Miscellaneous Appeal No. 5 of 2021 · The High Court · 2025

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DE EADA '/I M.A.C.M.A.NO.05 0F 2021 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the lnsurance Comparl aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 17.03.2020 in M.V.O.P r o.232 of 2016 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tr t unal-cum-Spl Judge for Trial of Cases Under SCs/STs (POA) Act-crr n-V Additional District and Sessions judge, Adilabad (for short "the Tr bunal").

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

3. The case of the petitioners before the tribrr al is that on

26.09.2015 at about 6:30 a.m., the petitioner was gci rg in a Bolero Max Vehicle bearing No.AP-22X-1653 towards Penrt ,i village from Itkiyal and when the vehicle reached near Aktonima,i r Village, the driver of the said vehicle driven it in a rash and negli I :nt manner at a high speed and dashed to a motor bike which war; coming in the opposite direction due to which the rider of the motor rike fell down, and sustained multiple injuries and died on the spct and the said Bolero Max Vehicle turned turtle due to which t re deceased sustained multiple injuries and died on the spot. he claimants sought a compensation of Rs 10,00,000/- 2 ETD,J MACMA No.O5 2021 4- Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 has filed counter denying averments of the petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident, age, avocation and income of the deceased. lt is further contended that as on the date of the accident, the vehicle was kept at the transpo( adda and further they have insured the vehicle with respondent No.3 and thus, they are not liable to pay any compensation.

5. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 has filed counter denying the averments of the petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident, age, avocation and income of the deceased. lt is further contended that the driver of the crime vehicle did not have valid driving license as on the date of the accident and that they are not liable to pay any compensation

6. Based on the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal has framed the following issues for trial 1) Whether the accidenl took place as alleged by the petitioners on 26.09.2015 at about 6:30 a.m.. due to rash. negltgent and speed driving ot blerc Max beaing No.AP-22X-1653 dnven by its driver/respondent No.l and dasied to the molorcycle in oppos e drection and turned tudle while the deeasd namely Reddimalla Rapshwar was proceeding in the same fulero Max bearing N,.AP-22X-1653 and due to which the deceased di& on the spot or whether there was any negligence on the pad o{ the rider of the mdorc@? 2) What was the age, avocation and income of the deceased? 3) Whether the Bolero Max beanng No AP-22X-1653 lvas stood insutd with respondent No 3 nsurance company2 lf so. whelher it covers the risk of deceased2 And I so was there any vlolaton of policy conditions by the respondent No 2 as alleged by the respondent No 3? t' F E+it I' ETD,J MACMA No.05 2021 3 4) Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensatict ? lf so, what 6 the 5) To what relief?" quantum and against whom?

7. To prove their case, the petitioners got examin: I pWs 1 and 2 and got marked Exs.Al to 46. On behalf of the restr ondents, RW1 and 2 were examined and Ex.B'l , Ex.X1 and X2 wer') marked.

8. Based on the evidence on record, the tribunal ras awarded a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. Aggrieved by the s lid award, the present appeal is preferred by the lnsurance Compar \

9. Heard the submission of Sri K. Ajay Kumar, le arned counsel for the appellant. No representation on behalf of the r: ;pondents. 10 Learned counsel for the appellants has subrritted that the driver of the crime vehicle was charged under Sectcn 191 of the Motor Vehicles Act as he was not possessing valid jriving license and inspite of issuance of notice by the lnsurance Cr> npany also he has not produced his driving license. Their conlany also got examined RWhsho is the RTA and his evidence re r eals that their office has not issued driving license to the accus:d driver. He therefore, argued that the driver of the crime vehicle rJ d not possess valid driving license as on the date of accident and t rus, prayed to exonerate their company from the liability. 4 ETDJ MACMA No.05_2021 t

11. Based on the above rival contentions, this Court franres the following points for determination: 1 Whether. the diver of crime vehote has nol posses_s€r d a valid dri-ving license as on the date of the """,0"it-ir""Z,"Jr"nz;";7; tnsurance company is liable to pay compensation? Whether the order and decret interference? e of the trial Couft need any 3 To what retief?

12. POTNT NO.i:- a) The charge sheet is filed against the accused_driver i.e., Gurrapu Shekar who was driving Bolero Max pick Up bearing No.AP-22X-1653 for the offence under Section 1Bl of the Motor Vehicles Act apart from Section 304_4, 337 of lndian penal Code. b) The recitars of the charge sheet show that the accused did not produce any driving license. The respondent have also got examined RW2 c) RW2 is the Junior Assistant in the RTA Office, his evidence revears that on verification done by their office wi$r regard to the driving license of one Gurrapu Shekar S/o Rajanna, they found that their office has not issued any driving license to the said person. Ex.X2 is the Verification Report filed through him which reveals the said fact. Nothing is eticiteO in his cross examination to dislodge his evid€nce. 5 ETD,J MACMA No.05 2021 d) Therefore, the insurance company could prov: that the driver of the crime vehicle did not possess valid driving li(x .nse as on the date of the accident. The contention of appellant r ounsel is that when the driver of the crime vehicle did not poss€rs valid driving license the insurance company shall not be liatri ) to pay any compensation. e) ln National lnsurance Company Limited Vs. iwaran Singh and Othersl , it is held thateven in case of absence, fake or invalid license or disqualification of the driver for driving, the lnsurance Company is liable to satisfy the award in favour of ttrr-d party at the first instance and later recover the award amount fror r the owner of offending vehicle, even when the lnsurance Comparl could able to establish breach of terms of policy on the part of the owner of the offending vehicle. f) ln the decision of the Apex Court in ttnited lrrtia lnsurance Company Limited vs. S. lyyapan2, it was held that e\ 3n though the insurer has taken the defense that there is a breach ,t conditions of the policy excluding the lnsurance Company from the lr tbility that the driver is not duly licensed in driving the crime vehicle v hich met with ' 200""(t) .\t.r) (sct t6 , (-lo I 3 t7l SCC a) jl ETO,] MACMA No.05 2021 I 6 the accident, third party has a statutory right to recover compensation from the insurer and it was for lhe insurer to proceed against the insured for recovery of the amount paid to the third pa(y, in case, there was any breach of conditions of the insurance policy. S) ln Shammaanna and Another Vs. Divisional Manager, Oriental lnsurance Company 3, the Apex Court has held that the doctrine of pay and recovery has to be made applicable, when the driver does not possess a valid driving license to cover the third party risk. h) ln the latest judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court dated .l .2.2019, rendered in Parminder Srngh vs. New lndia Assurance Company Limited & Othersa, 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 lnsurance Company to pay the compensation to the viclim and then recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle. i) ln view of the above held discussion and in light of the above cited decisions, it is held that the lnsurance Company shall pay the I (2018) 3 TAC 672 o lzots'1 z scc 217 ,'.,. 7 ETD,J MACMA No.05 2021 compensation and then recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. Point No.1 is answered accordingly.

