Mohan Krishna, learned Standing Counsel for the v. Achuta Ram

Judgment

This Appeal is {iled by the lnsurance Company/respondent No.2 aggrieved by the judgment and decree, dated 23 07 '2016 (hereinafter wiLl be referred as 'impugned judgmentJ passed in M.V.O.P.No.1667 of 2Ol1 on the file of the learned Motor Accidents ClaimsTribunal_Cum-XIIIAdditionalChiefJudge,CityCivil Court at Hyderabad to set aside the impugned judgment'

2. For the sake of convenience' hereinafter, the parties are referred to as per their array before the Tribunal' The claimant hled a petition under Section 166 of the Motor

3. Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs'5,0O,OOO/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that occurred oo 29 'O7 '2OlO at 10'30 PM rrt th': outskirts of Tandoor Village. The brief averments of claim petition are as under: a) Ot 29.O7.2O1O while the claimant was proceedlng on his motorcycle from Nagarkurnool towards Kalwakurthy side aiong with a pillion rider, at the outskirts of Tandoor' an Auto Van bearing No. AP 22 X 8906 coming from Tandoor side br:ing driven by its driver irr rash and negligent manner, dashed the motorcycle 2 MGP, J Macma_3311 2016 of the petitioner in opposite direction with high speed, as a result, the petitioner sustained grievous fracture injuries. The petitioner was shifted to Government Hospital and subsequently shifted to a private hospital, Mahabubnagar and from there he was shifted to Sigma Hospital for better treatment. b) Based on a complaint, a case in Crime No.51 of 2O10 was registered against the driver of the said Auto Van for the offence under Section 338 of the Indian penal Code. The petitioner underwent surgical operation and spent an amount ofRs. 1,5OOO/_ towards his treatment apart from other medical expenses. c) The petitioner was a businessman and earning Rs. 12,OOO/, per month and apart from that the petitioner was doing seasonal business in crackers as per the Explosive Rules of 19g3 by having license from the competent authorities of the government. Thus, the petitioner claimed compensation amount of Rs.5,OO,OOO/_ against the respondents, who are the owner and insurer of the crime vehicle.

4. In reply to the petition averments, the respondent No. I remained expdrte and whereas the respondent No.2 filed counter denying the petition averments incruding the manner of accident, age, avocation, earning capacity of the petitioner, medical I _) MGP, J Llacma 33I 1_2016 expenditure incurred by the petitioner and negligence of the crime vehicle. It is further contended that the claim of the petitioner is excessive and exorbitant and thereby, prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. Based on the above pleadings, the learned Tribu nal framed the following issues for trial: 1) Whether the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the off,:nding vehicle i.e., Auto Van No.AP 22 X 8906? 2l Whether the offending vehicle driver ',vas having effective driving license at the time of the zrlleged accident? 3) Whether the offending vehicle was having ppepey records at the time of the accident? 4) Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation? and if so, from whom and if so to what extent? 5) To what relieP

6. Before the learned Tribunal, PWs 1 to 3 were examined apart from exhibiting Exs.Al to A15 marked on behalf of petitioner. On behalf of respondents, RWs 1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B 1 to E}4 were marked apart from Exs.Xl and X2.

7. Considering the claim, counter and the evidence placed on record, the learned Tribunal allowed the claim petition in part by awarding compensation of Rs. 2,65,OOO / - dire,:ting the -r 4 MGP, J Macma 3311 2016 respondents to pay the compensation amount jointly and severally. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, the respondent No.2/Insurance Company preferred the present Appeal to set aside the impugned judgment.

8. Heard Sri N. Mohan Krishna, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant/ Insurance Company, Sri V. Achuta Ram, learned counsel for the claimant and perused the material available on record including the grounds of Appeal.

9. It is to be seen that the claimant has not preferred any appeal against the impugned judgment seeking enhancement of compensation.

10. The first and foremost contention of tJle learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company is that the accident happened due to the negligence of the injured and that the insured and insurer of the motorcycle on which the claimant was traveling are proper and necessary parties for adjudication of the case and thus, Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation.

11. It is pertinent to note that the learned Tribunal by relying on Exs.Al (FIR) and A2 (charge sheet) came to conclusion tl-at the accident occurred duc to rash and negligent driving of the crime 5 M".*"_331lt;ii vehicle, which beiongs to respondent No. 1 and insured with respondent No.2. Though it was contended by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2/lnsurance Company that the accident occurred due to contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner/injured, no material was piaced to substantiate the said contention. Once, it is established that the accident occurred only due to rash arrd negligent driving of the crime vehicle, the question of impleading ttre insured and insurer of the motorcycle on which the claimant/injured was traveling as parties to the clzrim petilion does not arise.

