The High Court · 2025

Judgment

This appeal is filed under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'MV ActJ by the Insurance comparry arising out of an award passed by The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - cum - IX Additional District Judge at Kamardddy (for short, .the TribunalJ in oP.No.83 of 2O2Odated 07.o4.2o22.

2. Respondent Nos.l to 4 - petitioners have filed claim petition under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act read \dth Rule 455 of AP Motor vehicle Rule 1989 claiming compensation of Rs.1O,OO,OOO/- against the owner (respondent No.S herein) and t]1e i t. " . insurance company (appellant herein) on the death of Gangadyala Narendher Goud in a motor vehicle accident that occUrred on 07:LO.2O2O at about 09.20 hours'

3. On 07. \O.2O2O at about Og.2O hours on the instrurctions of respondent No.5 herein Gangadyala Narendher Goud along with one Hanmata Yetlaiah were proceeding towards Indalwai village on TVS star city motorcycle bearing No.TS-17-F-3676, when they crossed chandrayanpally village on NH-44 road, Indalwai Mandal, in the meantime suddenty one buffalo came on the road, then 2ltr BRMR, J MACMA.No.387 of 2022 G.Narendher Goud tried to escape from the buffalo, lost control over his rirling, as a result the motor cycle went to left side of the road and :iell down, due to which he and pillion rider sustained grievous injuries. G.Narendher Goud sustained grievous head injury, laceration wound frontal rental region 6 x 2 x 1 cm, nasal bleeding, .dght orbital region abrasion, laceration wound over the parietal rr:gion, abrasion over both hands, both elbows, injury to right foreilrm, injury to left side chin region abrasion, injury to inner side brain material region and multiple injuries all over the body. G.Narendher Goud was shifted to Government Area Hospital, Kamaredrly, from there he was shifted to NIMS hospital, Hydepabad, where he succumbed with head injuries on O9.10.2O:2O. The deceased was aged about 39 years and was hale and healthy at the time of accident, was earning Rs.25,O00/- per month b'g working as a Toddy Tapper and agricultural labour, was contribu'ling his entire earnings to the respondent Nos.l to 4 - petitioners and prayed to allow the OP. 4- Orvner of the vehicle (respondent No.5 herein) who was arrayed as respondent No.1 before the Tribunal was set exparte.

5. Appellant - Insurance Company filed written statement and denied t:he averments of the petition, age, avocation and earnings of the deceased and further contended that the accident occurred 3lrt BRMR, J MACMAT{o. 387 of 2o22 out of use of the vehicle and that alleged accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the motor cycle. Vehic{e is insured with the appellant-lnsurance Company and the policy is in force as on the date of accident and Insurance Company is not liable to pay cornpensation.

6.1 The Tribunal has framed the following issues: 1) Whether the deceased Gangayala Narendher Goud, S/o Shiva Goud died in the accident occurred rash and negligent driving of driver of TVS star city motor cycle bearing No.TS-17-F- 3676 by its driver? 2l whetlrer the petitioners are entitled for the compensation, if 9, from whom and what just amount? 3) To what relieP

6.2. Ttre Tribunal has recasted issued No.1 as under:

1. Whether the deceased sustained injuries and died in the motor vehicle accident arising out of use of TVS motor cycle bearing No.TS- 17-F -367 6?

7. Respondent No.l herein - petition No.l was examined as PW1, also exa:rrined PW2 - Hanmala Yellaiah and got marked Exs.Al to A7. On behalf of the lnsurance Company RWl was examined and got marked Ex.B I - attested copy of potiry'

8. The Tribunal after going through the evidence let in by the parties and perusing the documents thereon has alloved the petition in part awarding the compensation of Rs.13,O9,OO0/- with \ \ \ 4lrL BRMR, J MACMA.No.387 of 2O22 costs and interest at the rate of 7.5o/o per €urnum from the date of filing the petition till the date of realization holding that owner and insurance: comparry are jointly and severally liable to pay the compens€rtion.

