The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellant : Sri N Mohan Krishna Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.1& 4 : Sri Vadlakonda Kiran Kumar Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2,3,5,6 : None appeared The Court delivered the following: Judgment THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI M.A.C.M.A.No.442 OF 2o23 JUDGMENT: 1 . Aggrieved by the Award dated 21 .lO.2O2l passed in M.V.O.P.No.997 of 2Ol7 , on the file of Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - cum - V Additional District Judge :: II-FTC, Warangal at Jangaon, the respondent No.3/lnsurance Company in the said M.V.O.P. preferred the present Appeal seeking to set-aside the order ofthe learned Tribunal.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter be referred as they were arrayed before the learned Tribunal.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the claim petitioncrs, who are the wife, son, daughter and mother of Late Gonela Mallesham (hereinafter referred as 'the deceasedJ f-rled a petition under Section 166 (1) (c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with Rule 455 of A.P.Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989, seeking compensation of Rs. 18,00,000/- for the death of the deceased in a motor vehicle accident 'that occurred on 21.08.2017. It is stated by the petitioners that on 2l.Oa.2OI7, in the evening around 17.00 hours, when the deceased-Gonela Mallesham was proceeding on his Splendor Plus Motor Cycle bearing No.AP-28-AG- 1816 in order to go to Bachannapet for fetching Kira-na articles and when reached near Kodvatur Arch, one l,orry bearing No.TS-34T-2299 which was 2 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, dashed the motorcycle of the deceased, due to which, the deceased fell down on the road and sustained fatal injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Government Hospital, Jangaon and from there to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad and linally, while undergoing treatment, the deceased succumbed to injuries on 22.Og.2OlZ at about 12.00 hours.

4. Based on the report given by the wife of the deceased, police of Bachannapet police Station registered a case in Crime No.6g of 2017 under Section 304-A IpC, conducted investigation ahd hled charge sheer against the driver of the crime torry bearing No.TS_ 347-2299

5. It is stated by the petitioners that the deceased was aged 42 years and was hale and healthy and used to earn Rs.2O,OOO/_ per month by working as a Centring Mestry and contribute his entire earnings for lhe welfare of the family. Due to sudden demise of the deceased, the petitioners lost their bread winner and became destitute and penniless. As such, they filed claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.18,00,OOO/_ against the respondents 1 to 3, who are the driver, owner and insurer of the subject l,orry bearing No.TS-34T-2299.

6. Respondent No.1, driver of the crime Lorry, filed his counter denying the averments made in the claim petition and contended /D / // 3 that he is very cautious in driving the lorry and that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the deceased and that the subject Lorry was insured with respondent No.3 and the policy was in force as on the date of accident and that the claim of compensation is excess and exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the claim against it.

7. Respondent No.3/lnsurance Company filed its counter denying the averments made in petition including, manner of accident, rash and negligent driving on part of the claim respondent No. 1, age, avocation and income of the deceasedi lt also contended that the petitioners failed to comply the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 134 (c) of M.V.Act. As such, respondent No.3 is not liable to pay any compensation and that the claim of compensation is excess and exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the claim against it.

8. Based on the pleadings made by both the parties, the Tribunal had framed the following issues:- I 2 Whether the accid.ent occurred on 21.08.2017 about 17.00 hours near Kodauatur Kaman, Bachannapet Vtttage and Mandal, Jangoon district, due to ra.sh and negligent dnuing of diuer of lorry bearing No.TS-34?:- 2299 and u.thether the deceosed. died due to fatat injuries uthile undergoing treatment? Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from uhom?\ I 4

3. Whether the petitioners paid- proper Court fee? 4. To uhat relieJ?

9. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the petitioners, petitioner No. 1 examined herself as PW1, got examined eye witness-PW2 and got markecl Exs.Al to A7. On behalf of respondents, RWI was examined and Exs.B1 to 84 were marked. lO. After considering the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, the learned Tribunal had partly-allowed the claim petition by awarding compensation of Rs. 11,10,000/- together with interest @ 7 .5o/o per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Aggrieved by the same, the 3'd respondent in O.P./Insurance Company preferred the present Appeal seeking to set-aside the order of the learned Tribunal.

11. Heard arguments of Sri N.Mohan Krishna, iearned Standing Counsel for appellant/lnsurance Company and Sri Vadlakonda Kiran Kumar, learned counsel for respondents/ claimants. Perused the record.

