thc subject Lorry.

20. Moreover, the policy conditions regarding driver not holding valid and effective driving license at the time of accident cannot be considered as fundamental breach that had contributed to the causc of accident to discharge the appellant/ Insurance Company from its liability. In such circumstances, as stated supra, mere absence, fake or invalid driving license or disqualification of the driver for driving at the relevant time are not in themselves defenses available to the insurer against either the insurcd or the third parties. 2\. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for appellant/ Insurance Company that as the driver of crime Lorry is having driving license only to drive Light Motor Vehicle and not the subject I i t \ M6P,] MAC| a t. )975 al2!:1 Lorry and therelbre, thc [nsurance Company is not liable to pay compensation, is unsustainable.

22. As far as quantum of compensation in the impugned judgment is concerned, the learned Tribunal, considering the incomc of the dcceased @l Rs.5,O00/- per month, deducted 173.4 amount lowards personal expenses of [he -deceased, applied relevant multiplier and cerlculatcd compensation which ultimately arrived at Rs.6,70,OOO/-.

23. So far as liability is concerned, the learned Tribunal applied the principle of Pay and recove rJ. directing the Insurance Company to deposil the compcnsation amount in the first instancr: and later rccover the serme lrom owner of the crime Lorry. This Court do not find any reason to interferc with thc said hnding which is in proper perspective. Hencc, the Appeal is devoid of merits and substance and is Iiable 1o be dismissed.

24. [n the rcsult, the Appeal filed by Insurance Company 1S dismissed without costs

25. Misccllancous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// Sd/- N. SRIHARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR t_ \i SECTION OFFICER F J'

1. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-lV Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court) at Siddipet (With Records) 2. One CC to SRl. SWATI GUDA Advocate TOPUCI 3. One CC to SRI PALLE SRIHAR|NATH, Advocate[OpUC] 4. Two CD Copies To PR -?*!f,a::-=: 1.: i:--?.-a-?F=-"': t: HIGH COURT DATED: 1010212025 f i l,: -\. ..-\. '1.1. : .$ ,j JUDGMENT MACMA.N o.2975 ot 201 w ii. s* *..\ (.' s< I I I I ; i i I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I DISMISSING THE APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS ?,{) IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 2975 OF 2014 Between: The Manager, United lndia lnsurance Co. Ltd, Regional Office, TP HUB, 2nd Floor, Posennet Bhavan, Church Bullding Tilak Road, Ramkoti, Hyderabad- 500001.(Policy No. 051403/3'1 110102100004018, Validity from 29.10.20'10 to 28.10.2011) ..APPELLANT/RESPONDENT No.2 AND

1. Mohammad Reshma Begum, W/o Late Althaf Hussain, aged 28 years, Occ: Household

2. Mohammed Arshiya, D/o Late Althaf Hussain, aged 8 years, Minor 3. Mohammed Bismilla Bee, W/o Late Hussain, aged 55 years, Occ: Household Respondent No.2 is minor under guardianship of The mother i.e., Respondent No. 1 being a natural mother. R/o Lacvhapet village of Dubba Mandal, Medak District.

4. Ramesh D., S/o Laxmaiah, aged: Major, H.No 1-96, Saraswathi Nagar, Dubba Village and Mandal, Medak District. (Owner of Ashok Leyland lorry bearing No. AP-23-U-1 196) ...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS/RESPT.NO.1 Appeal filed under Section '173 of Motor vehicles Act., against the Judgment and decree, made in O OP.No.72 ot 2011, dated. '10.04.2014 on the file of the chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- lV Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court) at Siddipet. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Court below and the material papers in the MVOP and upon hearing the arguments of SRl. SWATI GUDA, Advocate for the appellant and of SRI PALLE SRIHARINATH, Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 to 3 and None Appeared for the Respondent No.4. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: 1 . That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by lnsurance Company be and hereby is dismissed;

2. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. //TRUE COPY// sd/- N. sRtHAR| ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ,\r \ r| ----_----_ CTION OFFICER The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-lV Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court) at Siddipet. Two CD Copies To I )2 PR HIGH GOURT DATED: 1010212025 DECREE MACMA.N 0.2975 ot 201 \ ",1 {ijr -. t-r? I 4::!i i \(1'-) \ =$ a* DISMlSSING THE APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS () ,