The High Court · 2025

2. The brief facts of the case are thzrt the claimants filed claim petrtion under Scction 166 of the Act, I 988 claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the death of Vallabhi Hanumantha Rao (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') in a fata-i accident occu rred on 26 .06 .2O 14 .

3. The 1"r claimant is u,ife, 2.d claimant and 3.d claimants are daughters of the deceased. On 26.06.2014 at about 2:00 PM, one Kondabala Ramesh and the deceased vvere proceeding to Khammam on a motorc-r.cle bearing No.AP-2O-N- 6863 to purchase cotton seeds and r.n,hen they reached .".. 4 NNR,J ma.ma 9 2010 Venkatagiri X Roads, near Supraja Rice Mill on R&B majn Road leading from Mudigonda to Khammam, meanwhile one Tractor & Trailer bearing No.AP-20-TC-2109 & 4767 proceeding in the same direction came at high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle' As a result of it, the deceased (pillion rider) fell dou'n on the road and sustained severe injuries on vital parts of the body and died on the spot'

4. On receipt of complaint, police Khammam Rura-l registered a case in Crime No.381 of 2014 under Sections 3O4- A and 338 of I.P.C. against the driver of the crime vehicle'

5. The deceased u'as aged about 56 yeaJs and he was hale and healthl' at the time of accident and doing agriculture work and used to earn Rs.1,OO,0OO/- per annum' Apart from agriculture work, he is also doing coolie work and used to earn a surn of Rs.300 / - per day and contributing the same for welfare of his family. The claimants are residing in joint family under one roof. Due to sud.den death of deceased, the l't claimalt lost her conjugal happiness and other claimants lost their love and affection of the d.eceased.

6. The appellant is the insurance compary and respondent No.2 is insurer of the crime vehicle i'e', tractor and ---,2 ----/-rr*fiE-a/ i==TFZ '.1{- 1 l N\R.I nracnra 6J9 2(ll(l trailer, as such thev are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimants. Respondent No.4 ou,ner oi the vehicle did not choose to liie counter ,rnd finally reported no coun ter

7. The appellant insurance company f-rled counter affidavrt inter alia con lending that the petition is liable to be dismissed in hmirue. It is also stated that the appellant denied about involvement of tractor and trailer bearing No.AP-2O-TC 2109 & AP 20 TA-47 67 in the accident. It is also denied about the age, avocation and income of the dcceased and also denied the manner of accident as narrated in the petitron. It is stated that the drir.er of Tractor & Trailer u'as not holcling va-lid and effectrve drivrng licence at the time ol accident and that the vehicle lr as not fit and it u as not road r,,,orthv. It is further contended that the 1.1 respondent did not inform about the accident to the 2". respondent and he did not furnish any such information about the policy. It is also contended that the claim made by the claimants is excessive and exorbitant and that the driver of the said tractor and trailer rras not holding any valid driving licence. It is stated that the claim petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of parties, owner and 6 Nr.NR.J nucma 649 2020 insurer of motorcycle bearing No.AP-2O-N6863. The insurance company did not issue any policy cover Note No.006600292925O4 n'hich nas valid from 25.06.2014 to

24.06.2014 and hence, hc prayed to dismiss the petition

8. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed by the Tribunal for trial (1) Whether the drir er of Tractor & Trailer beanng No AP-20-TC- 2109 & AP 2O-TA 4767 drove the tractor in a rash and negligent manncr zrnd caused the death of the deceased- Valtabhi Harrumantha Rao, while he was proceeding on motorcJ'cle bearing registration No.AP-20-N 6863? (iil Whether the petitioners are entillecl lor compensation amount? If so. lo what extent and from which of the respondents? (iiil To what relieP g, During the course of trial, on behalf of the claimants, P.Ws.1 and 2 were exarnined and Exs.A 1 to A'3 were marked. On behalf of respondent No.2, R.W' 1 was examined and Ex.B.1-lnsurance policy u'as marked.

10. Having heard both the counsel and considering the written arguments submitted by respondent No.2 including the documentar5l evidence placed on record, the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of tractor and trailer and -rr' .4' \ \- -',:l.€ #,W- 7 \\R,J ,rac,rla 6,19 2011r therefore. the driver of said tractor is responsible for the accident and accordingll', the leaLrned 'lribunal arvarded compensation ol Rs.6,25,000/- to the claimants as agarnst the clarnr of Rs.5.00,O007.. Aggrieved br the santc, thc presetrt appeal is filed by the appellant-insu rarlce compan)' on the follou'ing among other grounds 1i) Ir is state( thal the appellant insurairce conlpan\ is not iierlrlc lo per\ compensiltion Io tile claimants for lhe reason thai thc insurance poiicr of:he r:rime vehrr:le does not cxist as on the daLe ol tlre accident. rii) lr is lurther stated that the appellan' - in surance compan\ has rssucd Lx ll 1 Insrrrance polic-r in the tran.e of \'1r.(lh Chalarnaiah, orrncr of lractor anC Trarler commencirtg from 03.07 201'1 to 0.1.0/.2015 r'hert:as the acciderli in dispLttc had occurred on 2t>.O(.t 2011 .e , one $eek prior to corrrm(:nccment of the polic] But, tl-.e learned Tribunal \\,ithout considering the same. erroncouslv fastened the liabilitv on the appellant-insu rarce compan\: liii) lt LS further stated that the accident has occurred on '25.06.2o11 and cheque rtas rssued on 27.O6.2014 r.e , onc da\ after the rlate of the accident. (iv) It is stated that actuallv the policy u'as issuecl from O-1.O7.2O14. Though proposal q.as made on 2.5,06.2014, the appellant- insuranr:e compan) after verificatron of the documcnts found that the previous polic-l rvas not in forcc and informed the same to the orr,ner/insured o[ the crime vehicle and asked them to produce chassis print orr nclvspaper on 03.O7.20 14. When the insured came to the appellant-insurance company rvith relevanl documents, the date of proposal wirs altered to 03.O7.2014 and Ex.B. I insurance polic,r' rvas rssucd on the same day covering the risk from 03.07.2014 to 02.O7.2O14 and thereafter Ex.B. 1 insurance polic) uas rssued on 1)3.07.201.1 covering rhe risk from O3.O7.2014 to 02.O7 2015 and linall-y he praved this Court to allou the appeal and dismiss thc clarm r)etition. -t' 8 NNR,J nra.ma 619 2020 ,

11. Heard Sri A. Ramakrishna Reddy' learned Standing Counsel for the appeilant- insurarce company, Sri G.Ravi Chandra Sekhar, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri Patibandla Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.4.

12. Having perused the entire material on record and considering the contentions and rival contentions made by both the parties, the points that arise for consideration in this appeal are: (il Whether the learned Tribunal has committed any error in awarding compensation of Rs.5,25'0OO/- in favour of the claimants? lii) Whether insurance comPany is not liable to pay compensation to the claimaats?

13. Issue Nos. I and 2: The main grievance of the appellant-insurance compary is that respondent No.2 has issued Ex.B.1-policy in respect of crime vehicle i.e., tractor and trailer valid from O3.O7.2014 to 02 .O7 .2015. It is stated that the accident had occurred on

26.06.2014. It is further stated that respondent No.l paid premium amount and obtained policy under cover note which was valid from 25.06.2014 to 24.06.2015, as such the \- -ffi #;fF-.,/ -l--Z. 9 N\R.] :nx. na 649 2010 insuralce covered zrs on the date of the accident. Therefore, the lcar-ned Tribur-ral came to the conclusion that as on the date of thr: accident, the policl' of the crime vehicle ri'as valid and that l.irc' accident had occurred due to rash ar-rd rtegiigcnce on the l)art of the driver of the tractor and trailer, helci that the or,vncr of rhe tractor and trailer and the appellant insurance are -loint h and severalh- liable to pav compensation to the claimants.

14. The main grievance of the appellant Insuralce compan\- before this Court is that the learned Tribunal cannot fix liabilitl, on the appellant-insuraflce companv basing on the cover note q,hich is alleged to have been issued b1'the Agency of the appellant insurance company. Admittedll', there is no denial regarding the crime vehicle i.e., Tractor and Trailer bearing Nos.AP-2O TC 21O9 & AP-2O TA-4767 u,hich is insured $,ith appellant-insurance company. It rs further stated that the policv rvas issued on 10.O7.2014 with policy bearing No.2316 2OOB 0154 8200 O00, which is commencing from O3.O7.2014 from 00.01 hrs to 02.07.2015 which uas stand_ing in the name of Sn Ch. Chalamaiah. 1 IO NNR.J macma 619 2020

15. It is the case of the respondents-clajmants that as on the date of the accident, the polic5r is not in existence. In fact, as it seen from the record, respondent No.2 has issued the policy. Admittedly, the said accident has occurred on

26.O4.2OI4. Admittedly, respondent No.2 did not hle copy of cover note along with counter at the time ol fiing chief examination affidavit of R.W. 1. Subsequently, respondent No.2 produced photocopy of cover note. In the cross-examination, R.W.2 deposed that respondent No.1 has paid policy premium amount by way of cheque 27.06.2014. But, rhe said cheque was not produced before the Court. R.W. 1 admitted that the proposal was made on 25.06.2014 and the same date was also mentioned in proposal form. He further admitted that in ca-rbon copy of proposal form the date of proposal was altered as'O3.O7.2O14'.

16. It is also the contention of the appellant-insurarce company that R.W. I deposed that the insured came to the office and obtained insurance policy and after writing the proposal, they verified the documents and found that the prerrious policy was- not in force and as insured produced chasis print on newspaper ald that the insured came to the office on I I I : NNR.J rra.fra t)19 20lr

03.oT.2ollandSubmittedrelevantdocumentsandaccordinglv they aitered ti-te date of proposal as 03 07'2014 in the copJi of insurerl ancl eLlso in their olfice carbon copy L7. r\cl:tLtte tlh, ihere is no initiai made in respect of thc corrcctions as to the proposal form i'e , the date of proposal as '03.O7.2014'. As per cover note, dated 25'06'2014, the insurance polir:,t' ',vas valid for the period from 25'06 20 14 to

24.O(t 2O1c. Tl-rough the policy !l'as issued for the period from

03.O7.2014 to O207.2Ol5 under ExB'1, the accident u'as ln such occurred on 26.06.20L4 as per under Ex'A 1 circumstances. the contention of the appellant-insurance thal there is r-ro policv subsisting ald insurartce compan) is not Iiable to pav compensatlon cannot be accepted and this Court holds that that the appellant-insurance company is iiable to pav compensation to the claimants. 18, The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Abhaysing Pratapsing Waghela and othersl rvherein it was held thus: "9. Yct agarn, a simiiar contention has been raised before the Tribunal as g,ould appear from the follorving excerpLs from the award: L (2008) 9 Supreme Cout Cases 133 t2 NNR.J macma_649 2020 r "However, as per the contention raised by the learncd advocate for the applicant, Lhe contract of insurance and policy of the alleged vehicle were not in exrstence as on the date oi occurrence; that the cheque issued was dishonoured and, therefore, the cover nore it had issued becomes ineffective and as such, no policl'obliging to pay thc compensaLion bv the Lrrs''rret'exists on the day o[ occurrence and lhcrefore, Opponellt 3 aann()t l)t hrld Iiable to indemnily the third party and/or the insurer be absolved of trs obligarions to Lhird part) because oi non-receiving of the prcmium. In strppori thereof, the Iearned advocate for Opponenl 3 placed slrong reliancc on thc pirrl)osltlons of iaw laid dou'n in 2002 (l) AJR 168 and Llntted Ind@ lnsurotlce Co' ttd. v. Ayeb Mohat med l(199I) 2 ACJ 650l ." Apart from the samc, evcn before us in thc spccial leave pelition. :rppellant' after quoting a decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in linited Indra lrr.sr.rrorrce (lo- I-td..". Ratc.nsingh iAlR 1993 \'1P l97l sraLed Lhe loil'r\\ing: "hc "Similar is Lhe case in hand and is squarcly covered bv thLs judgmcnl It is also a case rvhere ir had not issued any policy but lvas co\,cr note and lhat too \r'as cancclled rvhen the cheque was bounced and also prior to the darc of accidenL rrself."