12. The contentions of the learned Standing Counsel for appellant/ Insurance Company are that the learned Tribunal failed to see that the driver of the crime vehicle do not possess valid driving license at the time of accident. lt also failed to consider the owner and insurer of the motor cycle, on which the deceased was 5 / // travelling, as proper and necessary parties to claim petition. It also erred in taking the income ofthe deceased on higher side.

13. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the learned Tribunal after considering all the aspects, had awarded reasonable compensation for which interference of this Court is not necessary.

14. Now the point that emerges for determination is, Whether the order passed by the learned Tibunal requires inte rfe re nce of this Court? POINT:-

15. This Court has perused the documents available on record. On behalf of the petitioners, petitioner No. 1, who is the wife of tlle deceased, was examined as PWl and fii1ed affidavit in lieu of her chief examination reiterating the contents mentioned in the claim petition. As she is not an eye witness to the incident, she got examined PW2, who is an eye witness to the incident. PW2 deposed that the alleged accident took place when he was returning to his village and that the accident occurred due to the rash ad negligent driving of the driver of lorry bearing No.TS-34T-

16. As far as documentary evidence is concerned, a perusal of Ex.Al- FIR shows that Police of Bachannapet Police Station registered a case in Crime No.68 of 2017, under Section 304-A IPC, 6 conducted investigalion and laid charge sheet under En.A3 against the driver of the crime Lorry for his rash and negligent driving which resulted into the death of the deceased. Ex.A2 is the inquest report. Ex.A4 is the Crime Details Form. Ex.AS is the Post-mortem examination repot wherein the cause of death of deceased was shown as "due to Head Injury". Ex.A6 is the MVI report which clearly shows that there are no mechanical defects to the crime vehicle at the time of accident. Ex.A7 is the copy of Insurance Policy. Though PWs I & 2 were cross-examined, nothing worthwhile was elicited to disbelieve their testimony..

17. Therefore, from the evidence of PWsl & 2 coupled with the documents marked under Exs.A I to A7, it is clearly established that the alleged accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime Lorry which resulted into the death of the deceased. As the accident occurred due to whole and sole negligence of driver of crime lorry, the question of making the owner and insurer of motorcycle as necessary parties to the claim petition does not arise. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for appellant/Insurance Company that the Tribunal failed to consider the owner and insurer of the motor cycle as proper and necessary parties to the claim petition becomes unsustainable.

18. On the other hand, a perusal of Ex.Bl-lnsurance policy shows that it was issued in the name of respondent No.2, who is i / 7 License the owner of the crime Lorry and the policy was valid from 31.O3.2O17 to 3O.03.2O1g, covering the date of accident. 19. The other contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company is with regard to Driving Though learned counsel for the appellant/lnsurance Company contended that the driver of the crime vehicle do not possess valid driving license at the time of accident, but it had not taken any steps to examine RTA Authorities to substantiate their contention except giving mere suggestions to pwl. It is well settled law that the RTA oflicials are the competent persons to adjudicate as to whether a person is having varid driving ricense or not. In the present case, the respondents failed to examine any of the RTA officials to establish that the driver of the crime vehicle was not holding valid driving license. Hence, the contention of the leanred counsel for appellant in this regard is unsustainable. 20. Further, a perusal of attested copy of Driving License issued by Karnataka State, which is an unmarked document enclosed in the list of documents, would reveal that it v/as in the name of Mohd. Hussain, who is the driver of crime Lorry and it was valid throughout India till 16.03.2024. Since it is an attested copy, the Court below might not have considered the same for marking purpose. Moreover, the policy conditions regarding driver not holding valid and effective driving ricense at the rime of accident I l 8 cannot be considered as fundamental breach that had contributed to the cause of the accident to discharge the appeilant/lnsurance Company from its liability. In such circumstances, as stated supra, mere absence, fake or invalid driving license or disqualihcation of the driver for driving at the relevant time, are not in themselves defences available to the insurer against either the insured or the third parties, more particularly when no material is placed by the Insurance Company to substantiate their contention.

21. In view of the above discussion, it is madc clear that the Insurance Company cannot be exonerated lrom its 'tiability 1n paying compensation.

22. The other contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/ Insurance Company is that the court below fixed the annual income ofthe deceased on higher side.

23. A perusal of quantum of compensation awarded in the impugned judgment would reveal that though the petitioners contended that the deceased used to earn Rs.20,O00/- per month by working as Centring Mason, but they failed to produce any documentary proof to that effect. Hence, the learned Tribunal, taking into consideration the cross-examination of PW1 wherein she deposed that they are white ration card holders which are issued to pcople who come under below poverty line and whose income cannot exceed Rs. 1,OO,O00/- per annum, hxed the income 9 of the deceased @ Rs.1,00,0OO/- per annum, deducted 1/4e towards personal expenses and applied .relevant multiplier and awarded a total compensation of Rs. 1 I , 10,000/ - under various Heads along with interest @ 7 .5o/o per annum payable by all the respondents jointly and severally. This Court do not find aly reason to interfere with the Iinding of the learned Tribunal which is in proper perspective. Hence, the Appeal is devoid of merits and substance and is liable to be dismissed.

24. In the result, the Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

25. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/- MOHD. ISMAIL, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR. ECTION OFFICER To, Judge at ll Fast Track Court, Warangal at Janagaon

1. The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- V Additional District 2. One CC to Sri N Mohan Krishna, Advocate tOpUCl 3. One CC to Sri Vadlakonda Kiran Kumar, Advocate tOpUCl 4. Two CD Copies ADK v I I l I I HIGH COURT DATED:20 t}lt2)2s JUDGMENT+DECREE IIIACMA.N o.442 of 2023 ( C rJ \+ E SrAre: ? 7 l'14fl 2[5 t De spatc 2 DRAFTS f,j,?H ffi.%:+:,r4 A c,,/I A 7 /.t 5 I t I I I I ! I _-l IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 442 OF 2023 Between: National lnsurance Comp H.No. '16 -1 - 4221A and B city and District. any Limited, Rep., by its Branch Manager,0/o. at 2nd floor, SVS Legend, SVP Main Road, Warangal ...AppellanUR -3 in MVOP AND 1 2 Gonela Anitha, W/o. Late Mallesham, Aged about 38 years, Occ: House wife, Rl/o. Kesireddy Palli Village, Bachannapet Mandal, Jangam districf Erstwhile Warangal District. GonelaVamshi, Anitha, S/o. Late Mallesham, Aged about 14 years, Occ. Student, minor, rep by his natural mother a Guardian GonelaAnitha, Wo. Late Mallesham,(1st respondent herein) Ft/o. KesireddyPalli Village, Bachannapet Mandal, Jangam district Erstwhile Warangal District.

3. Gonela Renuka, D/o. Late Mallesham, Aged about 12years, Occ- Student, minor, rep by her natural mother Et Guardian GonelaAnitha, Wo. Late Mallesham,(1st respondent herein) Rl/o. KesireddyPalli Village, BachannapetMandal, Jangam diskict Erstwhile Warangal District.

4. Gonela Varamma, W/o. BataNarasaiah, Aged about 60 years, Occ. House wife, Rl/o. KesireddyPalli Village, Bachannapet Mandal, Jangam district Erstwhile Warangal District. ... Respondents/Claimants/Petitioners

5. IVlohammed Hussain, S/o. Bashumiya, Aged Major, Occ. Driver of the crime vehicle, Fl/o. Kollur Village, ChithapurMandal, Gulbarga District Karnataka district.

6. Parthasarathy Logistics Pvt., Ltd, rep by S. Vinod Reddy, S/o. Not known aged Major, Occ. owner of the crime vehicle, R/o. Sy. Nos. 23 & 24, Gopannapally village, Thandur ltrlandal, Vikarabad district. ...Respondents/Respondent No.1 & 2 in MVOP Appeal filed Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act,'1988 against the Award and decree in M.V.O.P.No.997 oi 2017 daled.21l10l2021 on the file of the Court of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- V Additional District Judge at ll Fast Track Court, Warangal at Janagaon. This aopeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgme.rt and Decree of the Lower court and the mate"rial pa"pers in the case.,and upon hearing the arguments of sri N Mohan Krishna, Advocate for the Appellant and of sri Vadlakonda Kiran Kumar, Advocate for the Respondent No.1 & 4 and none appeared for the respondent No.2,3,S & 6. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: 1 . That the Motor Accident civir Miscellaneous Appear be and hereby is dismissed;

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

3. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. //TRUE COPY// SD/. MOHQ. ISMAIL, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR. SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The chairman, Motor Accident claims Tribunal-cum- V Additional District Judge at ll Fast Track Court, Warangal at Janagaon

2. fwo CD Copies ADK / HIGH COURT DATED:2010112025 I DECREE MACMA.No.442 of 2023 DISMISSING HE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS /th q