12. The other contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company is that the accident did not happen during the period of insurance. In order to establish the same, the respondent No.2/Insurance Company got examined RWs I and 12, who are tegal Officer and Branch Malager respectively. RWs; 1and 2 deposed that the vehicle was issued cover note No.592t6g5 dated O5.O8.2O1O covering from 05.O8.2O1O to O4.0g.2O11 anrl based on the said cover note, they have issued insurance policy, which was valid from 05.08.2010 to O4.O8.2O11 and whereas the accident took place on 29.O7.2O7O, which is not within the policy period and thereby the claim is not covered under the said policy. I , i 6 MGP, J Macma 3311 2016

13. Ex.B1 is the copy of insurance policy in respect of the crime vehicie for the period from O5.08.2O10 to O4.O8.2011. During the course of cross examination of RWl, policy cover note issued by respondent No.2/Insurance Company in respect of the crime vehicle was marked as Ex.83. A perusal of Ex.83 discloses that it was issued on 23.O7.2O1O at 3.OO PM. On the other hand, the respondent No.2/lnsurance Company relied upon Ex.B4 i.e., cover note, which is alleged to have been issued on 05.08.2010. lhus, there are two cover notes available belore this Court i.e., one cover note alleged to have been issued on 23.07.2010 and other cover note was alleged to have been issued on O5.08.2010. In this regard, RW1 admitted in his cross examination that cover note was issued by their company and the same was marked as Ex.B3. At that stage RWl raised objection to mark the Xerox copy (Ex.B3). It is pertinent to note that on one hand RW I admits that Ex.B3 was issued by their company and on the other hand, RW1 is raising objection to mark the document. Once, RWl, who is representing the respondent No.2/Insurance Company, admitted that Ex.B3 was issued by their Company, it is clear that the authenticity of Ex.B3 is established. Even the learned Tribunal in the impugned judgment observed at paragraph No.S that RW1 has not filed any \{ocuments to establish that the cover note under Ex.B3 is not 7 MGP, J V acma 3311_2O16 valid. RW1 admitted that they have not taken any action against I the agent and they have not even issued any legal notice to the owner. If at al1 Ex.B3 was issued by their agents or any other concerned person without any authorization, then certainly the respondent No.2 / Insurance Compa-ny would have initiated necessary steps against the concerned but there is no such instance in the present case. Even otherwise, RW1 {rdmitted he has not brought cover note to the office. If the cover note produced under Ex.B3 is not valid, there is no proper explanation on .behalf of RW2 as to what prevented them to produce the cover note, which will be available in their office.

14. Further, as seen from Ex.B4, there are two typs5 .1 handwriting i.e., one hand writing with blue pen and the other hand writing, which is inscribed by the use of carbon paper. The writing which is inscribed by the use of carbon paper on Ex.84 and the writing on Ex.B3 are one and the same- Horvever, on Ex.B4 apart from the writing inscribed by the use of carbon paper some additiona-l writings were made with the use of blue ball point pen. It appears that in order to disprove Ex.B3, Ex.B4 was introduced. Further, the signature and the stamp of the respondent No.2/Insurance Company are also one and the same in both the ?"f"iUit" i.e., Exs.B3 and 84. It is not even the case of the 8 MGP, J Macma-3311 2016 respondent No.2/Insurance Company that agents have issued the cover note on behalf of the respondent No.3/lnsurance Company without their knowledge or consent.

15. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that Ex.B3 was issued by respondent No.2/lnsurance Company and the same is valid from 23.07.2O1O and therebv the claim of the petitioner is covered by Ex.B3 cover note. Hence, this Court is of the view that the learned Tribunal has not committed aly error in considering Ex.83.

16. It is further contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company that driver of the insured vehicle did not have any transport endorsement at the time of accident and it is proved by the evidence of concerned RTA. In this regard, the respondent No.2 /Insurance Company got examined Administrative Ofhcer of RTA OIIice, Mahabubnagar as RW3. RW3 deposed that as per Ex.X2 the driving license bearing No. 4329/ MBNR/ 2001 ',ry'as not valid at the time of accident i.e.,29.O7.2O1O- However, in the cross examination, RWI admitted that driving license bearing No. 4329/MBNR/2O01 was obtained on 22.1O.2OO1 and valid upto

21.1O.2O21 but it comes under category of non-transport only. ./ 9 MGP, J Macm:r- 331 1 2016

