The High Court · 2025

5. Sri Anjaneyulu S/o Ramanna, Age: Major, Occ: Owner of Auto Rickshaw bearing Registration No.AP 22 W 4838, R/o H.No.3-134, Annasagar Village Bhoothpur Mandal, Mahabubnagar Distrir:t. ,..RESPONDENT NO 5/RESPONDENT NO.3 Counsel for the Appellant : SRI A.RAMAKRISHNA REDOY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.l to 3: Sri Mohammed Abdul Haleem Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 & 5 : NONE APPEARET) The Court made the following: JUOGMENT I THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA IT|I] JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company, aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 3O.O3.2O21 in M.V.O.P.No.42O of 2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar (for short "the Tribunal").

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

3. The case of the petitioner before the Tribunal was that on

16.08.2013 the deceased boarded an auto rickshaw bearing No'AP- 22-W-4838, when the auto reached near Rangaswamy Temple in the limits of Bhoothpur at about 7:2O p.m., it hit a Lorry bearing No.AP-15-X-8789 which was parked in the middle of National Highway No.44 without taking any precautions such as lighting indicators, as a result the deceased sustained grievous injuries and died while being shifted to the hospital. The claimants sought a compensation of Rs. 1 5,OO,O0O/ -. +. The respondent No.l filed counter denying the averments of the petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident, age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is further contended that there was no negligence of lorry driver and that he was never 2 ETD,J MACMA No.604_2021 charged with any fine for wrong parking. It is further contended that his vehicre is insured with respondent No.2 and thus respondent No.2 is onry riable to pay compensation if any, awarded by the Court. I I I ! ! I I I I 5' The respondent No.2 filed counter denying the averments of the petition with regard to the occurrence of t^e accicrent, age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is further contended that the lorry driver does not have varid driving license, as on the date of the accident and that their company is not,able to pay any compensation. It is further contended that the ac:cident occurred only due to the negrigence of the auto driver and thus, the owner and insurer of auto are liabre to pay compensatio.n and that their company is not liable to pay compensation. 6' The respondent No.3 filed counter adrnitting that he is the owner-cum-driver of the auto, but contended that r-tre accident has occurred only because the lorry was parked in a negrigent manner in the middle of the National Highway withourt taking any precautions. He further contendeci that he was herd to be accused in the case just due to the influence of respondent No.I/the owner of the lorry. It is further submitted that a fine o{. Rs. ioo/_ was imposed on the driver of the lorry for its wrong parking. 3 ETD,J MACMA No.604_2021

7. Based on the above rival contentions, the Tribunal has framed the following issues:- 1

4. WlrctlLer the arcident occarred on 16.O8.2O13 at about 7:2O p.m., near Munni Rangaswamg temple within the limits of Bhoothpur Village and Mandal occurred due to negligent parking of the lorry beaing registration No.AP-15-X-8789 by its driuer on tte middle of the national highung No.44 as a result of which the deceased wlw wos trauelling in an auto ricleslnw bearing registration No-AP-22- W-4838 mtluded with the said long sustained injuries and died in the said accident? Wlether cime uehicle lorry bearing registration No.AP-15-X-8789 is insured with the respondent No.2 compang and the poltcy was in fore as on the date of accident? Whether the respondent No.l ho.s uiolated the terms and anditiorts of the policg by entrusting the crime uehicle who is a driuer uha i.s rwt hauing ualid and effectiue driuing liense as contended bg the respondent No.2? WTrcther the petitioners are entitled for ampetsation, if so, wh.at amaunt and front whom?

5. To what relief ?

8. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PWs 1 to 4 and got marked Exs.AI to A7. On behalf of the respondents, RWl to 3 were examined and got marked Exs-Bl and 82. g. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.14,30,068/-. Aggrieved by the said award, the present appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company.

10. Heard Sri A. Rama Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the lnsurance Company and Sri Mohammed Abdul Haleem, learned counsel for the respondents. 4 ETD,J MACMA No.G04 2021

11. Learned counser for the apperlant has su.bmitted that the crime record shows that the accident occurred onry due to the rash and negligence of the auto driver. No rash and nr:gligence has been attributed against lorry driver. Thus the Tribunal was wrong in fixing liability of 600/o on the owner and insurer of the iorry while fixing 4oo/o liability on the owner of the auto. It is his contention that just because the auto did not have insurance, the Tribunal has fastened the riability on the Insurance company which is not just and proper