2. The Motor Vehrcles Act, 1988 (for short "the Act") \tas en'rctcd rc consolidaLe and amcnd the law relating to motor vehicles. Chaprer XI of the Act provrdes for insurance o[ motor vehicles against third-party risks. Sectton I45 o[ thc Act is the definition section; clause (b) whereof dehnes 'ceftihczrte oi ilrsurance" to mean: "145. (b) ... a certificate issued by an authorised insurer in pu'suance o[ sub- section {3) of Section 147 and includes a cover nole compl}'ing with such requirements as may be prescribed, and where more lhan one certificate has been issued in connection with a poticy, or where a copy of a certificate has been issued, alt those certificates or that copy, as the case may be; Clause (@ of Section 145 deilnes "policy of insurance" to include 'certificate of rnsurance

17. Indisputably, the first respondent is a third party in relation to rhe contract of insurance which had been entered into by and between the appellant and the owner of lhe vehicle in question. We have nottced hereinbcfore thal a document was proddted before the Tribunal. Even according to the appellant' although it was only a Motor Input Advice-cum-RcceiPt, it conlained Cover Note No.279106. We, therefore, have to suppose thal a cover note had, in f'rct, --iffi ";ii:f I i i l3 NNR.J n[r ra (r+9 20]ril be|t issueri Jf u cor', r ;t,rLl tacl been issued u,htch in terms (r1 clausc (lrl of JLll) scctror ili ,rf S<.r rio|l I1S o[ t]rc Act u.ould comc $.ithin tl..e pu^,ic1\ of rlelrnirLr,:r (,1 ce:llllcrrl, oi lsir.an()c; ir q'ould also iome withrrL rltc purvie\, of ir. detlniriorr ._,' 1:,.llirn(( fj'_rli.', IIa cover noLe is r:sued, it rernalns vaiid till it s 'rncr llt'rl r r;r:i-,irt:.btr I :Dsulance policy sas c:rncelled rrn[1, a[tcr rhe :cL Ccnt Lr:roJ: i,.r.r. 1 irnilt_L:rf f:lct. therelorc, has becn arrireci ar that Drior I :rrr c-r'prrsrL (,'] ilte it.el.:t:.t it llsLuance rn cash by Lhc olvnl]i,rf thc vchrcle Lh( covcr nolc..ras no czrDcclk.d."

19. Even ir-r thc case of Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. v Inderjit kaur2, rt u'as held that once a certificate of insurance is issucd, rhe lnsurance companv urould not be absolved of its obiigaiions t() third ltar tics 20, Admirredh . rssuance of cheque, dated 27.06.2024 is not rn drsputc i:I,1 appclLant-insurance company was got it honoured / encashe(.I. Admittedly, the said cheque was cncashed them maY not be on 27.06.2014. But subsequenth,, it u,:rs ericashcd ilrd receipt 'd,as also issued to that effect. In such case, the contentiou of the claimants that there is no polic-\' subsrsting and appcllant insurance company is not iiable to pal, compensatr()n cannot be accepted and this Court holds that the respondents are liabie to pay compensation. 2L. In view of the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court that once a cover is issued in terms of Section 145 (l) (b) 2 l rsssy t scc:zr I l4 NNR.J macnra 619 2020 of the Act, it would come within the purview of definition of certificate of insurance and it would also come within the purview of definition of insurance policy. If a cover note is issued, it remains valid till it is cancelled. In the present case, it is evident that there was an understanding between the parties that as per the cover note 25.06.2014 the owner of the vehicle approached the insurance company and a cover note has issued. Though it is contended that the owner of the vehicle approached the insuralce company on 03.07.2014 where the cover note was issued on 25.06.20 14 and the accident was corrected on 26.06.2014. The policy r,vas in force from

03.07.2014 to 02.07.2015. Basing on the said cover note and the present polic-y which was valid from 03.O7.2O14 to

02.07.2015 the cheque was received and got encashed. Therefore, as on date the accident, the policy is in force.

22. In view of the same, as the said cover note rvhich was issued much prior to the date of accident has to be treated as certificate of insurance and cheque and the said cover note ha get validated and thereby the insurance company Iiability v"'ould commence from the date of issuance of first cover note .i t4 E I 15 NNR.] ma.nrLt 6{9 2010 t I r I t I ald as such, tl-re insurance company is liable to pay the corrlpenslitl()1-l

23. Thc otl-rcr aspect u'hich was raised under the present appeal br, tl're appellant insurartce is that the learned Tribunal oLrght to ha\ L' taken the income of the deceased at Rs.4,500./- rnstead of Rs.1,0O,000/- per annum when there is no income proof of produccd bv the claimants

24. It rs se:tlc'd lau that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lathq Wadhwa a. State of Biharj it was held that even when there is nti proof of incorne and earnings, the income can be reasonabl-r estirnilted and assessed considering the ground realities. Furtht'r. in Shaikh Sadlk Shailc Rafique u Reliance General Insurance Cornpang Limited dnd otherg, the Hon ble Supreme Court has enhanced the compensation amount of the dcceasecl, rr,ho u/as unskilled labour to Rs.10,000/ per r,'ronth, and the relevant paragraph No.5 reads as under "5. Ramachandrappa us. Mantager, Rogal Sundaranzt Alliance Insurance Compang Limlted detennined an income o.f R:;.4,5OO/ - per month in the gear 20O4 for a 3 2001 (8) SCC 197 '2025 sCC ofline SC i0!)2 ^1, I I i I I i I 1 i I 16 N\R.J macnla,649_2020 coolie. A Constit'tttion Bench in National Insurance Compartg Limited us. hanag Sethi and Others found that there would be an incremental increase in the income uthich occording to us ttould be reasonable if ftxed at Rs.500/- per month for euery successiue gear' In the present case, the accident ocanrred in the year 2015' 11 gears after 2004 and going by the principles stated in the ofore-cited decisions the appellant, an unskilled utorker would be entitled to cloim monthlg income of Rs' 10,0OO/ -"

25.. ln view of recent judgment, dated 13'05'2025, passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shalkh Sadik Shctik Rafique's cotse and Ldthd Wadhwq's cose (cited both supra) and Iooking at the avocation of the deceased and considering the ground realities, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the income of the deceased taken by the Tribunal @ Rs. 1,00,000/- per annum appea-rs to be reasonable' Therefore' this Court does not see any ground to interfere with the compensation, which is awarded by the learned Tribunal'

26. Further, in the absence of there being any cross appeal, I do not see any enhancement in the compensation which was awarded by the Tribunal appears to be just and fair compensation and needs no interference. Therefore, the appeal falls to the ground and accordingly, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. ; I I I l7 N,,-R..i lracmr 619 202()

27. Accorrling1'u , the appcal is dismissed confirming the order and clecree, drried i3.05.2O2O, in M.V.O.p.No.17 I of 2016 passed br thc Chirirman. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum Special Sessrr_,ns .ltrclqe for last tracking the cases relating to Atrocities against Women cum VIII Additional District Judge, Khammam. There shall bc no order as to costs. Misccllaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall star-rd canccllccl . g-,. ,TRUE COPY/i Sd/. M. JAWAHAR REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ,: :.| \_--./ SECTION OFFICER One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble Sri Justice NARSING RAO NANDIKONOA (For His Lordship's kind Perusal) To,

1. The Motor Acciden,s Claims Tribunal-Cum-Special Sessions Judge for Fast Tracking of the ,rases relating to Atrocities against Woman-Cum-Vlll Additional District Judge. at Khammam (with records)

2. 11 LR Copies 3. The Under Secretary, Union of lndia, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi

4. The Secretary, Telangana High Court Advocate's Association Library, High Court for the State cf Telangana, High Court Buildings at Hyderabad.

5. One CC to Sri A Ramakrishna Reddy, Advocate [OPUCI 6. One CC to Sri G Ravi Chandra Sekhar, Advocate IOPUCI 7. One CC to Sri Pati Bandla Sanjay Kumar, Advocate [OPUCI B. Two CD Copies KVR HIGH COURT NNR, J DATED: 22109120?.5 JUDGMENT+DECREE MACMA.No.649 of 2020 t{1 14sE t U 1 0 tii8 2026 z (:,) ! * t) Ft!,.-... )l 1 DISMISSING MACMA WITHOUT COSTS '._/ .J, F; q IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD IV1ONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 649 OF 2020 Between: HDFC ERGO General lnsurance Co. Ltd., Represented It/anager. Wyra Road, Khammam Town, Khammam District by its Branch ...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT No. 2 AND 1 3 4 VallabhiVimala, W/o HanumanthaRao, Age. 48 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o Ammapeta Village, Mudigonda Mandal, Khammam District Kondobolu Rama Devi, W/o Ramesh, Age. 30 years, Occ. Nil, Rl/o Ammapeta Village, Mudigonda Mandal, Khammam District Ko-ndoboluSwapna, W/o Naresh, Age. 28 years, Occ. Nil, Rl/o Ammapeta Village, Mudigonda Mandal, Khammam District ...RESPONDENT Nos. 1 to 3/PETITIONERS Ch. Chalamaiah, S/o Mangaiah, Age. Major, Occ. Owner of Tractor and Trailer bearing Nos. AP 20 TC 21Og and AP 20 TA 4767, FVo H.No.'1-2, Ananthasagar Village, Chinthakani Mandal, Khammam District ...RESPONDENT No. 4/RESPONDENT No. I Appeal filed under Section'1 73 of Motor Vehicles Act against the Order and Decree dated 13-05-2020 in M.V.O.P.No.'171 of 2016 on the fite of the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-Special Sessions Judge for Fast Tracking of the cases relating to Atrocities against Woman-Cum-Vlll Additional District Judge, at Khammam 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 case and upon hearing the arguments of Sri A. Ramakrishna Reddy, Advocate for the appellant, Sri G. Ravi Chandra Sekhar, Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Sri Pati Bandla Sanjay Kumar, Advocate for Respondent No. 4. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows

1. That the [Vlotor dismissed, Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is

2. Thal save as aforesaid, the decree of the Tribunal shall stand confirmed in all other aspects, and

3. That there shall be rro order as to costs in this appeal. ,TRUE COPY// Sd/. M. JAWAHAR REDDY ASSTSTANT REIiiSTRAR l{+ SECTION OFFICER To, 1 The Motor Accidents crarms. Tribunar-cum-speciar Sessions Judge for Fast Tracking of the cases rerating to Atrocities aqainst woma"n-cum vrri Additional Distrrct Judge. at Khamham.

2. Two CD Copies KVR HIGH COURT NNR, J DATED: 2210912025 DECREE MACMA.No.649 of 2020 R THE S l4 5 (J t , 18 1,, 2irrfr i (\ .// -\:-:: :i DISMISSING MACMA WITHOUT COSTS \ d "F