The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellants : Sri Narsi Reddy Teegala Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 : Sri A prabhakar Rao Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : _ _ _ The Court delivered the following: Judgment THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SR.EENTVAS RAO M.A.C.M.A.No. 40 of 2Ol4 JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the award passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-curn-Vl Additionat District Judge (UI-FTC), Warangal at Mahabubabad in M.V.O.P.No.986 of 2Olt, dated 2g.Og.2Ot3, Oriental Insurance Company preferred this appeat.

2. Heard Sri T.Narsi Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants-lnsurance Company and Sri A.prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and perused the entire material on record.

3. Brief facts ofthe case:

3.1. As the deceased was suffering with fever, 26.06.2011, the rider of the Hero Honda motor cycle bearing No.AP-28-AV-O393 visited the house of the deceased and took him on his rrrotor cycle to yellampet Village for medical checkup. After taking the treatment, when they were returning to Gola Banjara Village, the rider 2 ,SR,, MACMA_()_2014 of the motor cycle drove it in a rash and negligent manner with high speed in the outskirts of Yellampet Village and dashed against a cement pole and lost control over the vehicle. As a result, the deceased fell down from the motor cycle on the road and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, he \^/as shifted to Area Hospital, Mahabubabad, but th<: deceased succumbed to injuries

4. Subrnissions of learned counsel for the aDI'E llants- Insurance Cornpanv

4.1. Learned counsel for the appellants-Instrrartce Company vel-rcmently contended that Ex.B1 i.e., true copJ of Insurancc Policy, u4rich covers the insured vehicle motor cycle is an act policy and the said policy does not cover the risk of piliion rider of insured motor cycle. He further submits that the deceased was travellingln motor cycle as a pillion rider and the owner of the vehicle has not paid extra premium to the pitlion rider. In such circumstances, the tribunal ought not to have passed the award against the Insr:rance Company. He further subrnits that tkle 3 ISR,I MACMA 40-2014 Insurance Company is not liable for payment of compensation and the tribunal without properly considering the contentions and evidence adduced by the parties passed the award, instead of exonerating the appellants from the tiability and the impugned order awarded by the tribunal is liable to be set aside insofar as Insurance Company is concerned.

5. Submissions of learned counsel for resoondent Nos. 1 to 3:

5.1. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.l to 3 submits that the tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record has rightly passed the impugned order against ttre appellants as well as respondent No.4, who is owner of ttre vehicle and there is no illegality in the above order. He furtlrer submits that even in the absence of pa5rment of any premium by the owner of the vehicle to the pillion rider, the Insurance Company is liable to pay the amotr'nt awarded by the tribunal and the Insurance Company is entitled to recover 4 TSR, I MACMA_40_2014 the same from the owner of the vehicle. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Manura Khatun and others a. Ro;jesl.t Kumar Stngh and, otherst.

6. Anal sis ofthe case:

6.1. This Court has considered the rival submissions made by the respective parlies and perused the material available on record. [t is not in dispute that due to rash and negligent driving of lhe rider of motor cycle, the deceased died. The respondent Nos.l to 3, who are claimants O.P.No.986 oi 201i, ciaimed an amounr of Rs.5,0O,O0O/- under various l'rcads. To establish their claim, they have examined themselves as PWs. I and 2 and marked Exs.Al to A.9. On behalf of respondents in O.P.No.986 of 2O11, RW,1 was exalnined and Ex.Bl was marked. The tri'brrnd taking into consideration of the oral and docurnentar5r evidence on record, passed the impugned order holding that respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are entitled for cornpensation ' lzottl t scc tso r/ 5 ISR. MACMA ll{) 2014 ' against appellants as well as respondent No.4, i.e., owner of I the vehicle.

6.2. Insofar as the submissions made by the learned counsel for appellants that in the absence of separate premium paid to pillion rider and policy issued in favour of subject vehicle, in Manura Khafrtn (atpra) at Para No.21, the Hontrle Apex Court held that, the Insurance Company has to pay the awarded amount in favour of claimants and then to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle.

6.3. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the appellants are entitled to pay the awa-rded amount, pursuant to the award passed by the tribunal and they are entitled to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. t I

6.4- For the foregoing reasons, the impugrred order passed by the tribunal is modified, directing the appellants to pay the awarded amount of Rs.4,30,OO0/- with interest @ 7.5o/o from the date of petition till the date of realization, within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment and on such de 6 ,SR, J MACMA 40 2014 a, respondents are entitled to withdraw the same as per their shares. 7 With the above said modification, the appeal 1S disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shalt stald closed. No order as to costs ,TRUE COPY// SDr-MoHD.lSMrlL ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Chairman, lvlotor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- Vl Additional District Judge (lll-F.T.C.) Vy'arangal at iviahabubabad

2. One CC to Si'i Narsi Reddy Teegala, Advocate [OPUCI 3. One CC to Sri A Prabhakar Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies ADK + HIGH COURT JSR,J DATED:0310112025 JUDGMENT+DECREE MACMA.No.40 of 2014 ,t -. i ot riAir 20ffi ),i 2 DRAFTS DISPOSING OF THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 40 OF 2014 Between: 1- The Oriental lnsurance Company Ltd., Rep. by its Branch Manager, Extension Counter D.No. 10-171/2, lst Floor, Beside RTC Bus Stand, Kaikaluru.

2. The Oriental lnsurance Company Limited, Rep.by its Divisional manager, # l-7-960, lst Floor, Loyala Arcade, Subedari, Hanamkonda, Warangal District. AND '1. Eedula Laxmi W/o. Venkanna, Occ: Housewife, Ri/o. Gola Banjara (V), Hio. Pedda nagaram (V), Narsimhulapet Mandal, Warangal District. ...Appellants/(2nd & 3'd Respondents) 2 3 4 Eedula Bhavani, D/o. Venkanna, Occ: Student, Rl/o. Gola Banjara (V), H/o. Pedda nagaram (V), Narsimhulapet Mandal, Warangal District. Eedula Shivani, D/o. Venkanna, Occ Student, (RR No. 2 and 3 are being minors rep- by its Next friend and natural mother i.e. respondent No. 1 as guardian) Fl/o. Gola Banjara (V), H/o. Pedda nagaram (V), Narsimhulapet Mandal, Warangal District. B-Jagannatham, S/o. Siddappa, Occ: Owner of Hero Honda Motor cycle Bearing No. AP-28AV-0393, R/o. H.No. 1-68, Nagasamandar, Dharur, Ranga Reddy District. . ..Petitioners ...Respondents Appeal filed Under Section 1 73 of Motor Vehicles Act,1 988 against the Judgment and decree in M.V.O.P.No.986 of 201 'l dated.28-09-2013 on the file of the Court of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- Vl Additional District Judge (lll-F.T.C.) Warangal at Mahabubabad. 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 Narsi Reddy Teegala, Advocate for the Appellants and of Sri A Prabhakar Rao, Advocate for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 and none appeared for the respondent No.4. ,,/ This Cou( doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is disposed of by modifying the impugned order passed by the Tribunal;

2. That the Appellants be and hereby are directed to pay the awarded amount of Rs.4,30,0001 with interest @7.5% from the date of peiition till the date of realization, within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment;

3. That the Appellants be and hereby are entitled to recover the awarded amount from the owner of the vehicle;

4. That on such deposits the respondents be and hereby are entitled to withdraw the same as per their shares;

5. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. //TRUE COPY// gDt- MoHo. [sHErL A ggl STANTREGISTRAR S CTION OFFICER To,

1. The Chairman, [/otor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- Vl Additional District Judge (lll-F.T.C )Warangal at Mahabubabad

2. Two CD Copies ADK G HIGH COURT JSR,J DATED:03101t2025 I , DECREE MACMA.No.40 of 2014 DISPOSING OF THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS \