Vavilala Vijaya Laxmi, Wo v. Gajiailaiah, Aged about

The trit:l'facts of the case are that the petitioncrs, .,vho are the parer [s of Late V.Puja (hereinafter referrcd i]s ,the deceased') . 1i led a petition under Section 166 o1' rhr r ]V16161 Vehicles A:t, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.5.OO,r)OO/- for the death of I'reir minor daughter in a motor vchicle zrccident that occrLn ed on 26.L2.2072. It is stated by the petitionr:rs that on 26.12.20) 12, when the deceased child, u,ho was stur,l,ing in Kalu,akr,rrttr] likas Excellent School, went for school t,x:ursion along wirh otl,er students in a bus vide registration bearing No.AP-16 \'1 7288 and when the bus reached TurLnel of Hanamanttra I)evar Baractar (Kanive) Jawagal road, .lassan 2 MGP,] MACMA.No.376 of 2022 District, Karnataka state, the driver of the said bus drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner at high speed. As a resuit, the bus fell in a ditch dug on Cany road and the deceased along with another student by name Amarendra Reddy sustained grievous injuries and the deceased died on the spot. The other students in the said bus sustained simple injuries in the said accident.

4. Based on a complaint, Police of Jawagal Police Station registered a case in Crime No. 168 of 2Ol2 undcr sections 279, 337 and 3O4-A IPC. It is stated by the petitioners that as on the date of accident, the deceased was hale and healthy, aged 14 years and was studying Bth standard in 'Kalwakurthy Vikas Excellent Schooi'. Due to sudden dcath of the deceased, they lost her love and affection and were put to mental agony.

5. It is further stated by the petitioners that the deceased is a brilliant student and if she had been alive, she would have pursued higher education and would have secured good employment and would have supported the family. However, the actual loss sustained by them on account of her death cannot be estimated. Hence hled claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.S,OO,OOO/- towards general and special damages I i=- '':. .7 / 3 MGP,I MACIIA No 116 of 2022 against thr respondents 1 to 3, who are the driver, orvt rer and insurer ol the subject bus bearing registration No.AP- 16\i/-7288.

6. ResponCent Nos.1 & 2, u,ho are the driver and o'vner of subject 13rrs krearing registration No.AP- 16W-7288 re rrained ex-parte

7. Resp rnck:nt No.3/Insurance Company filed its oounter denying Lh i averments made in the claim petition in<.luciing, manner ,rf ac c id ent and contende d inter (tlia that lt<: th the responden t Nc . 1 and Police failed to discharge their mal rdatory duties as :ont:mplated under Section 134(c) ancl 156 (6) of Motor Vehi;le s, Act, 1988. It also contended that their company had not is;uecl any policy in favour of respondent Nt,.2 but issued pc,li:y irt respect of vehicle bearing registr:rrion No.Ap I6W-7288 relreging to Md.Iqubal Ahmed subject to realization of cheque arL<l as the cheque was dis-honourcd due to insufficiency ol fi-rnds, they have cancelled the poticl anrl given intimatiorr in t he form of registered letter to thc con cerned Transport I uth,rrity and to the insured-Md.lqubal Ahm,:c.. All the above t :ring s were happened much earlier to occurrr.rnce of incident. lr also contended that the policy filed along w.th the claim petit.on is a fabricated policy and that the cl:iim of I 4 MGP,J MACMA.No.376 of 2022 compensation is excess and exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the claim against it.

8. Based on the above pleadings, the learned Tribunal had framed the following issues for conducting trial:

4. Whether the acctdent occttned on 26.12.2O12 at about 7.45 hours at the Tunnel of Hanamantha Deuar Baractar (Kaniue) Jau.tagal road in Hassa distict of Karnataka Stote, u.tas on account of the rash and negligent diuing of R1 being the diuer of the bus beaing registration No.AP 16 W-7288 ond tuhether the deceased Kum.V.Puja died out of the injuies sustained in the said accident? Whether the petitioners are entitled to seek compen-sation for the death of the deceased Kum.V.Puja in the satd accident and if so, uhat amount and from whom? Whether the claim of the petitioners is excessiue? To u-that relieP

9. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the petitioners, PWsl & 2 were examined and trxs.Al to ,{9 were marked. On behalf of respondents, RW 1 was examined and trxs.B 1 to 88 were marked.

10. After considering the oral and documentary evidence avaiiable on record, the learned Tribunal had partly-allowed the claim petition by awarding total compensation of Rs.4,70,OO0/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of fi1ing of petition till the date of deposit payable by respondent Nos.1 & 2 /'- I I # i ,// '''| ,,/./ 5 MGP,] MAC|,4A.No \76 o12022 only. Ttrc T ribunal dismissed the claim made against respondent Nc.3. 1 1. Havirrg rot satisfied with the compensation an'arcled, the claim pet tiooers preferred the present Appeal r;eeking enhancemt nt of compensation amount.

12. Hear 1 a r guments of Sri Bajrang Singh Thakur lean-red counsel fr r rl ppellants / petitioners as well as Sri T.Sanjay K.Singh, 1ea:ned Standing counsel for ResJ.,ondent No.3/lnsur anr:,: Company. Perused the record.

13. Thc rnairL contention of the learned counsel for Apr>ellants is that tt.e 'l'ribunal erred in not making the Ins;urance Companl- liabl: to pay compensation as there was no scrap of paper filc:cl on bchalf of Insurance Company regarding :;ending ol intimation le tter under Ex.84 informing about cancell,etion of insuranc': poli:1' on account of dishonor of cheqtte either to respondenr No.2 or to Md.Iqubal and further contended .hat the Tribunal ough t to have lixed the monthly incomc of the deceased-s tuc enl @ Rs. 10,0OO/- per month by considering the judgment- of 1.hc Hon'ble Apex Court in the case lretween V.Mekala \ls.M.Malati & anotlterr and therefore pray-ec1 r.o allow r 20rq (l) 1,{C i (s( l 6 MGP,I MACMA.No.375 of 2022 the Appeal by enhancing the compensation amount and by making all the respondents jointly liable to pay compensation.

14. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.3/Insurance Company contended that the learned Tribunal, after perusing the entire record, had rightly exonerated the Insurance Company from its liability to pay compensation and interference of this Court is unwarranted.

15. Now the point that arises for determination is, WTether the findings of the learned Tibunal requires interference of this Court? POINT:-

16. Since there is no dispute about the manner of accident and death of the deceased-student and since the findings arrived at by the Tribunal on those aspects were not challenged, there is no necessity to again delve into the said aspects. The points that have to be discussed in the present Appeal are with regard to qlrantum of compensation and liability.

17. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the learned Tribunal ought to have hxed the income of the deceased i*%rypr r'..''i -!|i:..,' - 7 :;.,;;;q:::,]-."I . ..:: . y; /:' - r I I I i 1 MGP,J MACMA.No 376 of 2022 @ Rs. 1O,0 )O/ - notronally as per decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in tt e casc between V.Mekala Vs.M.Maloti and onother2.

18. A perusai of the above referred judgment shows tirat it is an injury r:asr: where the injured, who is 16 years old. s;uffered permane:rl clir;rrbility @ 70% and was studying i 1rh stan,lard by the date oi ac:ident and was hoiding l"t rank in her Scl oo1. In those circ rrns [ances, her monthly income was asse ssed @ Rs.10,OO0, pe r month notionally.

19. In t re lresent case, the deceased was stucl).ing 8rh standard and -here is no evidence on record to show that the deceased rlacc a mark in her school by getting good rank in studies or exh, bited any special skills makes b1. r,r4rich we can presume tlrat there u,ould be possibility of her pursuingl higher studies a.n f v,r>uId have bright future. Therefore, thc learned Tribunal, iry r:lving upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in tlre rase between New India Assurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Satender ztnd Ors,3, fixed the notional income of .the dcceased child @l Rs.25,000/-, applied multiplier and calculared the compensrlt on rvhich ultimately arrived Rs.4,70,O00/ - This \zo t+(:) 't'ar: , (sc ) ' thocy r: sr:c orr I MGP,J MACMA No.375 of 2022 Court hnds the same to be reasonable and proper and is not inclined to interfere with the same.

20. The other contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the learned Tribunal erred in not making the Insurance Company 1iab1e to pay compensation even though Ex.A8-Insurance policy was in force as on the date of accident- 27 . As seen from Ex.A8-lnsurance poiicy, the pcriod of coverage is shown as from 12.O4.2OL2 to 10.02.2013 and the Receipt Number date was mentioned as 1O.O2.2O12. In general, the Insurance policies will be issued for a period of 1 year. If at ail the receipt was issued on 7O.O2.2O72, the policy will be from IO.O2.2Ol2 to 10.O2.2013. But in Ex.A8, the period of coverage of the policy was shown to be from 12.04.2012 Lo lO.O2.2Ol3 which is not for a period of 1 year. There is no explalation on behalf of the petitioners/claimants as to why the policy coverage was from 12.O4.2O12. Further, there appears to be alteration in the date of period of coverage as the font size of the year is not matching with the font size of date and month. Therefore, all these things create any amount of suspicion on the genuineness of Ex.AS. I I +creer=r 't ,/r 9 MGP,I MACMA No.176 oF 2022

22. As s,eett from Ex.87, the policy coverage rvas from

11.O2.2O1:'. to 1O.02.2013 and the Receipt date u'as meetioned as 1O.O2 211!i u'hich indicates that the payment r'vas nLade on the date of bclynning of coverage. Further, there is no zrlteration or change of clate, month or year in trx.87. Therefonl, more credence c rn be given to Ex.B7 rather than Ex.A8. Further not even a srngle :;uggestion was put to RWl denying Exs.B4 and 85 and fur the r , u,hen there is dispute regarding genuinr,'ness of policy, the pet ilioners ought to have hled receipts sholr'ing that they havr: raxl premium amount. I

29. On tnc rther hand the copy of cheque issued uncle r Ex'82 \ by Md.Iqulral l,hmed was alleged to have been dishonoured and the intimation of which was communicated to the saicl Iqubal and RTO Ar-;thorities under Exs.84 & 85. Therefr:'re, the contention of the respondent No.3/ Insurance Company -hat the policy prc du,:,:ci by the petitioners is fake, appears to be believable ancl there was no policy in force issued b5 resllondent No.3 in f: vort: of petitiondrs under Ex.A8 as on the date of accident Ilr.t:n the policy issued by respondcnt No.ll under Ex.B7 is i.lso not in force as the cheque aileged to hase been issued by the said Iqubal was dishonoured. When there is no payment, -he rluestion of subsistence of Insurance Policy as on 10 MGP,J MACMA.No.376 of 2022 the date of accident does not arise. Therefore, the learned Tribunal had rightly exonerated respondent No.3/Insurance Company from its liability in paying compensation.

24. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court do not find any reason to interfere with the Award passed by the learned Tribunal which is in proper perspective. Hence, the Appeal is devoid of merits and substance and is liable to be dismissed.

25. In the result, the Appeal is dismisscd without costs

26. Miscellaneous petiLions, if any, pending shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// Sd/- T. TIRUMALA DEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR S TION OFFICER To 1 2 J 4 The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-l Additional District Judge at Mahabub Nagar. (With Records) One CC to SRl. BAJRANG SINGH THAKUR, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRI.T SANJAY K SINGH, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies o- HIGH COUTTT DATED: 2210112025 JUDGMENT MACMA.No 376 ot 2022 1H o [ 2 [?l zffi c) Y o IJ i;: :^. - -- ,'?>' DISMISSING THE MACMA \ IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 376 OF 2022 Between: '1. Vavilala Vijaya Laxmi, Wo V. Gajjailaiah, Aged about. 42 Yrs., Occ: Housewife

2. Vavilala Gajjalaiah, S/o Rama Lingaiah, Aged about. 49 Yrs., Occ: Maison, Both Residents of H.No. 12-17912, Kalwakurthy Town and Mandal, Dist. Nagar Kurnool (Previously Mahabub *'nu')' ...orrELLANTS/,ET',oNERS AND

1. Baba , Shaik Mahaboob, S/o Abdul Razzak, aged About 57 Yrs., Occ: Driver -of Bus Bearing No. AP16-W 7288, Rlo H. No.3-3-28, Madina Masjid, Old Hospital Area, Mahabub Nagar.

2. T. Ravi Kumar, S/o Damodhar, Major, Occ: Owner Of Bus HO. AP16-W 7288, No 12-5, GS. Colony, Bade Pally, iadcherla Mandal, Mahabub Nagar Dist.' 3. The New India Assurance C., Ltd., Rep., by its Divisional Manager, Opp. Modern High School, Mahabub Nagar.- ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS Appeal filed under Section 173 of tt/otor vehicles Act., against the Judgment and decree, made in MVOP No. 223 Of 2015 dated. 31.01.2022 on the file of the chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-l Additional District Judge at Mahabub Nagar. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grdunds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Court below and the material papers in the MVOP and upon hearing the arguments of SRl. BAJRANG SINGH THAKUR, Advocate for the appellants and of SRI T.SANJAY K.SINGH, Counsel for the Respondent No.3 and None Appeared for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2. i,-r-a-';::::=: ,.-7 This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the MACIVI\ be and hereby is dismissed; and 2. That there s lall tre no order as to costs. //TRUE COPY// Sd/- T. TIR,UMALA DEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ri\, S \_ ION OFFICER To

2. The Chairman, Vlotc r Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-l Additional D strict Judge at Mahabub Nagar Two CD Copies @) HIGH COUFIT DATED: 22t01t2025 t DECREE MACMA.No.376 ot 2022 DISMISSING THE MACMA \ub