The High Court · 2025

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA t) :Vt EADA M.A.C.M.A.NO.702 0F 2021 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the lnsurance Compa-/ aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 01 .03.2021 in MV.O t No42 of 20.16 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims -rrbunal-cum-Vl Additional District Judge, Godavarikhani (for short ,'flr : Tribunal,'). 2 For convenience and clarity, the parties hereir are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The case of the petitioners before the Tribur al was that on 13j2.2015 at about 17:10 hours the deceased was r oing in an auto bearing No.AP-15-W-2795 and that a Car bearin: No.TS-01-EB- 3762 was driven by its driver in a rash and neglig- rt manner and dashed against the auto and both the vehicles were : lught in flames and that the inmates of the auto and car sustained lr rn injuries and dred on the spot The claimants sought a c I npensation of Rs.20,00,000/-. 4 The respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained ex-part: 5 The respondent No.3 have filed counter denying the averments of the petition with regard to the ocr; rrence of the ) \ 2 ETD,] MACMA No.702 2021 accident, age, avocation and income of the deceased. lt is further contended that the auto driver has allowed one of the passengers to carry a heavy petrol can which is not permissible in a passenger auto and that the said auto was carrying more than five persons and thus, he violated their norms, and as a result, the fire caught up in the accident. lt is further contended that the driver of the car did not possess valid driving license, thus they are not liable to pay any compen sation

6. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues for consideration:- 1 2 3 4 "Whether the accident occurred due to rash and neglgent driving by respondent No.1 of Car bearing No.TS-01-EB-3762? Whether the death of Uppuleti Rajender was due to the above rash and negligent act of respondent No.1? Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, how much and from whom? To what relief?"

7. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PWs 1 & 2 and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, RW1 & RW2 got examined and Ex.B1 was marked. B. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.'17,83,6001. Aggrieved by the said order and decree, the present appeal is preferred by the lnsurance Company. .,,

9. Heard the submissions of Sri T, Ram Chanrl ,r Rao, learned counsel for the lnsurance Company. None appearecr tn behalf of the 3 ETD,J MACMA No.702 2021 respondents.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitte j that since the accident occurred in the opposite direction, I e contributory negligence of the auto driver has to be taken into c: rsideration and that the said driver of the auto has allowed one of t r passengers to carry petrol can which is not permissible. He further lrgued that the driver of the car was under the impact of alcohol a; disclosed from the charge sheet. He further argued that since both t re drivers were negligent in driving the vehicles, contributory neglill nce has to be fixed on the owner and insurer of the auto also.

11.. Based on the above submissions, this Co rt frames the following points for determination : 1 2 3 Whether there is any contributory negligence on I Tt of the driver of the auto bearing No.Ap-1 S-W-2795 in the occurence of the accident? lf so, what would be t t lability of the appe ant? Whether the order and decree of the Tribunal need any inteierence? To what relief? 12 Point No.1: a) The contention of the appellants is that he rash and negligence of the auto driver has contributed to the rccident, while ) )\ 4 ETD,] MACMA No.702 2021 the case of the claimants is that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligence of the driver of the Car bearing No.TS-01- EB-3762. b) PW2lUppuleti Laxman @ Lachaiah stated that he boarded the auto bearing No.AP-15-W-2795 driven by the deceased herern at A- power House, Ramagundam, and the auto was proceeding to Pottial and that when they reached the outskirts of Somanpalli Village, the driver of the Car bearing No.TS-01-EB-3762 has driven it in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the auto in the opposite direction, as a result of which the flames emerged and the deceased was caught in the flames. He further deposed that the passengers of the auto and car also sustained burn injuries. lt is elicited in his cross examination that here was no diesel or petrol tin in the auto at the time of accident, but the passengers died when the diesel tank of auto caught fire when it was hit by the car. He denied to have stated before the Police that he was carrying petrol can while travelling in the auto c) A perusal of the charge sheet under Ex.A4 reveals that PW2 is shown as LW23 and is mentioned to be the injured eye witness to the accident, travelling in the auto of the deceased. The recitals of the charge sheet further reveal that the driver of the car was working j 5 EID,] MACMA No.702 2021 as the temporary bus driver and that on 13.1i .2015, he was requested by the defendant No.4 to arrange a car I order to attend the functron at Kukkalagudur and that they have cc rsumed alcohol and attended the function, they have consume i alcohol in the function also, and at about 16:30 hours they h,: re started from Kukkalagudur to go to Mancherial and that the accL sed has driven the car in a rash and negligent manner in the outsk r :s of [\4ancherial and has hit a motor bike, but the rider of the mot ,r bike escaped from the accused and that the front mirror of the c:r got broken. On observing the rash driving of the accused, the in I ates of the car asked the accused to give the car to LW24 for lriving, but the accused denied and has driven it in a rash and ne 3ligent manner, and dashed the auto. d) lt is further mentioned in the charge sheet that rW23 i.e., pW2 herein has boarded the auto at A-power house with L petrol can and when it was hit by the car in a rash and negligent rr anner, lhe auto caught up in flames, as the petrol can got broke- the petrol got sprinkled on the car and auto. e) Thus, the recitals of the charge sheet clezr, y explains the occurrence of the accident and it is made out trr lt the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of 1 re Car bearing 6 ETD,] MACMA No.702 2021 No.TS-0'1-E8-3762. Further, both the vehicles were caught in flames, as the petrol can was carried by pW2. Therefore, it is held that there was negligence on part of the auto driver in allowing the PW2 to carry petrol can in the auto. 0 lt is pertinent to observe in this regard that it is only after the auto was hit by the car that the petrol can broke out. Thus, rash and negligence in the first instance is on the part of the car driven by its driver in a drunken state at a high speed, which culmirrated into the accident. Therefore, major part of rash and negltgence is on behalf of the car driver . Hence, it is held that the contributory negligence on part of the car driver is fixed at B0%, while on the auto driver, it is fixed at 2Oo/o.Ihe owner and insurer of the car are liable to pay 80% of the compensation, while the owner and insurer of the auto are liable to pay 20o/o of the compensation. Therefore, the appellant- lnsurance Company is held to be liable to pay 80% compensation. Point No.1 is answered accordingly.

