The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Respondents NO.2 :Sri K Ajay Kumar The Court Delivered the following: JUDGEMENT l I i I '. .tl' HONOURAB LE SMT.JUS TICE M.G .PRTYADARSINI M.A.C.M.A.N o.2L92 0F 2014 JUDGMENT: Aggrieverl by the Order and Decree dated 19'08'201 1 (hereinafter u.i[1 be referred as 'impugned order') passed by the learned Judge. F amily Court - cum - VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy (hereinafter will be referred as "Trrbunal') in O.P.No.445 of 2009, the Appellant' who is the claimant, tiled the present Appeal to impose the liability on respondent No.2 to pay compensation to the claLmant along with respondent No.1 jointiy and severally'

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are re ferred as tht:y wcre arrayed belore the Tribunal' 3 Thc brit:f facts of the case as can be seen from the record are as under The petitioner filed claim petition under Section 166 of the a) Motor Vehrcle Act claiming compensation of Rs 2,OO,0O0/- against respondent Nos. I and 2 for the injuries sustained by him in the roacl traffic accident that occurred on 11'O7 2003' The petitior-rer alleged in the petition that on 1 1'O7 2008 ivhile he along rvith another left in the trolley auto bearitrg No' AP 25 2 ircPJ V 7214 with medicines load in order to distribute in retail outlets in the surroundings of Hyderabad; when they were returning on 12.07.2oo8 in the auto with barance medicines at about OO15 hours at the outskirrs of Reddypally Village, the auto hit the divider on the road due to the rash and negligent driving of the auto driver, as a result, the auto over turned and thereby one Ch. Balraj died on the spot and whereas the claimant received grievous injuries. The petitioner/ injured was shifted to Balaji Hospital, Secunderabad, wherein he obtained treatment as inpatient from l2.O7.2OOg to 23.OZ.2OOg. Thereafter, the petitioner got admitted in Jeevadara Hospital, Kamareddy, wherein he was treated as inpatient from 23.O7.2OO8 to 26.07.2008. The peritioner alleged to have incurred Rs. 1,2O,O0O/- towards medicines and frequent visits to the hospital. b) A case in Crime No.147 of 20Og of Chegunta police Station was registered against the driver of the crime vehicle for the offence under Sections 304-A and 337 of the Indian penal Code. The petitioner prayed to award compensation of Rs.2,OO,OOO/- from the respondents Nos.1 and 2 as the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the *?- ,l a, 3 driverofther:rimevehicle,whichbelongstotherespondent No. 1 and insured with respondent No'2'

4.BeforetheLearnedTribunal,inreplytotheabovepetitlon averments, tht: respondent No'2 liled counter and whereas the respondent Nc.1 remained exp(lrte The respondent No'2 denied the averments of the Petition including the malner of the incorne of the injured. The accident, age occuPation and respondent N,1.2 further contended that the accident occurred duetooverloaclofautowithunauthorizedpassenger'assuch' therespondentNo.lviolatedtheconditionsoftlrepolicyby allowing unauthorized passenger to travel in the crime vehicle and thus, prayed to dismiss the petition' In orcler to establish his claim before the learned 5. Tribunal, PWs I and 2 r,r'e re examined and Exs'Al to A10 were cxhibited on behalf of the petitioner' On the other hand' the RW1 u,as examined and Exs Bl to 83 were marked on behalf of the responde nts. TI-re learned Tribunal after considering the rival 6 . contentions, passed the impugned order awarding Rs'63'000/- as compensation to the petitioner imposing the liability only on respondent No.1. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the 4 present Appeal to direct the respondent No.2 to be jointly and severaily iiable to pay compensation to the claimant along with respondent No. 1

7. Heard Sri palle Sriharinath, learned Standing Counsel for the Appellant/ petitioner and Sri Kondadi Ajay Kumar; learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.2/lnsurance Company and perused the material available on record including the grounds of appeal 8 It is to be seen that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2/owner any Appeal challenging the and insurer have not preferred impugned order. Further. the present Appeal is not hled seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunai. There is no dispute with regard to subsistence of Ex.B3 insurance policy as on the date of the accident.

9. The first and foremost contention of the learned counsel for the claimant is that the learned Tribunal committed grave error in awarding compensation as against respondent No. 1 only on the ground that the injured was traveling as gratuitous passenger in goods vehicle; Ex.B3 is a package policy under which third party risk is also covered as premium of Rs. 1,53O/_ 5 was paid apart from covering the risk of owner/driver; the claimant comes under definition of 3'd party, as such' the respondent No.2 ought to have been made liable to pay compensation along with respondent No' 1' lO. Admitte.lly, the petitioner/ claimant has not filed any document to establish that the goods in the crime vehicle belong to him. The petitioner has not fi1ed any scrap of paper to cstablish that he is the partner of Sai Krishna Medical Agencies' The petitioner did not even hle any document in connection with supply or distribution of medicines in the auto either before the learned Tribunal or before this Court' [n the absence of any such material, the learned Tribunal arrived to a conclusion that the petitioner is a gratuitous passenger' Usually the insurance policies for g,tocls carrying vehicles do not cover gratuitous or unauthorized passengers and thereby insurers are absolved from liability in such cases. Allowing unauthorize<l passengers in a goods-carrying vehicle constitutes a violation of the insurance poticy terms, leading to the insurer's exemption from liability. Horvever, it is the contention of thc petitioner/ claimanl tha1, the respondent No.2 /Insurance Company did not take any steps to examine the driver of the crime vehicle to establish that the injured was traveling as gratuitous/ 6 unauthorized passenger. But it is rerevant to note that the burden of proof is on the person who wants the court to believe in the existence of a fact. In the instant case, it is the petitioner/claimant who asserted that he is working partner of Sai Krishna Medical Agencies. Once, the petitioner establishes that he is working partner of Sai Krishna Medical Agencies, he is no longer a gratuitous passenger. In such case the burden is on the petitioner to establish that working partner of Sai Krishna Medical Agencies. Moreover, it petitioner/ claimant who alleged to have traveled in the crimc vehicle for distribution of his medicines and thereby, the burden is caste upon the petitioner/claimant to examine the driver to establish his contention. Thus, in the absence of any material and having no other option, this court is incrined to affirm the hnding of the learned Tribunal that the petitioner/ claimant and his relative Balraj were traveling as gratuitous passengers. Thus, the owner of the crime vehicle has violated one of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy deliberately. Now coming to the seating capacity of the crime vehicle, a crime vehicle is perusai of Ex.B3 discloses that the carrying capacity of the in the third point shown in columrl of limitation as to use, of Ex.B3 it is clearly mentioned Further, 'one e!r'.-t.=r, 7 that hse for carrying passengers in the vehicles; except employees (othe r than the driver not exceeding t he number permitted in l.he registralion document and coming under the purview of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923'' In the present case, the number of the passengers traveling in the crime vehicle \)r,ere three i.e., driver, petitioner/ injured ancl his relative Balraj / deceased. Thus, the criine vehicle was not only carrying the goods but also three passengers and thereby the crime vehicle was overloaded, u'hich resulted in accident Thus' the owner of the crime vehicle violated the terms and t:onditions of the insurance policy by allowing more than thr: prescribed capacity in the crime vehicle.

12. It is the specific case of the petitioner/ clairnant that rn case of covering the risk of third parties, if any violation of terms and conclition of the insurance policy, the insurance company should pay hrst and recover from the ou'ner' It is to be observed that "pay and recover" cannot be ordered irr situations where the vehicle was being used for a non-covered purpose' Similarly, if lhe owner was aware of a major violation of policy terms, or if the claimant was significantly responsible for the accident, then lhe insurance company is not legalll' liable to pay the claim in the ltrst place. As stated supra, the capacity of the B crime vehicle is bne, and the claimants are also aware of the same. The claimant is aware that it was a goods carriage vehicle and dcspite knowing the same he arong with his relative alleged to have boarded the said goods carriage vehicle along with goods (medicines). The crime vehicle was meant for carrying goods within the meaning of the Motor Vehicles Act. The vehicle permits employees not exceeding the number permitted in the registration document. Even tbr the sake of arguments, if the claimant is considered as working partner of Sai Krishna Medical Agencies, the number of persons permitted to board the said vehicle is limited to the number permitted in the registration document. It is not the case of the petitioner/claimant that his relative was also an employee or working partner of Sai Krishna Medicar Agencies. As stated supra, a perusal of Ex.B3 discloses the carrying capacity .1,. Despite having knowlcdge of the same, the owner/driver of the crime vehicle exceedcd the permissible members/employees to board the vehicle along with the goods. Thus, viewed from aly angle the option of ,pay and recover, cannot be invoked in the instant case, more particularly in view of the deliberate violations committed by the owner/driver of the crime vehicle i.e., respondent No.1. The learned Tribunal after considering all 9 these aspects has rightly imposed the liability on the respondent No.1 by cxonerating the respondent No.2. This Court does not find any merit in imposing the liability on the respondent No.2/Insurance Company for the deliberate violations of the owner/clriver of the crime vehicle. Hence, this court f,rnds no irregularity or infirmity in the impugned order so as to interfere u,ith the [rndings arrived by the learned Tribunal.

13. In vicu ol the above facts and circumstances, this Court is of the firrn opinion that the appellant/claimar-rt/ petitioner Iailed to establish any of the grounds to set aside the u'ell reasoned order passed by the learned Tribunal. Thus, the present Appeal is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.

14. In the result, the Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, il any, pending shali stand closed. //TRUE COPY// ,33i-yRE8,!'+[ik SECTI ON OFFICER RICT AND SESSIONS "& tP:":"''J s, if any) ^"-%'ff'BtsV' '- r,*'a:}i1x3l'?'l?i"Y3t',"' \ To, ' 155 d E'^,?1f'l U f'l 3. SH ss [ 4. Two CD CoPies "si lA GSA HIGH COURT DATED:0310312025 e ,FJ r$tl "sr', 2;* r, JUDGEMENT MACMA.N o.2192 of 2014 DISMISSING OF THE MACMA WITHOUT COST ( A- 2 s IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD IVONDAY,THE THIRD DAY OF IMARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI MOTOR ACCID ENT CIVIL MISCELLANEO US APPEAL NO :2192OF 2014 Between: GALIVADDA NARSIMULU, s/o Rajaiah working partner in Sai Krishna lvredicar Agencies Rl/o Kamareddy.Viilage ind t\4andar,"Nizamabad bi;i.'p;;;;;ii;"Ry" H.No. '1-3-12, Fathenagar, IVIedak Town and Disirict. AND ...AppellanUClaimant

1.' B.KoNDAL AND ANOTHER, S/o Venkaiah, age major owner cum Driver of the Crime Vehicte Auto No. Ap 24 V 7214 RyoH.Nol Z_a, itinOrr - '" "' Venkampally Nagireddipet Mandal, 2. tM/s lclcl Lambard l\rrotor rnsurance company Limited,, D.No. 2-6-54, circuit House Road, Nakkalgutta, ...Respondents Appeal filed Under Section 1 73 of Motor Vehicles Act,1 988 against the order and decree in It/l.V.o.P,No.44s of 2oo9 dated. 19.08.20.1 1 on the filJ of the courtof the chairman, Motor Accidents claims Tribunal cum The Judge, Family court ium Vll Addl. District and Sessions Judge [Vledak of Sangareddy This appeal coming o-n for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Tribunal and the material papers in the IVVoH and rrpon hearing the arguments of sRl B KoNDAL, Advocate for the Appellants ano sRt K AJAY KUtr/AR,Advocate for the Respondent No.2 and of NoNE Aipenneo. Counsel for the Appellant : SRl. B.Kondal Counsel for the Respondents NO.2 :Sri K Ajay Kumar The Court Delivered the following: JUDGEMENT a'. This court doth Order and Decree as follows: ' ' ' l.Thatthelt/otorAccidentCivilMiscellaneousappealbeandhereby dismissed 2 Thatsaveasaforesaid,thedecreeoftheTribunalshallstandsConfirmed in all other resPects; and That there be no order as to costs in this appeal //TRUE COPY// SD/.MOHD ISMAIL EPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Judge, Family Court cum Vll Addl' District and Sessions Judge [Vedak of SangareddY 2.Two CD CoPies {'P- GSA HIGH COURT DATED:0310312025 DECREE MACMA.N o.2192 of 2O14 DISMISSING OF MACMA WITHOUT COST (t- 2 g '?)