The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI AKKAM ESHWAR The Court made the following: JUDGMENT HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA M.A.C.M.A.NO.631 oF 2021. JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the Insurance Companv, aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 04.O2.202O in M.V.O.p.No.393 of 2076 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal_cum- XXVII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad (for short "the Tribunal").

2. For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to as they r.l,ere arraycd before the Tribunal.

3. The case of the claim petitioner before the Tribunal was that on 06.04.2016 at about 11:3O p.m., petitioner was proceeding on motor bike bearing No.TS-05-EC-3540 as a pillion rider along with his friend from Panjagutta towards Lakdikapool and when they reached Khairatabad X' road, suddenly one Car bearing No.Ap-O9- CE-4649 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manne.r came at a high speed, dashed Lo the petitioners vehicle a.d as a result, the petitioner fell down and received fracture injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Omni Hospital, Kukatpally and later on he was shifted to NIMS Flospital and was discharged on 20.O4.2016 and he was re-admitted on 30.04.2016. Thus he incurred a sum of I I 2 ETD,., MACMA No.531 2021 Rs.80,000/- towards medical expenses. He sought a compensation of Rs.2,50,0OO/ -.

4. The Respondent No. 1 and 2 remained ex-parte.

5. The respondent No.3 Iiled counter denypg the averments of the petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident, the age, avocation and income of the petitioner. It is further contended that the driver of the crime vehicle did not possess valid driving license as on the date of the accident and thus, their company is not liable Lo pay any compensation.

6. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues for trial: 1) Whethet the (rccident occufted due to ro-sh and negligent driuing of the oJfending uehicLe bA Rl? 2) Whether the petitioner i-s entitled. to compensation. IJ so, Jrom uthom to u,ltat extent? 3) To uhat retieP

7. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PWI to PW3 and got marked Ex.Al to A10. On behalf of the respondents, RW1 was examined and Ex.B1 was marked.

8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.6,1O,577 with interest @ 7.5%o per annum. Aggrieved by the said award, the present appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company. 3 ETD,J MACMA No.631_2021

9. Heard the submissions of Sri Nandhan Sharma, learned counsel representing on behalf of Sri G. Raj Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Akkam Eshwar, learned counsel for the respondents.

10. Learned counsel for appellant has submitted that the order of the Tribunal is contrary to Iaw and that the Tribunal has granted excessive amounts without any basis. He further argued that the driver of the car was a minor and faced proceedings before the Juvenile Court and that the said fact was not considered by the Tribunal. Since the minor did not hold valid driving license, the Insurance company ought to have been exonerated from its liability. He further argued that the Tribunal has granted huge amounts under various heads which is not proper. He therefore, prayed to exonerate the Insurance Company from the liabilitv of paylng compensation. 11' The learned respondent counsel on the other hand has submitted that the Insurance Company has not adduced any evidence to prove that the driver did not possess valid driving license €rs on the date of accident. In the absence of the same, the Tribunal has rightry granted the compensation and frxed the liability on Insurance Company. He therefore prayed to uphold the order and decreed passed by the Tribunal I i 4 ETD,J MACMA No.631 2021

12. Based on the above rival submissions, this Court frames the following points for determination 1 2 3 Whether the coftq)ensation and the rate of itttcrest on it grdnted bA the Tibuaal is just and reasorutble? Whethel the diuer of the cime uehicle did not possess a ualid diuing license as on the date of the accident: Il s6, uhether the Insurance Compang is liabLe to paA compensat[on? whether the order and dec'ree of the trial Coutt need ony interference?

4. To whot rcli.eJ?

13. Point No.1:- a) The petitioner stated to have sustained grievous injuries in the accident and he got examined PW2 and PW3 in support of his contention. PW2lDr. P. Prakash who is the Professor in the Department of Plastic Surgery in NIMS Hospital, Punjagutta has deposed with regard to the injuries sustained by the petitioner and the nature of treatment given by their hospital. b) PW3/P. Raju Kumar who is the Billing Manager in NIMS Hospital deposed that the petitioner was admitted twice in their hospital and for the two spells, the Hospital has charged Rs.50,350/- on the first occasion and Rs.38,63O/- on the second occasion for the treatment of his injuries. He further deposed that towards Pharmacy Bitls and Investigation Charges another amount of Rs.34,597l- was paid by the petitioner' Thus in all Rs.\,23,597 l- was paid by the petitioner. In his cross ,/l I 5 ETD,J MACMA No.631 2021 examination, he admitted that the petitioner was treated during the hrst instance in plastic Surgery Department and in the second instance in Orthopedic Department. There is nothing on record to discredit his evidence. From the evidence of pwr and 2 and the Discharge Summary filed under Ex.A4, the injuries sustained by the petitioner, the treatment underwent by him and thc medical bilis paid by him under Ex.A7 are elicited. Ex.A3 is the MLC issued by NIMS Hospital showing that the petitioner sustained raceration over chin and over right upper limb which are grievous in nature. Thus, the Tribunal by taking into consideration the cntire evidence on record has granted Rs.50,000/_ towards pain and suffering which is reasonable. c) It is elicited during the evidence ot pW2 that tl-re petitioner sustained injuries such as 1) In face right per orbital edema present. 2) Right black eye (vision and EOM normal). 3) Tenderness present in infra-orbital reason right side. 4) Swelling over left preauricular region. 5) Mouth opening restricted for trvo fingers. 6) Anterior open bite present 7) toss of teeth upper in incisor. g) Horizontal Laceratron below the Lower lip measuring 3 x 0.S cm Contamination. 8) Horizontal superhcial laceration present over the chin' The patient also having fractures in 11. proximar third and middle third junction both bones fore_arm. 12. Right lower iimb Grazed abrasion over anterior aspect of right left and knee t , a.. \ 6 ETD,J MACMA No.631 2021 Considering the said injuries, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.50,0O0/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony. The tribunal has also awarded Rs.3O,0OO/- per each injury that amounts to Rs.3,33,000/-. The Tribunal has also awarded the amount paid under medical bills to an extent of Rs.1,25,577 l-. Since the petitioner underwent treatment for two spells, an amount of Rs.10,000/- is gralted towards transportation charges and Rs.10,0OO/- is granted towards extra-nourishment and Rs.2,00O/- towards damage of clothes. A total amount of Rs.6,10,577l- is awarded by the Tribunal which is opined to be just and reasonable and therefore the same is upheld. However, the appellant counsel has prayed to reduce the rate of interest from

7.5yo to 6%. But in all the cases, this Court is consistently awarding interest @ 7.5o/o. Hence, in the present case also the interest i.e., awarded by the Tribunal @ 7.5o/o is upheld. Therefore, it is held that an amount of Rs.6,1O,577 l- witln interest @ 7 .5% awarded by the Tribunal is held to bejust and reasonable. Point No.1 is answered accordingly. L4. POINT NO.2 :- a) The contention of the Insurance Company is that the driver of the crime vehicle was a minor and was not possessing valid driving license as on the date of accident. A perusal of Ex.Al/FIR and charge sheet/Ex.A2 revea,is that the accused is a Juvenile, I I 7 ETD,,] MACMA No.631 2021 aged about 17 years who was driving the Car bearing No.Ap-09_ CE-4649, while the injured petitioner was going along with another person on Pulsor Bike hearing No.TS_OS-EC_3540 from Film Nagar to Panjagutta, when they reached Khairatabad X road, the accused who was driving the Innova Car bearing No.Ap_O9_CE_ 4649 came from Necklace Road in a rash and negligent manner, dashed to the vehicle of the petitioner, due to which the accident has occurred resulting in injuries to the petitioner and the accused was charge sheeted under Section 1g 1 of the Motor Vehicles Act apart from the IpC offences. Thus, it is elicited thar the driver of the car was aged onry 17 years and as per the Motor Vehicres Act, one has to be a major i.e., one who has crossed lg.years can apply for a Driving License and a person holding a valid clriving license only has to drive the motor vehicle. b) Section 3 and Section l g 1 of the Motor Vchicles Act are extracted hereunder for the sake of reference:_ Sectioa 3:- Necessitg for driving licence. - (1) No person shatt drtue a motor vehicle in ang public place unless he hotds an effectiue driuing licence issued ,o him authoistng him to driue the uehrcte; and no person shall so driue a transport uehicle lolher than ct motorcab or motor cgclel hired. for his ou.rn use or rentecl under anA scheme made under sub-section (2) of sectton 75 unless his drivtng licence specifi.callg enttttes hjm so to do. 12 The conditions subject to uthich sub-section (1) sho.ll not appty to a person receiuing instructions in driuing a motor uehicre sh..u be such as mag be prescrtbed bg the Centrat Gouernmert. I t t 8 ETO,J MACMA No.631 2021 Section 1E1:- Driur ng uehicles in contrauention of sectton 3 or section 4- - Whoeuer diues a motor uehicle in contrauention of section 3 or section 4 shall be punishqble u.ttth impisonmenl for a term which maA extend to three months, or ruith fne [of fue tlousand rupeesl, or uilh both. c) Thus, the driver of the crime vehicle has violated Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act and it is also the wrong committed by the owner of the car who is respondent No.2 to hand over the vehicle to a minor for driving the same. d) The contention of the Insurance Company is that since the driver of the crime vehicle did not possess a valid driving and there is a violation of provisions of M.V Act, their company is not liable to pay any compensation. In the decision of the Apex Court in tlnited India e) Insu"dnce Compang Llnited vs. S. Iggdpanl, it was held that even though the insurer has taken the defense that there is a breach of conditions of the policy excluding the Insurance Company from the liability that the driver is not duly licensed in driving the crime vehicle which met with the accident, third party has a statutory right to recover compensation from the insurer and it was for the insurer to proceed against the insured for recovery of ' (zors (z) scc oz) 9 ETD,J MACMA No.631 2021 the amount paid to the third party, in case, there was any breach of conditions of the insurance policy. f) The Hon'ble High Court of Andhra pradesh & Telangana in Ditisional Manager, New Indla Assurance Compang Limited vs. Acchigari Prasad dnd. Other*, held thai evcn though the driver of the offending vehicle was not possessing any licence or valid licence, when the insurance policy was in force at the time of the accident, the Insurance Company can be directed to satisfy the award in the first instance, by paying the award amount to the claimants and then recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. g) In the latest judgment of Hon,ble Apex Court d,ated 1.7 .2019, rendered in Parminder Singh us. Neut Ind.iq Assurq.nce Comtrtang Limited & Other*, it is held that if no driving license is possessed by the driver of the offending vehicle, the principle of 'pay and recovery'can be ordered to direct the Insurance Company to pay the compensation to the victim and then recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle. h) In the light of the above cited decisions, it is held that the respondent No.3/Insurance Company is directed to pay the compensation amount at the first instance to the \ , 2015 (3) ALT 238 ' (2019) 7 SCC 2 l7 \ \ 10 ETD,J MACMA No.631 2021 claimants/petitioners and later, recover the same from the insured/ respondent No.2, since the respondent No. 1 does not have any driving license to drive the offending vehicle on the date of accident. Point No.2 is answered accordingly.

15. Point No.3:- In view of the findings arrived at point No. 1 and 2, there is no need to interfere with the Order and Decree of the Tribunal and the same is upheld. Point No.3 is answered accordingly.

16. Point No.4:- In the result, the appeal is partly allowed modifying the Judgment and Decree of the Tribunal with regard to the liability fastened on the appellant and the appellant/ Insurance Company shall pay compensation and recover from the respondents. No Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appeal, shall stand closed. /ffRUE COPY// SD/. MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUW REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To, I ,J '1. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-XXVll Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court Complex, Secunderaba-d. (With Records)

2. One CC to Sri G.Rai Kumar, Advocate (OfgC)- 3. One CC to Sri Akkain Eshwar, Advocate (OPUC) 4. Two CD Copies Ks/sh W HIGH COURT DATED:1 310612025 JUDGMENT+DECREE M.A.C.M.A.No.631 ot 2021 H1 E J I.,1I(: (-1 [ 5 i,\r$ ?t?5 .c)x siAlf Partly Allowing the Appeal Without costs. 2d OL HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY ,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA M.A.C.M.A.No. 631 OF 2021 Between: The National lnsurance Company Limited , Rep. by its D M.Regional Office, Jubilee Building, 1st Floor, Nampally Station Road, Hyderabad - 50000'1 . ...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT NO.3 AND Mohammad Fayaz, S/o.fiilahammad Maqbul, Aged 21 yrs, Occ. Car Driver, H.No.1 1 - 12- 1 559 t3, Brahmana Colony, Seethaphalmandi, t"".lHEf83o*oENT/pE,,oN ER Mr.Pavan Kumar, S/o.Dr. P.Purushotham Reddy, Aged lvlajor, Occ. Driver, R/o. H. No.6-3-11 1911D.1204, Aditya Elite Apartment, B.S.ilaqtha, Begumpet, Hyderabad - 500016. Mi. P. Purushottam Reddy, S/o.P.Veer Reddy, Aged Ma1or, Occ. Business, R/o. H. No.6-3-11 1911D12O4, Aditya Elite Apartment, B.S.Maqtha, Begumpet, Hvderabad - 500016 ... RES'oNDENTS/RES'.NDENTS 3 Appeal U/s 173 of M.V.Act against the Judgment and Decree made in M.V.O.P.No.393 of 2016 dated 04.02.2020 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-XXVll Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court Complex, Secunderabad. ORDER : 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 Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Raj Kumar Grandhi for the Appellant and of Sri Akkam Eshwar, Advocate for the Respondents. This Court doth Order and Dec.ee as follows : 1. That the appeal be and hereby is partly allowed. 2. That the Judgment and Decree of tribunal be and hereby is modified with regard to the liability fastened on the appellant and the appellanUlnsurance Company shall pay compensation and recover from the respondents.

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

1. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Trrbunal-Cum-XXVll Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court Complex, Secunderabad.

2. Two CD Copies HIGH COURT DATED:1 310612025 DECREE M.A.C.M.A.No.631 ot 2021 Partly Allowing the Appeal Without costs. A