The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellant: Sri T. Mahender Rao Counsel for the Respondent No. 't: Sri M. A. Rahman Counsel for the Respondent No. 3: Sri Nageshwar Rao Puja'i Counsel for the Respondents 4 to 7: Sri Mohammad Abdul lauf The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT i I t I i i t I I HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA M.A.C.M.A.NO. 690 0F 2021 JUDGMENT: This appeal is frled by the Insurance Company aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 25.01.2021 in M'V'O P'No'37 of 2Ol7 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IX Additional District Judge, Sircilla (for short "the trial Court")'

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

3. The case of the petitioner before the Tribunal was that he is aged, '37' years and was undergoing dialysis due to failure of kidneys, and on 19.04.2016 after completion of dialysis at Apollo Reach Hospital, Karimnagar, at around 6:00 p'm , he was standing in front of Orchid Hospital to return homc and in the meantime' respondent No.1 who was driving Toyota trTlOS Car bearing No'TS- o2-EG-O77g has driven his car in a rash and negligcnt manner at a high speed, corning from Choppadandi, dashed against the petitioner, due to which the petitioner sustained grievous injuries' Immediately, he was admitted in Orchid Hospital' Karimnagar' The petitioner had incurred huge medical expcnses and therefore' claimed a compensation of Rs.8,O0,000/- I \ i t I I I I I r t I t I , I I I 2 ETD,J MACMA No.690 2021 4l The respondent No.l hled counter denying th: averments of the petition with regard to the occurrence of tht, accident, age, avocation and income of the petitioner. It is conten,l :d that he was not at all rash and negligent in driving the vehicle ar d that in case, if this Court awards any compensation, it would b<: :he owner and insurer of the vehicle who are liable to pay the corn tensation, but he is not liable to pay the compensation. 5) The respondent No.2 remained ex-parte. 6) The respondent No.3-Insurance Company ha ; filed counter denying the averments of the petition with regard tc the occurence of the accident, age, avocation and income of the retitioner. Il is further contended that the driver of the car was no - eolding a valid driving license as on the date of the accident, ancl thus, they are not liable to pay any compensation. 7 . Based on above pleadings, the Tribunal h Ls framed the following issues 1) Whether the occident Lsl. ocotned on acccl negligent diuing of offending uehicle i.e., Tc beaing No.TS-02-EG-O779 diuen bg its first res nt of rash and pta ETIOS Car )ondent? 2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to ampen-sali' n. If so, to Luhat extent and from whom? 3) To uhat relieJ? //I 3 ETD,J MACMA No.69O 2021 ,,/.

8. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PWs I to 3 / and got marked Exs.Al to A13. On behalf of the respondents RW1 and 2 were examined and got marked Exs.Bl to 87. g. Based on tlre evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.5,00,00O/-. Aggrieved by the said order and decree, the present appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company.

10. Heard the submissions of Sri T. Mahender Rao, learned counsel for the appellant-lnsurance Company and Sri M'A' Rahman, learned counsel for respondent No. 1, Sri Nageshwar Rao Pujari, learned counsel for respondent No.3 and Sri Mohammad Abdut Rauf, learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 to 7.

11. Learned counsel for t]re appellant has argued that the order of the trial Court is against tJle evidence on record. He further contended that the driver of the crime vehicle did not hold a valid driving license and that he was charged with Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles, apart from the offence under IPC which is clearly evident from the charge sheet' He therefore, submitted that the order passed by the tribuna-l is not sustainable in the e-ve of law and is liable to be set aside. He therefore, prayed to allou' this appeal by setting aside tl.e order and decree of the trial court' 4 ETD,J MACMA No.690_2021

12. The learned counsel for the respondent on l1e other hand has submitted that there is no infrrmi$r by the orr ers passed by the trial court and further has submitted that thr: petitioner is a third party to the accident. He therefore, prayed to uphold the orders of the tribunal.

13. Based on the above rival contentions, this Cc urt frames the following points for determination: 1 2 whether the driuer of the cime ttehicle Le., Tatz beanng No.TS-02 EG-O779 -u)as not hol.ding a u Iicense Gs on the date of the accident. If so, t, insurance compang is liable to pag conv)ensation ATIOS Car |id driuing hether the Whether the Order and Decree of the Tribunal n z, tnterference . d ang