12. He further argued that there is no iota of eviilence before the Tribunal to fix the liability on lorry driver. Thougtr it is contended by the petitioners that the rorry driver was chargecr with a fine o[ Rs' lo0/- for wrong parking, it is not proved beflc,re the Tribunal 'nd that the said exhibit is created.for the purpose 'f the case. He further argued that without any evidence, the Tribu.ar has given a speculative order fixing liability on the owner and insurer o[ the lorry' He therefore, prayed to set aside the award L,.r.aflowing this appeal. 13' The learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has submitted that the rash and negrigence of driver is aafrietea in this case. However, there is negligerrce rln part of the lorry driver for parking the lorry without any indicators in the 'r-rto ETD,J MACMA No.6O4-2021 5 middle of the road, as it was dark in the night, the auto driver could not avoid, the accident. He further argued that they filed Ex.X1 and got examined PW3 in support of their contention' They relied upon Ex.Xl, the challan-cum-receipt for collecting compoundingfeefromthelorrydriver.Thus,theycouldprovethat the d,river of the lorry was also negligent in parking the lorry, which gave rise to the accident. He therefore, submitted that there is no infirmity in the orders passed by the Tribunal and has therefore' prayed to uPhold the same'

14. Based on the above rival submission, this court frames the following points for consideration:- l. Wh.eth.er the lony bearing No.AP-15-X-8789 was negligenttg parked on N.H'44 without obseruing ony pr."ouiioi giuing rise to the ac.cident resulting in th'e deothof the deceo'sed-Md' Taheer Pasha?

2. wtetlwr the order and Decree passed by the Tribwwl need any interference? 3. To whot relieJ?

15. Point No.1:- a)TheFlRandChargeSheetdisclosesthatthecrimeis registered against the driver of the Auto bearing No' AP-22'w- 4838. The contents of the charge sheet under Ex.A4 reveal that the accident occurred as the driver of the auto has driven the auto in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to a stationed lorry bearing No.AP-15-X-87S9, due to which the deceased who was travelling in the auto, sustained fatal injuries and died' 6 ETD,J MACMA No.604_2021 b) PWl/Smt' Salma Begum in her eviden<:e has spoken that bearing No.Ap-2:2-W_483g met with her husband went in the auto an accident and died. c) The contention of the appellant counsel is that there was no negligence of the lorry driver in parking the rorry. while the contention of the respondent counser is that the 10rry was parked negligently in the middle of the road on the Nationar Highrvay_44 without taking any precaution, which resurted in rlre accident. d) A perusal of the charge sheet under Ex.A,4 and the crime Detailed Fcirm under Ex.B2 cumulatively shows that both the vehicles were bound towards same direction. The lorry w,as parked on the right side of the NH-44, and the auto arso went on the \^/rong direction that is towards right side of the road and hit against the rear side of lorry and it is arso not in oispute that the accident occurred due to the night hours i.e., at 7:rlo p.m. Thus, while parking a rorry on to its right side of the road, trre lorry driver must have taken enough precautions by switching on the indicators. e) Ex'Xl marked by the petitioners in the evidence of pw3 discloses that a challan of Rs. rool-was collected frorn the owner of the Iorry' pw3 is the sub Inspector of police, Bhoothpur. His vvruurrLC revears that thev co,ected Rs. i00r, - etri-l-- ^^ towards 7 ETD,J MACMA No.504_2027 compounding fee from the driver-cum-owner of the lorry bearing No.AP-15-x-8789 and that they have issued Ex.Xl which is an attested copy of the said receipt. In his cross examination he admitted tJrat, it is not mentioned in the charge sheet under Ex.A4 about the compounding fee collected from lorry driver under Ex.XI, but denied the suggestion that Ex.Xl is the false receipt. PW3 is the public servant and he deposed that they have collected Rs.10o/- compounding fee from the lorry driver, mere non mentioning of the said fact in charge sheet, does not render Ex.Xl to be false. 0 The Insurance company got examined RW2 who is a Sub lnspector of Police, Sangareddy who previously ,*,orked at Bhoothpur Police Station. He is the person who has filed the charge sheet in the said case under crime No.lgo of 2019. He admitted in his cross examination that on a State Highway or National Highway, the vehicle should be parked only in the prescribed parking place. He further admitted that Ex.X I is the Fine Receipt issued by their Police Station and that the fine was imposed on the owner-cum-driver of the lorry under Section 122 and 177 of the Motor Vehicles Act. He further admitted that the driver was not shown as the accused in the charge sheet. Ex.Xl bears the signature of S.I of Police Bhoothpur. 8 ETD,J MACMA No.604_2021 g) RW3 is the owner-cum-driver of the lorry. He denied that the Police have imposed a fine of Rs.10o/- on him for wrong parking of his lorry and he denied that Ex.Xl contains his signature. It is further elicited from him that no a.trto rickshaw has hit his lorry from the back side, which appea.rs to be a false statement as it goes against the crime recorcl. Therefore, the evidence of Rrv3 is not reliable. Thus, an overall perusal of the evidence on record reveals that the lorry was parked to the right side of the road in a wrong place and thus, has crrntributed to the accident. on the other hand, it is further elicitecl from the s.l of Police examined as RW2 and pw3 that they have issued Ex.X I under which they collected fine from the lorry rlriver for u,rong parking- Thcrefore, based on the evidence of pw3, Rw2 coupled with Ex.xl and crime Detailed Form under Ex.B2l,, it is held that there was negligence of lorry driver in parking thr: lorry and that the auto driver was also negligent in driving the ar:to in a wrons direction and hitting it against the parked lorry. Point lrlc.l is answered accordingly.

16. Point No.2:- ln vieu' of the reasoned finding arrived at point No. l, it is opined that the Tribunal has rightly fixed the liability of 600/o on the owner anci insurer oi the iorry while fixing 4oo/o riability on the 9 ETD,J MACMA No.604 2021 owner of the auto. Hence, there is no need to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal. L7. Point No.3:- In the result, the appeal is dismissed upholding the Order and Decree dated 30.03.202L in M.V.O.P.No.42O of 2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-l Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appeal, shall stand closed. SD'- MOHD.ISMAIL OSFUTY REGISTRAR ,ffRUE COPY" OFFICER To..l.TheMolorAccidentClaimsTribunal-cum-lAdditionalDistrictJudge,

2. XlltSi:"3fl,. KALr-AKuRr sRrNrvAsARAo Advocate toPucl 3.oneCCtoSRl.KR|SHNAMoHANS|KHARAMAdvocate[oPUCl 4. Two CD CoPies GE/PSL \qr HIGH COURT DATED:27106/2025 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.604 oi 2021 ,-i( 1He5 o L) r 1 [tt 1s5 .lr - -- L: \ t\-. ial:it--," - "*,!i- I t;.1 f .'- -1" DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS G "da &s. IN THE HIGH COURT FORTHE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY,THE TWENW SEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMTJUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA l3aa1 Between: Shriram General lnsurance Co. Ltd., Represented by its AuthorLed Signatory, El8, EPIP, RllCO, lndustrialArea, Sitiapur, Jaipur, Rajasthan State-302 022. ...APPELLANT'RESPONDENT NO.2 AND l. Salma Begum Wo Late Mohammed Taher Khan @ Mohammed Taher Pasha Age26 years Occ Household

2. Maria Huda D/o. Late Mohammed Taher Khan @ Mohammed Taher Pasha Age 2 years, Minor (Respondent No.2 is minor and is being Represented by her mother and natural guardian Salma Begum i e Respondent No.1 herein) Both are R/o Narayanpet, Mahabubnagar, Presently residing at H No 5-5{5 Old Palamoor, Mahabubnagar

3. Sabera Begum Wo Late Abdul Hameed, Age 50 years, Occ: Household, "" Respondent Nos'1 to 3iPetitioners R/o.Narayanpet, Mahabubnaga r. 4- ch Nageshwar Rao S/o Venkateshwarlu Age major Occ Orvner of Lorry bearing Registration No AP 15 X 8789 R/o. H. No.3/35, Warangal X Roads, opposite Eicher showroom' ruammLlespondent No.4/Respondent No. 1

5. SriAnjaneyulu S/o Ramanna, Age: Major, Occ: Owner of Auto Rickshaw bearing Registration No.AP 22 W 4838, R/o H.No.3-134, Annasagar Village Bhoothpur Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. ...RESPONDENT NO.s/RESPONDENT NO.3 Appeal filed under Section 173 ot Motor Vehicle Act, against Order and Decree dated 30.03.2021 in M.V.O.P.No.42O of 2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunalcum{ Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar. 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 arguments of Sri A. RAMAKRISHNA REDDY, Advocate for the Appellant and Sri Mohammed Abdul Haleem, Advocate appeared for the Respondent No.1 to 3 and none appeared for Respondent No.4 & 5. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and is hereby dismissed upholding the Order and Decree dated 30.03.2021 in M.V.o. P.No.420 of 2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- I Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar.

2. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. /TRUE COPY" SD/- MOHD.ISMAIL ECTION OFFICER To 1 . The Motor Accident Claims Mahabubnagar. Tribunal-cum-l Additional District Judge,

2. Two CD Copies GE/PSI. w HIGH GOURT DATED:2710612025 DECREE MACMA.No.604 of 2021 DISMISSING THE MACMAWTHOUT COSTS u.e K-