The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Respondents I to 4: SRI K RAJANNA Counsel for the Respondent No.S:. None appeared The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA M.A.C.M.A.No.3533 of 2OL9 JUDGMENT: Heard Sri G. R.j Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company and Sri K. Rajanna, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 - claimants. Perused the entire record.

2. This appeal is preferred by the appellant/Insurance Company being aggrieved by the au,ard passed by the learned V Additional District Judge-cum-Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents Tribunal, Karimnagar in M.V.O.P.No.746 of 2015, dated 29.06.2O|a, wherein, the claim petition filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act frled by respondent Nos.1 to 4 has been partly allowed awarding compensation of Rs.4, 13,000/- payable by the appellant and respondent No.5 herein jointly and severally.

3. The claim petition was filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 4 following death of one Manda Veera Reddy in a road trafhc accident which occurred on 18.06.2013 at 1O.45 hours near School building, Deshaipalli Village of Veenavanka Mandal, Karimnagar District, claiming compensation of Rs.5,0O,000/- and the said claim petition was allowed partly arvarding compensation of Rs.4,13,000/- with interest @ 7.5o/" per annum. Aggrieved by the said award, the appellanf. herein preferred the present appeal challenging their I l \i: liability on the ground of driving licence violation and the deceased stepped into the shoes of the owner and thereby, not entitled to payment of compensation under Section 163-,{ of the Motor Vehicles Act.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases of Ramkhiladi and. another a. United India Insttra,nce Compangl, New India Assurance Compang Limited a. Sadanand Mukhi dnd others2 and Orientat Insurance Compang Limlted u. Rajni Deui and other*, wherein the liability of the insurance company as per policy taken by the owner of the vehicle was limited to the third party risk. Said cases do not deal with instances of owner taking comprehensive package covering personal risk and risk of the driver.

5. On perusal of the record, it is seen that there is no dispute about the accident occurring when the deceased while riding a motorcycle, tried to avoid hitting a dog and in the process, the accident occurred resulting in his death. The police closed the case as action abated as the accident occurred due to the driving of the deceased himself and he died due to that accident. In that regard, there is no dispute by the Insurance Company. ' lzozo; z scc sso ' lzoosy z scc +tt ' 1zoos1 s scc z:o \* --v

6. The grievance of the Insurance company is on two counts, i.e. there is a driving licence violation arld that the Insurance company is not liable to pay compensation on the premise that the deceased stepped into the shoes of the owner and the owner, who is insured is not entitled to payment of compensation. On the first count, there is no factual evidence to support the contention of the Insurance Company about the driving licence violation. Ex.AS/MVI Report merely leaves a blank space meant for noting the details of the diving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle. Mere absence of said details does not mean that the deceased did not possess driving licence. Coming to the next count of liability of the Insurance Company to pay compensation, a perusal of the Insurance "a Policy/Ex.Bl shows that the same is a comprehensive package covering the risk of driver as well. The coverage provided to the driver is extracted and produced below: .DBIVER: Any person including insured: prouided that a person diuittg holds an effectiue diuing licence at the time of the accident and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a licence. Prouided also that the person holding on effectiue Leamer's Licence may also diue the uehicle and that such a. person salisfes the requirements of Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules. 1989'. 4

7. The above clause shows that the insurance coverage is provided to any person including the insured i.e. even in case, the deceased was owner of the vehicle itself, the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation. In the instant case, the deceased was merely a driver and not even the insured. Therefore, there is no substalce in the contention of the Insurance Company and the sarne is not sustainable. B. In the result, this Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this appeal, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/- MOHD. ISM L ASSISTANT REGI TRAR To SECTION OFFICER 1

2. J. 4. The chairman, A/otor Accident craims Tribunar-cum- V Additionar District .{udg9,_at Karimnagar (With Records) One CC to SRt. G RAJKUMAR, Advocate IOPUCI One CC to SRI. K RAJANNA, Advocate tOiUCi ' Two CD Copies 0 : I , I i i i HIGH COURT DATED: 1410212025 ( r< f, i,J dE SIA IF 0 5 ii['J ?il]5 i) Jt' . ia. ,: ,,'- i: JUDGMENT MACMA.No.3533 of 2019 DISMISSING THE MACMA I IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE RENUKA YARA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 3533 OF 2019 Between: The National lnsurance Compan Office, Opp: Municipal Water Tan y Limited, Rep. by k, Market Road, Ka its Branch Manager, Branch flmnagar ...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT NO.2. AND 'l . Manda Vijaya, Wo. Late Reddy, Aged 42 yrs, Occ- Household 2. Manda Ravinder Reddy, S/o. Veera Reddy, Aged about 24 yrs, Occ: Student, 3. Manda Nagi Reddy, S/o. Ramchandra Reddy, Aged 70 yrs, Occ: Nil, 4. Manda Amruthamma, Wo. Nagi Reddy, Aged 65 yrs, Occ: House Wife (Respondents 1 to 4 are R/o. Deshipalli Village Veenavanka Mandal, Karimnagar District)

5. Manda Raji Reddy, S/o.Nagi Reddy, Aged 41 yrs, Occ: Ownerof Passion Pro Motor Cylce bearing No. AP-15-PS-7952, R/o.Desaipalli Village, Veenavanka Mandal, Karminagar District. RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS ...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT No.'l Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor vehicles Act., against the Judgment and decree, made in MVOP No. 746 of 2015 dated 29-06-2018 on the file of the chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- V Additional District Judge, at Karim naga r. 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. G RAJKUMAR, Advocate for the appellant and of SRI K RAJANNA, Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 4 and None appeared for the Respondent No.5 This Court doth Order and decree as foltows: 1 That the MACMA be and hereby is dismissed; and 2. That there shall be no order as io costs in this appeal //TRUE COPY// Sd/. MOHD. ISMAIL R ASSISTANT REGIST SECTION OFFICER The chairman, Motor Accident claims Tribunal-cum- V Additional District Judge, at Karimnagar. Two CD Copies To 1 2 % HIGH COURT DATED: 1410212025 DECREE MACMA.No.3533 of 2019 DISMISSING THE MACMA