9.1 learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Trial Court gravely erred in holding that the appellant herein insurancr: company is liable to pay compensation of Rs.13,O9,OOO/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5o/o per annum and'costs, failed to appreciate that accident took place due to the rar;h and negligent driving of the insured rnotor cycle bearing No.TS- L1'F-3676 by the deceased himself who fell and sustained injuries and failed to see that the right to receive compensation under Section 163-A presupposes that the person who makes a claim is a victim or legal heir of a victim and the language employe,J in the said provision does not entitle a person u,ho is neither a victim nor a legal heir of a victim to claim any compen:;ation.

9.2 Further, the learned Judge failed to see that the Tribunal has no.iurisdiction to entertain the claim petition as the deceased who is t:he rider of a motor cycle having borrowed the motor cycle stepped into the shoes of the owner-insured, as such he is a third party, the risk of such rider is not covered under the provisions of t r''o i I I i 5/ l1 ARMR,J MACIv[A.l{o. 387 of 2O22 the MV Act and the same was not covered under the policy issued by the appeUant herein - insurance company. The Tribunal failed to'note that whosoever becomes victim of an accident would not come within the purview of the term 'a person'as provided under Section 147 of the MV Act. As per the policy the first party is the insurance company i.e., insurer and second party is the insured- driver i.e., owner (insured) and his agent (driver). Therefore the provisions of Section apply only to a person - victim other than the insurer and the insured and his driver - agent. The Tribunal failed to appreciate that the deceased having borrou,ed the insured motor cycle stepped into the shoes of the owner of the motor cycle and his legal representatives cannot be recipients of compensation and the deceased is not a third party, therefore the claim petition liled under Section 163-A of MV Act is not maintainable.

9.3 The Tribunal gravely erred in taking the income of the deceased as Rs.6OOO/- per month u,hile estimating the cornpensation towards future loss of income. Under the second schedule of Section 163-A, the annual income is only upto Rs.4O,OOO /- arrd the Tribunal erred in adding 4Oo/o of the income towards fuhrre prospects and also erred in awarding Rs.4O,0O0/- \ each towlas loss of consortiurn to respondent Nos.l to 4 herein, failed to see ttrat under second schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, only Rs.S,OOO/- can be awarded towards loss of consortium to the \ \ 6ltL BRMR, J MACMA.No.3a7 of 2022 spouse if alive, erred in awarding Rs.15,OOO/- towards cremation charges but failed to see that under second schedule of the motor vehicles :a'ct only Rs.2,000/- can be awarded towards funeiat expenses and also erred in awarding interest at the rate of 7.5o/o per annu:n.

9.4 Counsel, to substantiate his contentions, has relied on the decisions in the cases of (i) New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Sadanand Mukhi and otherst (ii) Ningamma and another Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited2 (iil) Ramkhiladi and another'y's. United India Insurance Company and another3, which is referrr:d to a larger Bench of Supreme Court, (iv) United India Insuranc:e Co. Ltd. Vs. Etnoori Yadagiri Goud and othersa and (v) Appaji (since deceased) and another Vs. M.Krishna and anothers.

9.5 Aprpellant's counsel submitted that respondent No.S herein who is the respondent No.1 before the Tribunal who remained ex- parte arrd did not contest the proceedings, he is not a necessan' party the present appeal.

10. k:arned counsel for respondent Nos.l to 4 - petitioners submits that the Tribunal has properly appreciated the facts of the ,r/ 2009 ACJ 998 2009 ACJ 2020 '2O2O l-*,iuit (SC) 10 4 s 1995 ACJ 600 2004 ACJ 1289 7 /Lt BRMR, J MACMA.No.387 of 2O22 case and rightly awarded the compensation which requires no interfererrce of tl is Court and pra5red to dismiss the appeal'

11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material.

12. Now the point f,or consideration is: whether the impugned order passed by the Tribunal in o.P.No.S3 of 2O2O dated O7.O4.2O22 suffers from any illegality or perversity, if so, requires interference of this Court?

