The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellant: Ms A.ANASUYA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: SRI AJAY KUMAR MADISETTY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 & 4: None Appeared The Court made the following: JUDGMENT I HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA M.A.C.M.A. NO.76 0F 2o.2L JUDG This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 03.03.2020 in M.V.O.P.No.562 of 2016 passed try the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-l Addition:rl Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad (for short "the Tribunal").

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

3. The case of the claim petitioners before the Tribunal was that on24.Oti.2ol6 at 11:00 a.m., while the deceased was going on his motor bike from Cherlapally towards Nacharam and when he reached near IDA Nacharam Petrol Bunk, and was waiting for his friend, v,rho went to fill the petrol, suddenly lorry tanker bearing No.AP-2') -V-1444 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motor bike of the deceased from behind and ran over him, dut: to which he died on the sPot. 4 TtLe respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained ex-parte

5. The respondent No.3-lnsurance Company has filed counter denying the an erments of the petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident, age, avocation and income of the deceased. They 2 ETD,J MACMA No.75-2021 further contended that the driver of the |orry tanker was not holding valid driving license as on the date of the accident and their company is not liable to pay any compensation.

6. Based on the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal has framed the following issues for trial: l) Wlrcther the pleaded accident occurred resulting in death to the uictim uiz., Si K. Siuaramiprasad @Prasad, S/o K. Samudralu, due to rash and negligent diuing of tlte driuer oi torrg tanker bearing No.AP-29V-144a, bg its driuer? 2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to ang ampensation and if so, at uthat qtantum? 3) To what relieft

7. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PWl to 3 and got marked Exs.Al to A8. On behalf of the respondents, RW1 and 2 were examined and Ex.B1 to B 12 were marked'

8. Based on the evidence on record, the trial Court has awarded a compensation of Rs. 18,64,4OO/- holding that respondent No.2 and 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. Aggrieved by the said award, the present appeal is preferred by the Insurance ComPanY 4 g. Heard the submission of Ms. A. Anasuya, learned counsel for the appellant. tnspite of service of notice, learned counsel for the respondents failed to appear in this matter'

10. Learned counsel for appellant has submitted that the order and decree passed by the learned Tribunal is contrary to law and : i t / 3 ETD,J MACMA No.76 2021 that the Tribunal failed to consider the evidence adduced by the Insurance Company and has not properly appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case. She further argued that the Tribunal failed to take notice of the fact that the Insurance Compan',r has cancelled the policy due to dishonour of cheque and that wittrout any subsisting policy, the Tribunal has fastened the liability on the Insurance Company, which is not proper. She therefore, prayed to set aside the order and decree of the Tribunal by allowing this appeal. 1 1. B:lsed on the above rival contentions, this Court frames the following points for determination: I c Whether the lorry tanker bearing No.AP-29V-1444 was coaered under a ualid insurarrce policy as on the date of the accident? If so, whether the insurarrce companA is liable to paA compensation? Whether the order and decree of the trial Court need any interference?

3. 7'o what reltep POINT NO.1:- The grievance of the appellant is that the crime vehicle was t2 a) not cove:ed by the insurance policy as on the date of the accident. It is their case that the cheque issued by the insured towards payment of premium was dishonoured and that the said fact was intimate,l to the owner of the vehicle. In support of their contentir>n, they got examined RWl ar,d 2 and also got marked Ex.B4 tc 812. Ex.B4 is the Proposal Form for obtaining insurance 4 ETD,J MACMA No.76-2021 poticy submitted by the owner of the vehicle-Mohd. Jameel to oriental [nsurance company i.e., the appellant herein with regard to the vehicle i.e., lorry bearing No.AP-29 -V-1444. Ex.B6 is the receipt issued to Mohd. Jameel by the oriental Insurance company saying that it has collected premium on 18.09.2015' The recitals of the document further show that the policy has been cancelled and the payment mode is through cheque bearing No.000989 dated 18.09.2015 and that the payment under the receipt is valid subject to the realization of the cheque. Ex'B7 is the cheque return memo issued by the Andhra Bank that the cheque is returned due to the reason "funds insufficient'" The insurance company has cancelled the policy vide Ex.88. It is clearly mentioned that the cancellation of policy is due to dishonour of cheque. The said cancellation of policy was intimated to the insured vide Ex.B9 on 06.10.2015. The said fact was intimated to the RTO Office vide Ex.B10 saying that since the cheque issued by the client was dishonoured, the policy stood cancelled right from the inception of the PolicY. b) They have also examined RWl and RW2' RWl is the Administrative officer of oriental Insurance company Limited' In his chief examination he has contended that they cancelled the policy as the cheque towards premium was dishonoured. In his cross examination it is elicited that the premium amount collected \. / 5 ETD,J MACMA No.76 2021 towards the crime vehicle is Rs.29,l95l- and the cheque was given for the in:;urance premium of more than one vehicle which includes th: premium for other vehicles also, and that they have not filed the details of the vehicles for which the premium is included in the said cheque. He has not filed any proof of service letters addressed to the insured informing about the cheque return. He has admitted that there is a contract between the owner and the Insurance Company subject to the terms and conditions. c) RW2 is the Chief Manager of Andhra Bank-Nacharam Branch. It is elicited in his evidence that the insured-Mohd. Jameel possessed iln account bearing No.087331043040023 in their Bank and that his overdraft limit was Rs.25,0o,0o0 l- and also that he has issued a cheque towards Oriental Insurance Company vide Cheque bearing No.000989 dated 18.09.2015 for an amount of Rs.64,201/- and that it was returned on 03.i0.2O15, and that as on that date, the account shows a debit balance of Rs.25,27,O351- and since :heque amount exceeded the over draft facility, it was dishonoured and on 03.10.2015 an amount of Rs.l7ll- was debited torsards cheque return charges. The said transaction is reflected in the statement of accounts filed under Ex.B12. He also stated that- whenever a transaction is effected into the account either by debit or creclit, the said information would be sent to the 6 ETD,J MACMA No.76 2021 customer through an SMS and that the said SMS alerts are sent from the Department of Information Technolory of the Head Office. d) In his cross examination he has stated that he has not filed any separate document to show that they have sent an SMS alert with regard to cheque return intimation to Mohd Jameel. Thus it is elicited through the evidence of RWl and 2 that the cheque issued towards the payment of premium vide cheque No.OOO989 dated