13. Point No.2:- The order and decree of the tribunal needs to be modified to the extent of liability fixed on the respondents. The tribunal has held that the total compensation has to be paid by the respondent Nos.1 to 3 jointly and severally, while this Court has held them liable to pay BO% ot the compensation that is awarded by the tribunal. Point No.2 is answered accordingly I

14. Point No.3:- ETD,J M,\CMA No.702 2021 ln the result, appeal is parfly allowed, modify r g the Order and Decree dated 0'1 .03.2021 in tr/.V.O.p.No.42of 2Ol i passed by the chairman, Motor Accident claims Tribunal-cum-Vl r dditional District Judge, Godavarikhani, with regard to the liabili 7 fixed on the lnsurance Company, lt is held that g0% liability is fixed on the respondent No.3 who are the appellants here r and that the appellant-lnsurance Company is directed to dep< sit B0% of the compensation that is awarded by the tribunal. No ccs ts. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in ti is appeal, shall stand closed S ]/- MOHD. ISMAIL DI: ,UTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// r EpTroN oFFrcER Judge, Godavarikhani.

1. The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum 2 One CC to SRl. SWATI GUDA Advocate IOPUC] 3. One CC to SRl. THIMMARAJU RAMCHANDRA RAO Ad lcate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies GE/PSL Al iitional District V \ To, HIGH COURT DATED:15/09/2025 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.702 of 2021 { i-lt b,,4 '( 3 0 JAll 2026 !; I t - n1 -,t'r{).;., \ t\ !i i PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS 0 I t l ,,, IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD 134441 MONDAY,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 702 OF 2021 Between: Natronal lnsurance Company, Karimnagar Division, Rep. by its Divisional Manager, 1st Floor, 2-6-103, Near Municipal Office, Karimnagar Town, Karimnagar District AND ...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT NO.3

1. Uppuleti Sumalatha. W/o. Late Rajender. Aged about 23 yeals Occ. Coolie, R/o. H.No. 2-96. Somanpally Village of Ramagundam Mandal of Karminagar District.

2. Uppuleti Harish, S/o. Late Rajender, /Aged about 5 years, (Minor), R/o. H.No. 2- g6, Somanpally Village of Ramagundam Mandal of Karminagar District 3- Uppuleti Mani Teja, S/o. Late Rajender, Aged about 3 years, (Mi1or), R/o.H.No. 2-96, Somanpally Village of Ramagundam Mandal of Karminagar District (The Respondents No.2 and 3 are minors next frrend i.e. petitioner no.1 herein Uppuleti rep. by Sumala their natural mother and tha) 4 5 o . .. . ResPondents/Petitioners Chiopa Harish, S/o. Gattaiah aged about 24 Yea$, Occ Driver of the car Tatbindica Vista bearing No. T S 01-EB-3762, R/ o. H.No. 28-2-9, Gandhinagar, Locality of Bellampalli Townand ltilandal of Adilabad District. T Karthik, S/o. Komuraaih, aged an adult Occ. Owner of the Car Tata lndica Vista beaiing T.S. O1-EB-3762 R/o. H.No. 1-2-62, Kannaia Basthi locality of Bellampalli Townand Mandal of Adilabad District. UDouleti Moqillaiah, S/o. Late Bale Pochaiah, aged about 65 years,Occ. Coolie, Ri'd S o m a n p a I I y vi I I a s e o f R a m a g u n d a m, *." ":.0"1 3t [rJtsE t ?31 Rlt'it * o = Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V.Act, aggrieved by the decree dated 01.03.2021 passed in M.V.O.P.No.42 of 2016 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-Vl Additional District Judge' Godavarikhant. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon per,J: tg the grounds of appeal, the judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and tl- € material papers in the case and upon hearing the argument of SMT. SWATHI (r )UDA, Advocate for the Appellant and SRI T. RAI\4 CHANDER RAO, Advocate app,) red for Respondent No.'1 to 3 and 6 and none appeared for Respondent No.5. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: 1 That the Motor Accident Crvil Miscellaneous Appeal be tnd is hereby parfly allowed.

2. That it is hereby held that 80% liability is fixed on the r spondent No.3 who are the appellants herein and that the appellant-ln:; rance Company rs hereby directed to deposit 80% of the compensatron , t is awarded by the tribunal.

3. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. iD/. MOHD. ISMAIL II PUTY REGISTRAR ;ECTION OFFICER \ r l-Cum-Vl (hammam (with llf rue Copyll To

1. The Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claim Additronal Drstrict Judge. Godavarikhani.Diskict record, if any) 2. . Two CD Copies. GE/PSL 4y HIGH COURT DATED:15/09/2025 DECREE MACMA.No.702 of 2021 PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS

0. 1 (, ^1,b \