The High Court · 2025

4. Smt. Meera Bai, W/O Praladh, Aged. 30 years, Occ Household, Legal representative of Mr Praladh , Ownei of lorry bearing Nr:. Ap-25_T_3497, p7O H.No. 6-23-583, Goutham Nagar, Nizamabad.' (Respondent No.2 to 4 are not necessary in this.petitioPorDar rrr*ESPONDENTS Petition under section 151 cPc praying that in the circ.rmstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to vacate the lnterim Stay granted l.A No. 03 ol 2020 in M.A.C. V.A No. 567 of 2OZO, dated 2311112020 by permitting the petitioners herein to wilhJraw the deposited amount in the interest of justice. lA NO: 3 OF 2020 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the cir,:r mstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court m:ry be pleased to stay the execution of the decree and judgement dated. 13l1ztzo l$ passed in MVop. No. 55 of 2016 on the file of Additional MACT-cum-specierl session Judge for Trail of cases under scs/srs (PoA) Actcum- v Additional t istrict and session Judge at Adilabad. Counsel for the Appeltant : SRt. KONDADT AJAY KUMAR counsel for the Respondents No.l & 2: sRr. s. suRENoER REDDY Counsel for the Respondents No.3 to S : - The Court made the following: JUDGMENT 4 I TTIE HON,BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAo NITI\DIKONDA M.A.C.M. A. No.56 7 of2020 JI]DGME NT: This MACMA is filed under Section 173 of Motor.y':hicles Act, 19gg (for short 'MV Act') by the appellant-Insurance company.respondent No.2 against the order and decree dated r3.r2.20r9 passed in 14v.o.p. No.55 of 2016 by the Additionar Motor Accident claims Tribunal r;um Special Judge for trial of cases under SCVSTs (poA) Act cum v Additi,rnal District and Sessions Judge, Adilabad, (for short 'the Tribunal'), whercin the claimants filed the claim petition under Section 166 (l) (c) of the lrdrr Act read with Rule 455 of the Motor vehicle Rules, 19g9 seeking iompensation of Rs.7,00,000/- on account of death of the daughter of respond,:nt N.s.r and 2- claimants, namely, A. Gangamani, (hereinafter referred as .leceased,), died in Motor Vehicle accident occurred on 09.01.2015. 2' For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereir after referred as arrayed, before the Tribunal.

3. The brief facts of the case are that on 09.0r.2(rr5 at about 3.45 PM, the deceased was travelling in an auto rickshaw bearing I,,o.Ap I X 6677 along with other passengers from Indanpafli village to Khz.r apur and when 2 Iun'., IActA It-567 of ZO2O they reached near Peddur Thanda village, the driver of lorry bearing No.AP 25 T 3497 drove the same in a rash and negligent rnanner at high speed and dashed the auto in the opposite direction, due to which the deceased sustained grievous injuries on her head, chest, ribs and other vital parts of the body. Immediately, she was shifted to Khanapur Hospital for heatment, but died on the way to the hospital. A case was registered by the Police, Kaddam in crime No.3 of 2015 for the offence under Section 304-A IPC against the driver of the lorry and charge sheet also filed making the driver of the lorry responsible for the accident

4. It was further contended by the claimants that as on the date of accident, the deceased was hale and healthy and was aged about 18 years and was earning Rs.200/- to Rs.300/- per day as a coolie. Due to the death of the deceased, the claimants lost their beloved daughter and also the love and affection. As such, the claimants claimed Rs.7,00,000/- from the respondents.

5. The respondant No.3Owner of the crime vehicle-lorry bearing No.AP 25 T 3497 died and respondent No.4, being the wife of the respondent No.3, brought on record as his legal heir

6. The respondent No.2 - IWs.IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited filed counter denying all the averments made in the claim t ! 3 TTE,J UACAA I,b. 567 o1: 2O2O petition and contendgd that there was no negligence on the prrrt of the driver of the lorry and also denied the age, avocation and income ,1 the deceased. It was also further averred that the auto driver was carryin;3 eight passengers, more than the permitted number and that the accident occurr,:d as he could not control the auto and the owner and insurer of the auto, be,irrg the proper and necessary party was not added as parties and therefore, the p,etition was liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties. [t rri s further averred that the driver of the lorry was not holding valid and effecli,,e dri'ing licence at the time of the accident, as such, the Insurance company was not liable to pay compensation. The other respondents did not choose tr file counters or contest the petition.

7. Basing on the above pleadings, the leamed Tri runal framed the following issues for consideration: D iD Whether the deceased A. Gangamani had died n a road accident that occurred on 09.01.2015 at about 3.4i p.m., at outskirts of Peddur Thanda village, on NH. No.61 BT road, rastr and negligent driving of the lony bearing -d_*.tg _t!1 No.AP 25T 3497 by respondenr No.3? Whether the driver of the lorry bearing No.Ap 251 349:. is having valid and effective driving license at thr: time of accident? iiD Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of clner and insurer of the auto rickshaw bearing No. Apl'.{6677 u necessary party? 4 ,MA,J AACIA 15.567 ol X)zO ir) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and against which of the respondents? v) To what relief?

8. During the course of trial, the claimants examined PWs.l and 2 and marked Exs.Al to A8. On behalf of the respondents, RWs.l and 2 were examined and Ex.Bl-copy of the policy was marked, and Exs.Xl and X2 were also marked

9. After going into the merits of the case and after considering the oral and documentary evidence placed by both the parties and the submissions of both the parties, the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of lorry bearing No. AP 25T 3497 by its driver and further held that the respondents could not able to prove that the driver was not holding valid driving licence at the time of the accident. The leamed Tribunal further held that the contention of the leamed counsel for the respondent No.2 that there was non-joinder of necessary parties i.e. the owner and insurer of the auto could not be accepted as it was not a valid ground and that they need not be added as parties and hnally awarded an amount of Rs.6,95,400/- as compensation to the claimants considering the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National \ 5 r\a4J UACAA No. 567 oJ 2O2O Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 6801 and Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation l(2009) 6 SrlC 1211.

10. Being aggrieved by the order and decree pass,:d by the leamed Tribunal, the present appeal is filed by the appellant-Insrrrance Company- respondent No.2 on the ground that the learned Tribunal cirlnot consider the evidence of RWs.1 and 2, Exs.Bl, Xl and X2, and also th,: :harge sheet filed by the police against the driver of crime lorry, wherein it v.as stated that the driver of the lorry was not possessing any valid and effectir e driving licence. It was further contended that it was the responsibility o. respondent No.3- owner, who willfully entrusted the lorry to the driver knorvrng fully-well that the driver was not holding valid driving licence. It was furtlLer contended that the deceased was havelling in an auto in which excess passengers were travelling as such, the accident was occurred only due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the auto as he was carrying excess pass engers more than the capacity. It was further contended that the learned Triburral erred in taking the income of the deceased as Rs.4,500/- per month withc,u t considering that the deceased was aged about 15 years and was a studer t and awarded the amount which was excessive and exorbitant.

11. There is no cross-appeal preferred by the clainra nts 6 a- l\atR r, AAdIA h-567.f 2o2o

12. Heard Sri K. Ajay Kumar, leamed counsel for the appellant - IWs.IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited and Sri S. Surender Reddy, leamed counsel for the respondent Nos. I and 2-claimants.

13. Perused the record

14. Now, the point which arose for consideration before this Court in the present appeal is that: Whether the appellant made any grounds to interfere with the order and decree passed by the Tribunal? Point:

15. Upon hearing the leamed counsel for both the parties and on perusing the entire material on record, the main grievance of the appellant- Insurance Company is that the leamed Tribunal did not choose to consider that there was negligence on the part of the driver of auto, who was carrying passengers more than the capacity. Learned counsel for the appellant referred to the evidence of PW.2. In the cross-examination, PW.2 stated that about 8 to 9 persons were travelling in the auto and that she was sitting in the back seat in between her family members. She further stated that as she was sifting in back seat, she was not in a position to observe at whose fault the accident occurred. Leamed counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company intending to 7 III\R,J ,[AcuA ,{0.567 ot2O2O believe the version of pW.2 to the extent of carrying of g tr 9 passengers, but they disbelieved her version as she was not an eye witness k the said accident. It was the contention of the appellant that the accident was c ccurred due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the auto as he v,as carrying excess passengers. In the absence of any evidence, mere r:arrying of excess passengers in the auto more than its capacity, cannot be a g round to consider that the accident occurred due to the negrigence on the par. rf the auto driver. The charge sheet filed by the police would clearly reverr[ that there was negligence on the part of the driver of the Iorry at whose the said ^r:gligence accident occurred.

16. Besides that, the other ground which the leanLe,d counsel for the appellant has pressed was that the leamed rribunal did not c roose to consider the aspect of non-possessing of driving ricence by the dri ver of the crime lorry. In support of his contention, leamed counser for dre appelrant relied upon the evidence of RWs.l and 2, wherein RWs. l and 2 s recificaily stated that the Police charge sheeted the driver ofthe rorry under S,:ction lgl ofthe Motor vehicles Act as the driver of the crime vehicre wari not having valid driving licence at the time of the accident. In his evidenc:, RW.2-Assistant Motor vehicre Inspector, Nizamabad, had specifica,y stated that as per their 8 rs4,\, YACIA No.56? o;f AO1,C) r@ords' it was found that the driver of the lorry i.e. shaik Lal Mohammed was not issued any sort of driving licence from their RTo. He also filed a memo under Ex.X2 which clearly would show that there was no driving ricence possessed by the driver ofthe crime vehicle, which the learned rribunar has missed sight and did not accept the version of RW.2 on the ground that owner of the crime vehicle was not being summoned nor he was examined before the court. As such, the leamed rribunar did not berieve the version of the appellant-Insurance company, which appears to be an error committed by the leamed rribunal though the appelrant-Insurance company had discharged their burden by examining the RTo offrciar to show that the driver was not having valid driving licence.

17. The other ground raised by the appellant_lnsurance Company was that the learned Tribunal did not consider the aspect of non-joinder of the necessary parties i.e. owner and insurer ofthe auto, but there were no findings given by the leamed rribunal in respect of the said issue of non-joinder of the owner and Insurer of the auto rickshaw, which was fatal to the case of the appellant.

18. In respect of quantum of compensation, the learned Tribunal had rightly taken into consideration the income ofthe deceased as Rs.4,500/- per 9 NI\IR,J XAC-MA ilo.567 ol2O2O month by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon,bl: Supreme Court in Ramachandrappa v, Manager, Royal Sundaram .A.ltiance lnsurance Company Limited 12011 (6) ALD 75 (SC)l and addition r,f tuture prospects by relying the judgment of the Hon'ble supreme court in lt:rtional Insurance Company v. Pranay Sethi and Others and by adoptinl; proper multiplier, and also the amounts under conventional heads i.e. funenl expenses, loss of estate, and awarded just, fair and reasonable amount of I.ts.6,95,400/_ with interest at 7.5%o per annum. As such, this court is not in:lined to interfere with the said findings and the compensation awarded by thr: earned rribunal.

19. Further, this court is of the opinion that the rearned rribunar though initially imposed the burden of payment of corpensation on the appellant-Insurance company, it ought to have considererl the aspect ofpay and recovery as the Insurance Company had placed ltt:fore the leamed \ Tribunal the evidence of RWs.l and 2, which substantially pro'ed that the there was no licence being possessed by the driver of thr: crime vehicle i.e. lorry bearing No.AP 25T 3497 a.,d the owner of the lr,ry did not place evidence to show that he has no knowledge about the no,.possessing of the licence by the driver of the said lorry. l0

6. .iaa,J IAC\A ,b.56, oJ 2o2o

20. Hence, in the said circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the order and decree passed by the leamed rribunal can be interfered onry to the extent of permitting the appellant_Insurance Company to pay the compensation initially and seek recovery of the same from the owner of the crime lorry under the same decree. The point is answered accordingly.

21. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed to the extent of directing the appellant-Insurance company to pay the compensation amount as awarded by the Additional Motor Accident claims Tribunar cum Special Judge for trial of cases under SCVSTs (poA) Act cum v Additional District and Sessions Judge, Adilabad vide order datd l3.l2.Zll9 in M.V.O.p. No.55 of 2016 initially and then recover the same from the owner of the crime vehicle. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, ifany, shall stand closed SD/. A.H .S.GOWRISHANKAR A sISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII ECTION OFFICER To, 1 . The Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accid fi :'i"ei""".HiIS?A;-B?Xl1[fl fl ?*:33 3j[|;. SURENDER iTE

2. 3. 4. G E/psl ent Claims Tribunal-cum- prl. District and y.(wtth records if anv) UMAR, Advocate tCiFUCr DDY, Advocate IOPUCI ' HIGH COURT DATED:06/0812025 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.567 of 2020 ..,.' 1' /.- . i r'.1 l: () litL II:r 1i,;)S ; -.\ ta.',-'.,t i-rli -'' ) t './ .--.... J.:.... '.' .l{ ,,.,.r.:. !-:a.:jt- ". PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COS'I'Si q \ 6 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD [ 34431 WEDNESDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVI LM ISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 567 OF 2020 Between: M/s IFFCO-TOKIO General lnsurance Company Limited, Rep. by its Office Manager, lnsurer of lorry bearing No. AP-25-T-3497, 2nd Floor, No. 31, Above-Conagra Foods Lane Opp. D6R Diag;ostics, SD Road, Secunderabad. Policy valirl from 20.11.2014 to 21 11'2015 ...A''ELLANT'/RE''.NDENT No.2 '1 . Anaoandula Raiamallu .@ Enuqula Raiamallu and 4 Others, S/o Balamallu, eged.44 years, Occ. Agiicultur6, R/O Bavapur-K village, Mandal Khanapur, Dist. Adilabad. , AND

2. Anaoandula Savawa @ Enuqula Savawa, WO Engula Rajamallu @ Ana6andula RajamallulAgedi +0 yedrs, Occ. Household, R/O Bavapur-K village, MandalKhanapur'Dist'Adilabad' ....RES'.NDENTS/'ET'r.NERS

3. Praladh, S/O Laxman, Aged. Major, Occ. owner of lorry bearing No.AP-25-T- 3497, R/O H.No. 6-23-583. Goutham Nagar, Nizamabad (DIED per LR No. 5 brought on record vide lA No, 545/2016, dated. 1810412017)

4. Shaik Lal Mohammed, S/O Hyder, Aged. 33 years, Occ. Driver of lorry bearing No. AP-25-T-3497 RIO Someshwar Village, Mandal Banswada District Nizamabad.

5. Smt. Meera Bai, WO Praladh, Aged. 30 years, Occ. Household, Lega representative of Mr. Praladh , Owner of lorry bearing No. AP-2S-T-M H.No. 6-23-583, Goutham Nagar, Nizamabad. I 97, R/O ...RESPONDENTS'RESPONDENT NOS.'I, 3 & 4 Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V.Act, against Order and Decree dated 13112t2O19 passed in MVOP No. 55 of 2616 on the file of the court of the Additional Motor Accident claims Tribunal cum special Judge for trial of cases under SCs/STs (PoA) Act cum V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Adilabad. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and ..he material papers in the case and upon hearing the argument of SRl. KONIADI AJAY KUMAR, Advocate for the Appellant and SRt. S. SURENDER REDDY, AJvocate appeared for Respondent No.1 & 2 and none appeared for Respondent No.3 to 5. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal t,e and is hereby partly allowed to the extent of directing the appellant-lnsuran,I,, Company to pay the compensation amount as awarded by the Additional Votor Accident Claims Tribunal cum Special Judge for trial of cases under SC3/STs (poA) Act cum V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Adilaba j vide order dated 13.12.2019 in M.V.O.P. No.55 of 2016 initially and t1r)n recover the same from the owner of the crime vehicle.

2. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal SD/- A.H.Ii.GOWRI SHANKAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR lfirue Copyll I To

1. The Additional Motor Accident claims Tribunal cum rsoecial Judge for trial of cases under scs/srs (PoA) Act cum V Additional tristrict and Sessions Judge, Adilabad.(with records if any) SECTION OFFICER

2. Two CD Copies. GE/PSL W ? HIGH COURT DATED:06/0812025 DECREE MACMA.No.567 ot 2020 PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSiT'S t( I \