18.09.2015 was dishonoured. The said dishonour of cheque is proved through the evidence of RW2 coupled with Ex.Bi2. After the cheque was dishonoured the Insurance Company got cancelled the Poticy vide Ex.B8 and it was intimated to the owner of the vehicle-Mohd. Jameel and also to the RTO. Thus, the Insurance Company has taken all the steps required to be fullilled whenever a policy is cancelled. Therefore, it is elicited that the intimation was sent to the insured on 06.10.2015, and the accident occurred on

24.08.2016 i.e., after 1O months, after.the cancellation of Policy. Therefore, as on the date of the accident the Policy bearing No.431391 /31/2016l3O4 was not subsisting. When there is no policy, the Insurance Company is exonerated from the liability of paying compensation. The Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 18,64,400 I -. The said quantum is not under challenge in this appeal. The Insurance Company is exonerated from its liability, II I 7 ETD,J MACMA No.76_2021 while ttLe owner/respondent No.2 and driver/respondent No.1 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimants. - Point No.l is answered accordingly.

13. Point No.2:- In view of the finding arrived at point No.l, the order and decree of the Tribunal dated 03.03.2020 is set aside and the Insuran<:e company is exonerated from the riability of paying compens;ation. Point No.2 is answered accordingly. L4. Point No.B:- In the result, the appeal is allowed setting aside the order and Decree dated 03.03.2020 in M.v.o.p.No.562 of 2016 passed by the chairman, Motor Accident claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional chief Judge, city civil court, Secunderabad, exonerating the Insuranc,-' company from its riabirity of paying compensation. The owner/respondent No.2 and driver/respondent No.1 of the vehicle are jointlJ/ and severally liable to pay compensation awarded by the Tribunal. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appear, shall stand closed- A. REENIVASA REDDY ANT REGISTRAR /,TRUE COPY// ON OFFICER To,

1. The Chai rman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cu I Additional Chief Judge, ourt, Secunderabad. (with Records^if us A.nrunSUYA, Advocate [oPUC] Sni niAV'kultAn MADISETTY, Advocate [oPUC] "ny) City Crvil C 2. One CC to 3. One CC to 4. Two CD CoPies aFore NVB/SA,A/ ( {.1" . . ,-'- '' <4 .' } "ry_/€ n I s a t,.: .i' $:

8., - .,. Ii, - ,..-f HIGH COURT DATED:2510412025 JUDGMENT+DECREE MAGMA.No.76 of 2021 .( C'i', STA ! () c) ( 1 rEs 2028 (;) .:i' ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS G%. 134441 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT FRIDAY, THE TWENW FIFTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA Between M/s The Oriental lnsurance co. Limited, rep. by its Divisional Manager, D'o. lll Ftat trlo. s6z, 3rd Floor, Al-Karim Trade Centre, Ranigunl, secunderabao-5uu 003. ...AppellanU (Respondent No.3) D ',l. K.Java Lakshmi, Wo K.Samudralu, aged about 45 years, occ' Housewife R/o H.Nd. 1-4-22, Lothkunta, Secunderabad.

2. K.Samudralu, S/o Late Mahalaxmiah, aged 50 years, occ' Nil Both are R/o H.No.1 -4-22, Lothkunta, Secunderabad. (Petitioners) lS-Z-aiO, Moinapur, Bahadurpura, Hyderabad-soo 64' 3 trld. lnavath Khan. S/o Md. Jahangir Khan Aged Malor, occ' Driver, R/o H No' - 4. Jameel Mohd, S/o. Md.Yousuf, aged Major Occ' Business, R/o'1-109/'l' - ffi6fi;-C;tony, uittapur, t'ladnaram, Uppal, Rangreddy District' ...Respondents (RespondentsNos'1&2) AppealfiledUnderSectionlT3ofMotorVehiclesAct'lgSSagainsttheorder anddecreein-M.V.o.P.No.562ot2016dated3/03/2020onthefileofthecourtof the chairman Motor Accident claims Tribunal-cum- I Additional chief Judge, city Civil Court, Secunderabad. 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 Ms. A.Anasuya, Advocate for the Appellant and of Sri M.Ajay Kumar, Advocate for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2, and none appeared for the respondent Nos.3 & 4. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is Allowed, settinr; aside the order and Decree dated 03.03.202020 in MVOP.No.562 of 2016 passed by the Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- I Additi,rnal Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, exonerating the insurance company from its liability of paying compensation;

2. That the owner/respondent No.2 and driver/respondent NO.1 of the vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation awarded by the Tribunal;

3. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. SD/. A. SREENIVASA RE ASSISTANT //TRUE COPYII SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Ctrairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- Additional Chief Judge, City Ci'ril Court, Secunderabad. t

2. Two CI) Copies NVB/SA w {,1 ,/ ? ,tr HIGH C()URT DATED:2510412025 DECREE: MACMA,No.76 of 2021 ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS t_t*ed q. Jfif,'