3. To what reheP

14. POINT NO.1: a) A perusal of the FIR under Ex.Al reveals tha: the driver of the Toyota ETIOS Car bearing No.TS-02-EG-O779 s shown to be the accused based on the complaint lodged by one F J<eem Ahmed. b) The contents of charge sheet under Ex.AS eveal that the driver by name Chirutha Jagan of car bearing No I s-o2-EG-0779 is found to be the accused as revealed on, heir thorough investigation, and that while the petitioner was sta I ling in front of Orchid Hospital, after undergoing dialysis at Apollo Reach Hos4ital, the accused has driven his Car bearing No.TS-O2-EG- O779 con.ing from Choppadandi in a rash and negli lent manner at 5 ETD,J MACMA No.69O 2021 .ll' // ,/,/ a high speed and dashed to the petitioner, as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries to his head and left leg. c) PWl himself is the injured witness. He asserted the manner in which the accident has occurred and stated that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligence of the driver of Car bearing No.TS-O2-EG-O779. His evidence is not shaken during the course of cross examination. He is firm and nothing is elicited from him contrary to what he has stated with regard to the occurrence of the accident. Therefore, the evidence of PWl coupled with Exs.A1 and A2 reveals that the driver of the Car bearing No.TS-O2- EG-O779 is rash and negligent and is charge sheeted for the offences under 338 IPC and Section 3 r/w 181 of Motor Vehicles Act. It is mentioned that he has not produced driving license and [hat on their checking, they found t]rat the vehicle had RC and valid insurance certificate, but the driver of the vehicle did not have valid driving license. d) In support of their contention, the insurance company got examined RWs I and 2 and got marked Exs.Bl and 82. RWl is the Manager of Legat Claims in the Office of Insurance Company' Through his evidence Exs.B I to E}5 were marked. In his cross examination, it is eli,cited that he has not filed any document to establish that respondent No.l is not holding any valid driving Iicense. However, he has stated that it is mentioned in 6 ETD,I MACMANo.690 2021 ExA5/charge sheet. He denied that suggestion tha their company is liable, even if the driver does not possess ar y valid driving license. e) RW2 is the Senior Assistant, working Lt RTO Office Karinmangar, he is authorized by their offrce t: give evidence. Ex.B6 is his authorization letter. He stated that th, re is no record of Chirtutha Jagan in their ofhce, and has frleC Ex.B7/Search Report. Thus, his evidence is to the effect that Chirr .tha Jagan was not issued any driving license by their office. In his cross examination, nothing material rzas elicited to 0 d.iscredit his evidence. Ex.B7 pertaining to Chirutha Jagan discloses t-hat rLr license data is available in th, offrce of the District Transport Officer. Ex.82 is the notic: sent by the insurance company Lo the owner and driver :u king tJlem to produce the original documents including the c Ex.B3 is the acknowledgmenr card which shows riving license. hat the driver Chirutha Jagan has received the notice sent by the insuralce company. trx. 84 is the notice issued to the owner and Ex.BS rs its acknowledgment card. Thus, of the vehicle :he insurance company has discharged its burden of proving tt eir contention that the driver of the crime vehicle did not have dr i 'ing license as on the date of the accident. Therefore, it is held tfi t ttre driver of 7 €TD,I MACMA No-59O 2021 the crime vehicle did not having valid driving license as on the date of accident. C) The contention of the appellant counsel is that the Tribunal has hxed the liability on the insurance company to pay the compensation and that in the absence of driving license to the driver of the insured vehicle, they are not liable to pay any compensation. h) In the decision of the Apex Court in United India Insurance Compong Limlted us. S. Iggopanr, 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 tiabitity 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 the amount paid to the third party, in case, ttrere was any breach of conditions of the insurance policy. i) The Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh & Telangana in Divisional Mandge1 Neut India Assurdnce Compang Litnited vs. Acchigari Prasad. and Other*, held that even though the driver of the offending vehicle was not possessing any license or ; t lzor: 1z; scc oz; r 20f6 (31 ALT 238 8 ETD,J MACMA No.690 2021 valid license, when the insurance policy was in for<: at the time of the accident, the Insurance Company can be direcr d to satis$r the award in the first instance, by paying the awarc amount to the claimants and then recover the same from the ownr: of the vehicle. j) In Shammaanno. and. Another Vs. Dfuisr< nor.l Mana.get, Orlental Insurance Compangf , wherein the Apex )ourt has held that the doctrine of pay and recovery has to be nr ide applicable, when the driver does not possess a valid driving li :ense to cover the third party risk. k) In the latest judgment of Honble Apex Court I rted 1:7.2019, rendered in pannind.er Singh us. New Indi t Assurdnce compang Linited. & other#, it is held that if no dr ving ricense is possessed by the driver of the olfending vehicle, 1l e principle of 'pay and recovery'can be ordered to direct the Insur.z nce Company to pay the compensation to the victim and then re,),ver the same from the owner of the offending vehicle. l) In the light of the above cited decisions, and e view of the above held discussion, it is hetd that the driver of th: crime vehicle did not hold driving license as on the date of he accident, therefore, the insurancc company is directecl to pay the t n lzots: I ttc en 1zo r q-zgcc zrz i i l j I I I J t l I i I l 9 ETO,.' MACMA No.69o 2021 compensation in the hrst instance and then recover the sarne from the owner of the vehicle. Point No. I is answered accordingly.

15. Point No.2: In view of the frnding arrived at point No.1, it is held that tJle order and decree of the Tribunal need to be modifred with regard to liability of the respondent i.e., Insurance Company/ respondent No.3 shall pay the compensation and then recover from the owner of the vehicle. Point No.2 is answered accordingly.

16. Point No.3:- In the result, the appeal is allowed, modifying the order ald decree of the Tribunal with regard to the liability fastened on the respondents. The lnsurance Company/respondent No.3 shall pay the compensation and recover from the owner of the vehicle. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appeal, shall stand closed \ i35,9,?i,Ttt6|J'HR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1 The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-lX Additional District jJisJ;iSir"ii, (with records' if anv) One CC to Sri T. Mahender Rao' Advocate IOPUCI 2 \

3. One CC to Sri M. A. Rahman, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri Nageshwar Rao Pujari, Advocate [OPU I 5. One CC to Sri Mohammad Abdul Rauf, Advocate [OPIJ )] 6 rtry9.QQ.copie: - (rl- i 1 ! I I t : 1 i t I I I HIGH COURT DATED: 1110712025 f I +, o.J I I i- ,\l ClT,t,"'tr 1$j, G) n,'l */j * T .,-^..::,t:.:'rl.// ,.. .,}:l JUDGMENT+DECREE MACMA.No.690 of 2021 ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS PA rr) Is -. I I I i ! ! I I I I I i 1 I I I i I ! t t , t I a : i t t IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAO FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FN/E PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA MOTOR ACCI DENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 690 OF 2021 Between: Future General India lnsurance Co. Ltd., rep. by its. Branch Manager, Karimnagar Branch D.No. 3-1-68, City Centre Building,2* Floor, Opp. R and B building, Swaran Street of Karimnagar. ...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT NO. 3 AND 1 2 Farroq Ahmed Ali, S/o. Maqbool Ahmed Ali, aged. 41 years, Qcc, Bqslness, R/o. H.No.3-15/A, Thippapuram, V/o. Vemulawada mandal of Sircilla Distric,t, presently residing at Hussainipura street of karimnagar.died per LRs RR 4 to 7 Chiruta Jagan, S/o. Sattaiah, aged 22 years, R/o. Shanagar, V/o. Ramadugu M/o. Karimhagar District Occ. Driver of car bearing No. TS 02EG 0779

3. Pogula Divya, Wo. Pogula Ramu, aged Maior, Occ. Owner of Car bearing- No: TS cizEc 0779,- R"/o. H.No. 7-1425, Mankammathota Street of Karimnagar proper and District

4. Beepasha, Wo. Maqbool Ahmed Ali, Aged. 60 years, Occ. Household-, FU..o' H.Nb.3-15/A, Thippdpuram, V/o. Vemulawada Mandal, Rajanna Sircilla Distric{-sos 302.

5. Shaik Sabeera, W/o. Farroq Ahmed Ali, Aged 41 years, Occ. Household, Rl/o. H.No.3-15/A, Thippapuram, V/o. Vemulawada Mandal, Raianna Sircilla District-505 302.

6. Sahik Shoyeb Ahmed Ali S/o Household, Ri/o. H.No.3-15/A, Rajanna Sircilla District-so5 302 7. Sahik Sufiyan Ahmed Ali S/o Household, R/o. H.No.3-15/A, Ra1'anna Sircilla District-s05 302 Farroq Ahmed Ali, Aged. 15 years, Occ. Thippapuram, V/o. Vemulawada Mandal, Farroq Ahmed Ali, Thippapuram, V/o. Aged. 13 years, Occ. Vemulawada Mandal, (Respondent Nos.6 and 7 being minors are rep by their mother and natural guardian, the respondent no. 5) (Respondent no. RR4 to 7 are brought on record as LRs of the deceased R1 vide Co.dt. 21 43-2025 in lA 1 t2025 in MACMA 690 of 2021 ) ------------ t// ...RESPONDENTS Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V.Act against t e order and decree dated 25-01-2021 in MVOP. No. 37 of 2017 (Old MVOP No 495 of 2016) on the file of the Court of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Clai ns Tribunal-Cum-lX Additional District Judge at Sircilla. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon per.r appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Court and the rn case and upon hearing the arguments of Sri T. Mahender tl Appellant, Sri M.A. Rahman, Advocate for the Respondent I Rao Pujari, Advocate for the Respondent No. 3 and of ll Rauf, Advocate for the Respondents 4 to 7. ;ing the grounds of lterial papers in the ro, Advocate, for the o, 1, Sri Nageshwar i Mohammad Abdul This Court doth Order and Decree as follows 1 That the MACMA be and hereby is allowed, mod'rfying tf ) order and decree of the Tribunal with regard to the liability fastened on the r: ipondents,

2. That the lnsurance Company/respondent No. 3 shall p ay the compensation and recover from the owner of the vehicle

3. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. SD/. I,I.OSMAN ALI BAIG REGrsrRAR ,fitt l*nt ,,TRUE COPY// \ SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cunr lX Additional Distrlct Judge at Sircilla. 2 fwo CD Copies vr{ PA- I HIGH COURT DATED: 1110712025 DECREE MACMA.No.690 of 2021 ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS (A- \b \>{- \rc