13. POTNT NO.2: ln view of the finding arrived at point No..l , he order and decree needs to be modified with regard to the aspe<t of liability, the appellant-lnsurance Company shall pay comperx ation to the petitioner and then recover from the insured. Point No.2 is answered accordingly.

14. POINT NO.3: ln the result, the appeal is partly allowed mod f ring the order and decree of the Tribunal with regard to the liability le stened on the appellant. lt is held that the appellant-lnsurance Con^t any shalt pay compensation and then recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in thir; appeal, shall stand closed ft/- \ .IAWAHAR REDDY AS! ISTANT RECISTRAR / /rRUECow// t SECTTON OI-FICER To, t The Acldirional N'tr\C.T_-cu m-spl. Judge for Trial of Casc; ,.rncicr sCs/S-ts ^ LPOA) Acr-cum-\/ :\tldirional Disticiand Sessions Judg,, rt e.fila6,,i. 2. One CC to Sri Kontlarli Ajav Kumar, ea""cate 1OfUC1 3- Two CD Copies. ' - ,CK/PR \ \ i),l HIGHCOURT DATED:73/O8/2O25 IUDGMENT + DECREE MACMA.No.5 of 2021 zi'r-':'.rB\ st \\t,il t^r.8+ r-" '*-::.i;^ --. ?s$ ( :'., l \, \ Partlv al[orr,ing the MACMA w'ithout costs. dt 0t L t, t IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STAIE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAYOF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.5 of 2021 Between: IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited, represented by its Manager, 8-6446/8, First floor, above Jasper Showroom, Kothirampur, Karimnagar. AND 1. Reddimalla Ra.jamani, W/o. I-ate Rajeshwar Rao Age.25 years (Died) per LRs. 2. Reddimalla Raghupathi, S/o. Late Raieshwar Rao, Age.ls y€ars, Ocr. Student. 3. Reddimalla Vivek, S/o. Late Rajeshwar Rao, Age.9 years, Occ. Student. 4. Reddimalla Adella, W/o. tate Rajanna, Age.53 years. Occ.Household. (AII are R/o. I&iyal village, Mandal Khanapur, District Adilabad.) (Petitioners No.2 and 3 are minors under guardiarship of Reddimalla Adella, W/o. t ate Rajanna). 7. Currapu Shekar, S/o. Rajanna, Age. 25 years, Occ.Driver of Bolero Max No.AP-22-X-1653, R/o. 8. Mohd. AMuI Mohin, S/o. Mohd. Abdul FIafeez, Age.35 years, Occ.Owner of Bolero Max Itkiyal village, Mandal Khanapur, District Adilabad. ..Appellant/Respondent No.3 No.AP-22-X-1653, R/o. Pembi village, Mandal Khanapur, Diskict Adilabad. Appear riled under section 123 or M.v.Ac! "-rff':ilTY":":fr"i:::Y:,H 77.03.2020 passed in M.V.O.P-No.232 of 2016 on the file of the Court of rhe Additionat MACT- cum-SPL. Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs/STs (POA) Act-cum-V Additional District and Sessions Iudge at Adilabad. ORDER: This appeal coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the appeal and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Kondadi Ajay Kumar, Advocate for the appellant and of the respondents not appearing in person or tfuough their counsel, The Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. that the appeal is hereby partly allowed modifying the order and decree o[ the Tribunal w,ith regard to liability fastened on the appellant.

2. ttrat the insurance company shatl pay the compensation and then recover the samc from thc owner ot the vehicle.

3. that the appel[ant insurance company shall pay compensation to the petitioner and then recover from the insured. .1. and; that there be no order as to costs. SD/. M JAWAHAR REDDY AS ISTANT REGISTR / /TRUECoPY / / SEC'TtON OFFICER To,

1. The Additional Iv{ACT-cum-SPL. fudge for Trial of Cases under rcs/STs (l,OA) Act-cum-V Additional District and Sessions Judge at Adilabacl.

2. Two CD Copies. ICK/PR o HIGH COURT DATED:13/08/2025 DECREE MACMA.No.S of 2021 Partly allowing the MACMA without costs J ol 2-L