17. In this regard, it is also pertinent to refer to the decision of Hon'lcle Supreme Court in a case between Mukund Dewangan vs oriental Insurance ComPany Limitedr wherein' the Honourable Supieme Court held that the Tractor and Trailer is a light motor vehicle and a person possessing driving license to drive light motor vehicle is aiso entitled to drive Tractor and Trailer' It is also refer to the circular Memo No'1963/R/2O18' dated pertinent to issued by the Transport Commissioner' H1'derabad' 24.O4.2014 wherein, it is clarified that Light Motor Vehicle includes transport vehicle upto 75OO Kgs and no separate endorsement on ttre license is required to clrive the transport vehicle of light motor vehicle classes

18. In Bajaj Alliarlz general insurance Company Limited v' Rambha Devi2 the Honourable Supreme Court observt:d that a driver holding a license for Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) class' under Section 1O(2Xd) for vehicles with a gross vehicle weight under 7,5OO kg, is permitted to operate a oTransport Vehicle' without needing additional authorizalion under Section 1o(2)(e) of the Motor Vehicle Act specifically for the 'Transport Vehj'cle' class' Itwasfurtherobservedthatforlicensingpurposes,I,MVsand ' 2017 ACJ 201 r (sc) , Civit Appeat No.841 /2018 decided on 06'11 2024 G l0 MGP, J Macma-3311 2016 Transport Vehicles are not entirely separate classes and an overlap exists between the two. The crime vehicle is involved in this case is an Auto, whose gross weight is under 75OO kgs' Hence, in view of the principle iaid down in the above said decision, there is no necessit5z of any additional authorization from the concerned licensing authorities in respect of the vehicies, whose gross weight is under 75OO kgs. The decision in Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited v. Rambha Devi (supraf is primarily grounded in the interpretation provided by the earlier case of Mukund Dewangan (suprat, wherein the Honourable Supreme Court clarified that a hoider of a driving license for "light motor vehicle" (LMV) can drive a transport vehicle of the same category' i.e., with a gross vehicie weight or unladen weight not exceeding 7,500 kilograms, without requiring a separate endorsement for applies broadlY to both transport vehicles. This interpretation goods and passenger transport vehicles within the LMV category

19. In the present case also the unladen weight of crime vehicle (auto rickshaw) is less than 750O kgs' In view of the principle laid down in t1.e above said decision and as per circular instructions issued by Transport Commissioner, the Respondent No' 1/owner of the subject Auto, who possess driving license to drive LMV non l1 MGP, J Macma,33I12016 transport vehicle is aiso entitled to drive the auto i e' ' the crime vehicle herein. Hence, the above contention of the learnerl counsel for appellant,/ respondent No'2/Insurance Company is unsustainable.

20. Now coming to the permit of the crime vehicle' the learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that the insured vehicle did not have any permit at the time of accident' RW3 deposed that as per Ex'Xl the crime vehicle was not having valid permit at the time of accident i'e'' 29 'O7 '2OlO' A perushl of the impugned judgment, there is no whisper at all on the above said aspect; horvever, the learned Tribunal fixed the liability on the respondentNo.3-InsuranceCompany.Thepetitioner/injuredor the owner of the crime vehicle have not placed any material before the Court to estabiish that the crime vehicle was having valid permit as on the date of accident to ply on the road However' the respondent No.3/ Insurance Company has filed ample evidence in the form of RW3 coupled with Ex'Xl' to establish that crime vehicle was not having valid permit as on the date ':f ac;ident' At this juncture, it is appropriate to refer to the decision in Amrit Paul Singh v. Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited3' wherein the Honourable Supreme Court observed that use of a 3 (2018) 7 SCC 558 ( t2 MGP, J Macma 3311 2016 vehicle in a public place without a permit is fundamental statutory infraction and thereby directed the insurance company therein to pay the compensation and then recover the same from the owner of the crime vehicle.

27. Though the respondent No.2/Insurance Company pleaded in one of the grounds that the learned Tribunal ought not to have granted compensation of Rs.2,65,0OO / - by giving substantial amounts under different unwanted heads, there is no explanation on behalf of respondent No.2/Insurance Company as to why the compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal to the petitioner/injured is appearing to be excessive. The learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.60,0OO/ - towards fracture injuries sustained by the petitioner, Rs.25,OO0/- towards pain and sufferance, Rs.3O,OOO/- towards extra nourishment, traveling and attendant charges, Rs.5O,0O0/- towards loss of earnings, Rs. 1,0O,OO0/- towards medical expenses. The compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is well supported by the oral evidence of PWs I to 3 coupled with documentary evidence under Exs.Al to A15. Thus, this Court is of the considered view that the learned Tribunal after considering orai and documentary evidence has rightly awarded Rs.2,65,O0O/- as compensation i 13 MCP, J Macnra-331 I-2O I6 amount for the injuries sustained by the petitioner/ injured in the alleged accident.

22. It is the contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company that the learned Tribunal ought to have awarded interest @) 7.5o/o per annum instead of 9o/o per Arrnum' By considering the principle laid down by the Honourable Apex Court in Rajesh and others v' Rajbir Siagh and others4' this Court is inclined to reduce the rate of interest granted by the Tribunal from 9oh per annum to 7 .5o/o Per annum'

23. In view of the above discussion, this Court feels it just and proper to modify the award and decree passed by the learned Tribunal to the extent of above observations'

24. In the rcsult, the Appeal is allowed in part to th': extent of directing the respondent No.2/Insurance company (appellant herein) to deposit the compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal i.e., Rs.2,65,oo0/- within a period of one mont}r from the 6.16 of receipt of a copy of this judgment and then to take appropriate steps to recover the same from the respondent No'l/ owner of the crime vehicle (respondent No'2 herein)' On such { 20l3 ACJ 1.103 = 2('13 (4) Al,T 35 t I t4 MGP, J Macma 3311 2016 deposit, the petitioner/injured (respondent No.l herein) is entitled to withdraw the same without furnishing aly security. Further, the rate of interest is reduced frorn 9o/o per annum to 7.5o/o per annum and rest of the impugned judgment holds good. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/- L. LAKSHMI BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR CTION OFFICER

1. The Chairman, [Vlotor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- Xlll Additional Chief Judge, (Fast Track Court), City Civil Court, at Hyderabad.(with records) 2 One CC to SRI N MOHAN KRISHNA, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRl. V ATCHUTA RAIv1, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies To Ip HIGH COURT DATED: 2210112025 JUDGMENT I MACMA.No.3311 ot 2016 r( ) a I \\ <.. STATE 9,9 1 lt $Pq r6 ? () -biJJ / * - _ -r ".aC PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS L \ 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 ACCIDE NT CIVIL MISCELL ANEOUS APPEA L NO: 33{1 OF 2016 Between: Sriram General lnsurance co.Ltd,, Rep. by its Branch Manager, lll Floor, 4-1- 370/1 , Kundas Estate, Abids, Hyderabad. (Policy No.592685 valid frcm 23-07-2010 to 22-07-2011) ...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT No.2' AND '1. P Venkatesh, Venkatesham' son of Jangaiah, aged 36 years, Occ:' Business' R/o. H.No.9-8-99, Santoshnagar' Hyderabad'

2.E.Kistaiah'sonofLingaiah,agedMajor'ownerofAutoVanbearingNo'AP 22 X 8906, Mahabubnagar Dist. ...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS Appeal filed under section 1 73 of Motor vehicles Act., against the Judgment and decree, made in MVOP No.1667 0f 2011 , dated: 23.07.2016 0n the file of the chairman, Motor Accident claims Tribunal-cum- Xlll Additional chief Judge, (Fast Track Court), City Civil Court, at Hyderabad. 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 MVoP and upon hearing the arguments of sRl. N MOHAN KRISHNA, Advocate for the appellant and of SRI V ATCHUTA RAM, Counsel for the Respondent No 1' This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the MACMA be and hereby is part to the extent directing the respondent No.2/lnsurancecompany(appellantherein)todepositthecompensation amountawardedbythelearnedTribunalie,Rs2,65,000/-(RupeesTwo Lakhs sixty five thousand only) within a period of one month from the date of -7 receipt of a copy of this judgment and then to take appropriate steps to recover the same from the respondent No.1/Owner of the Crime Vehicle (Respondent No 2 herein)

2. That on such deposit, the petitioner/lnjured (Respondent No.1 herein) be and hereby is entitled to withdraw the same without furnishing any security;

3. That the rate of interest be and hereby is reduced from 9"/o per annum to 7 .5o/o pet annum;

4. That the rest of the impugned Judgment be and hereby is holds good; 5. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. I I Sd/- L. LAKSHMI BABU ASSISTA.I'IT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// },'l ECTION OFFICER

1. The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- Xlll trdditional Chief Judge, (Fast Track Court), City Civil Court, at Hyderabad.

2. Two CD Copies To $^- HIGH COURT DATED: 2210112025 DECREE MACMA.No.3311 of 2016 PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS (l, L) s, r