13.1 Insofar as Issue No.1 is concerned the Tribunal observed that the respondent Nos.1 to 4 - petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 proved the accident and the manner in which it has happened through PWl and PW2 coupled with Drs.Al and A2 which occurred due to the use of vehicle i.e., IVS star city motorcycle bearing No.TS- l7-F'

3676. L3.2 Insofar aS Issue No.2 is concerned the Tribunal has considered the evidence of PW1 and the PME report (Ex.A4) and arrived that the deceased was aged about 39 years as on the date of the accident. The income of the deceased is taken at Rs.6,O0O/- per monthgs a toddy tapper which is Iixed under Minimum Wages \- Act in the year 2O2O as against Rs.2S,OOO|- as claimed by them. The deceased was in tlre age group of below 4O y'ears applied future prospects at 4oo/o as per the decision in National Insurance Slrt BRMR, J MACMA.No.387 of 2022 Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethio. The Tribunal applied the multiplier at 15 as per the decision in Smt. Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport CorporationT as the deceased was in the age group of 36 to 4O yea::s. The dependents of the deceased were four in nutnber, thereby deducted | /+tn towards personal expenses of the deceased.

14.l Thr' computation arrived by the Tribunal is as under: Sl.No Name of the Head 1 2 3 4 5 7 lncome (per month) Add 40% future prospects (as per Pranay Sethit case6) Annual income Deduct L /+tn personal expenses (as per Sarla Varma's caseT) towards Multiplier'15' (as per Sarla Varma's caseT ) Funeral expenses Loss of consortium (Rs.aO,OOO/- eachf Total compensation Compensation awarded by this Court Rs.6,O0O/- Rs.8,40O/- l(4ffi/o of 6,00O = 2,4OOl + 6,O001 Rs.1,OO,80O/- (8,4OO x 1.21 Rs.75,600/- [1,0o,80o-25,200] lf4xL,OO,8OO = 25,2OOl Rs.11,34,0OO/- (75,6O0 x 15) Rs.15,000/- Rs.1,6O,000l- (4O,OOO x 4) Rs.13,09,0O0/- " (2ol7l 16 scc 680 (2oo9) 6 scc 121 9/tt BRMR, J MACMA.No. 387 ot2022 L4.2. Basing on Nagarpa vs. Gurudayal singha the Tribunal has awarded cornpensation of Rs.13,og,o0o/- though ttre respondent No.l to 4 - petitioner Nos.l to 4 claimed Rs.1O,0O,O0O/-. The compensation awarded was with oosts and interest at the rate of

7.5o/o per annum from the date of liling the petition ti[ the date of realization payable by the owner and insurance company jointly and severally.

15. Ex.Bl is the pohcy for rvs star city motor cycre bearing NO.TS-L7-F-3676 (engine No.FFIEILTSTTOSI. The period of insurance is frorn 06.03.2020 to o5.03.2021 midnight. Accident occurred on 07. lo.2o2o and the policy is in force on the date of accident, which is admitted by the appellant herein. tt is worth mentioning that in the pohcy bne year compulsory pA cover for owner-driver is Rs.15,0o,ooo/- and tJle premium paid is Rs.375/-.

16. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.l to 4 contended that PA cover for owner-driver is Rs.ls,oo,ooo l- ar;td that the owner - respondent No.S herein has paid premium. In view of the said fact respondent Nos. 1 to 4 petitioners are entitled for total compensation of Rs.15,0O,OOO/- in lurnp sum. t zOoe (t) Andhra Weekly Report 135 {SC) ! i I I i BRMR, J MACMA.No. 387 of 2022

17. Sev-ral contentions raised by learned counsel for the appellant are put at rest in view of the fact that the cover for owner - driver is, Rs.15,00,OO0/- [Ex.B1l.

18. In view of the preceding paragraphs, I hold that the respondent Nos. I to 4 - petitioner Nos.l to 4 are entitled for compensrtion of Rs. 15,00,000/- without interest.

19. In the result, MACMA.No.387 of 2022 is disposed of and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced as under: a) The impugned award dated 07.04.2022, passed in O.P.No. 83 of2020, stands enhanced. b) The compensation awarded by the Tribunal i.e., Rs. 13,09,OOO/- is enhanced to Rs.15,O0,OO0/- without interest. c) d) Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 - petitioner Nos.1 to 4 are Iiable to pay Court fees on the enhanced amount. Respondent No. I - petitioner No.1 is entitled for Rs.6,OO,OO0/- and she is permitted to withdraw her entire share amount without furnishing security. e) Respondent Nos.2 and 3 - petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are entitled for Rs.3,75,000/- each, as they are minor their share amount shall be deposited in any nationalized bank till they attain majority. Respondent No. I - peftioner Tli _- _i--ffi BRMR, J MACMA.No.387 ot2022 No.l, being the mother of respondent Nos.2 aild 3 petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, is permitted to withdraw interest part for the welfare of the children. Respondent No.4 petitioner No. 4 is entitled for 0 Rs.1,50,OOO/- and she is permitted to withdraw her entire share amount without furnishing security' g) Appellant and respondent No.S herein are hereby directed to deposit the awarded amount joint$ and severally less the amount already paid if any within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment' stay granted, if dfly, stands vacated, miscellaneous application/s pending, if any, shall stand closed. No costs. ,,TRUE COPY/ ALI BAIG OFFICER To, l.Thechairman,MotorAccidentclaimsTribunal-cum-)(XVlAdditionalchief Judge, City Civil Court,Hyderabad' (With records' if any)

2.oneCCtoSRl.T.MahenderRaoAdvocate[oPUc] 3. One CC to sRl. T. Srujan Kumar Reddy Advocate toPucl 4. Two CD CoPies AS/gh ,w HIGH COURT DATED:25t08t2025 .\\ + JUDGMEN.I+DEcREE MAGMA.No.3BT of 2022 [2 DRAFTSI DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT GOSTS. v t 34{81 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD MONDAY,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAYOF AUGI'ST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW FIVE THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE B.R.TTIADHUSUDHAN RAO :l TATA AIG General lnsurance Company Ltd, represented Branch Offrce, 407, 4th Floor, A Block, My Home Begumpet, Hyderabad. Branch Manager, Kundan bag, AND 5. Ganoavalb Lavanva, W/o Late Narendher Goud' aged 34 - Houii6oU, FUo H:No.7-82l1, Chinnamallareddy village of and Dishict. Occ. Mandal Naveeth , S/o Late Narendher Goud, aged 08 years, Occ. Student' Nikil Goud, S/o Late Narendher Goud' .2 and 3 ae respondent Nos i.e., respondent No.1 and next friend of their GarEayala @ Gangala Bhudevi, Wo Late Shiwagoud, aged 68 yeap, Nil., All are R/o H.No.7-82l1, Chinnamallareddy village District. of Kama ) Occ. Mandal and Occ. ianship

8. Appeal filed Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the Judgment and decree in M.V.O.P.No.83 of 2020 dated.07-04-2022 on the file of the Motor Accident claims Tribunal-cum- lX Additional District Judge at Kamareddy, Khammam. 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 case and upon hearing the arguments of Sri. T. Mahender Rao, Advocate for the Appeilant and of Sri T. Srujan Kumar, Advocate for the Respondents' This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is disposed off, and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanoed:

2. That the impugned avtard dt:71412022, passed in OP No.83 of 2020, stands enhanced;

3. That the contpensation awarded by the Tribunal i.e.,Rs.13,09,000/- is enhancecl to Rs. 15,00,000/- without interest;

4. That the liespondent l.los. 1 to 4 petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 are liable to pay Court I I fees on the enhanced amount;

5. That the Respondent No.1 - petitioner No.1 is entitled for Rs.6,00,000/- and she is permitted to withdraw her entire share amount without furnishing security;

6. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 - petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are entitled for Rs. 3,75,000/- each, as they are minor their share amount shall be deposited, in any nationalized bank till ttiey attain majority;

7. That the Respondent No.1-petitioner No.1, being the mother of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 - petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, is permitted to withdraw interest part for the welfare of the children;

8. That th€r Respondent No.4-petifioner No.4 is entitled for Rs.1,50,0001 and she is rcermitted to withdraw her entire share amount without fumishing security,

9. That the appellant and No.S herein are hereby directed to deposit the awarded amount jointly and severally less the amount already paid if any within a period of 60days from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment;

10. That save as aforesaid, the Judgment and decree of the Tribunal shall stands confirrnd in all other respects; and 1 I . That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. SD'. M. OSTIAN ALI BAIG ISTANT REGISTRAR E ECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims XXVI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court,Hyderabad. (With records, if any)

2. Two C) Copies AS/gh w HIGH COI'RT DATEDi25l08l2025 f DECREE MACMA.hlo.3B7 of 2022 DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS.