1. Namani Latha v. '1 . Thiramdasu Ramadevi

Judgment

This appeal is hled by the claimants, aggrie\ e(l b1. the Order and Decreo dated 18.10.2021 in M.V.O.P.No.35l ol'2017 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tr ibunal-cum-XlV Additional Chiel Judge (FTC), City Civil Court, Hydr:rabad (for short "the trial C ourt") .

For <;onvenience and clarity, the parties here:n are referred to as thcy were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The :ase of the petitioners before the Tribunr.l was that on 13.08.201.+ a[ about 11:30 p.m., the decea ;ecl/Thiramdasu Ramesh rret rvith an accident while going on his TVS XL bearing No.TS-OS )aB-426I near Bharyalatha Colony wi.h an unknown four wheeler, received head injury and was admi,ted in Osmania Gencral H,cspital, where he succumbed to injurics on (\4.O9.2014. The claimeLr-rts sought a compensation of Rs.3,50,O )O,/-. 4 The respondent No.1 remained ex-parte

5. The respondent No.2 hled counter denying .he averments of the petitic,n u,ith regard to the occurrence of the accident, age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is furthe- contended that there is n o other ve hicle involved in the accide :rt and that the J 2 ETO,I MACMA No.743 2021 deceased himself suffered the accident due to his negligent driving and that there is a delay of 22 days in lodging the complaint. The deceased was a rider of the two wheeler and is not a third party and that he is not entitled to any compensation.

6. Based on above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues: 1) Whether the death of the deceased Thiramdasu Ramesh utas due to rrzsh and negttgence diuing of unknown four uheeler? 2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to ang compensotion. If so, at uhat qtanhtm and uhat is the liabiLitu of the respondent? 3) To uhat relief

7. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PWI and PW2 and got marked Exs.Al to A10. On bel-ralf of the respondents RWl was examined and got marked Exs.B1 and B2.

8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-. Aggrieved by the said award, the present appeal is preferred by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation.

9. Heard the submissions of Sri S. Chandraiah, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri A. Malathi, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

10. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the oq.ner is the wife of the deceased and that the deceased is a third i w 3 ETD,J MACMA No.743 2021 party and is entitled to compensation. He furthe r submitted that the claim pctition was hled under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act and that by virtue of the amended Act 163-I is repealed and Section 1(>4 is introduced which comes to the airl of the claimant and the amount of compensation that has to be :rrvarded in such cases is Rs.5,00,OOO/- and therefore, has prayed lo grant the said compensa tion. I I . Learned counsel for the respondents has sr Lltmitted that the deceased was driving the offending vehicle at thc tirne o[ accident and that -,her<. is a limit in the policy under Ex.Etl with regard to the personal zLccident coverage to an extent of Rs. 1,00,000/-. Thus the claim€rnts cannot claim more than Rs. 1,OO,0O{)/- to which they are entitled under the existing policy. He ther r:lbre, prayed to uphold the order and decree of the Tribunal rnd dismiss the appea[.

12. Based on the above rival contentions, this _.ourt frames the following poinls for determination: 1 2 Wether the claimonts are compensation? entitled to enlQncement of Wether the order and decree of the triat Ctrrt need any inlerkrence?

3. To what relieP 1 4 ETD,J MACMA No.743 2021

13. POINT NO.1: a) The counsel for appellants contends that the deceased is a third party and is entitled to enhancement of compensation. It is contended by the counsel for insurance company that the deceased is the owner-cum-driver of the vehicle and thus, their liability is limited as per the terms of the policy. In Bajaj Allianz General Insurdnce Cotnpang Linited Vs. b) Gaddam Srur,a,mi Reddg and anotherr; wherein a Coordinate Bench of this High Court has held that to fasten the tiability on the Insurance Company, the claimant is required to establish that he is either a third party or that his risk is covcred under the terms and conditions of the policy. c) ln Oriental Insurance Compang Limited Vs. Ramisettg Sriniucsa Rao and Othets2; the petitioners case is [hat he was going along with his wife and two other employees in a Maruthi Car which met with an accident, as its driver drove the car in a rash and negligent manner. His wife is the owner of the car and it is also put forth that he is the only earning member of his family. Thus, the Insurance Company has contended that the injured-petitioner is the defacto-owner of the car and thus, the Company is not liable to pay a1' compensation, since he steps into the shoes of the ' zot3 AC! 2586 zoz+ 121 eto tzl (TS) (DB) '? -tlGi'rs1!il"*g" '.. :v '/ 'j tri I 5 ETD,] MACMA No.743 2021 owner and that he is not a third party. The Division Bench of this High Court has held that the term 'third party' implies any person other than the insurer and the insured, who are not parties to insurance oontract. By virtue of this decision, th e contention of the appellants counsel is that the deceased is a thir1 party. d) In tht: cited decision the deceased was not dr;ving the vehicle when the ar:cident occurred. In the present case tLe deceased was riding the TVS XL with u,hich the accident occurrec. Therefore, he falls under the expression "Driver" as mentioned in :he policy. e) It is contended by the Insurance Company that the deceased is the insured himself and is not a third party a nd thus is not entitled to rnore than Rs. 1,OO,000/- towards compensation. RW1 was examin.ed by the Insurance Company to prove -heir contention and Ex.B1 rlnd 82 were marked. In the cross examination of DW1, it is elicitecl that Ex.B2/Policy covers the risk of t'\,o persons and that the policy was in force. He denied the suggestion that the deceased was a third party. 0 A perusal of the policy under Ex.B2 reveals that rt exists in the name ol Thiramdasu Ramadevi who is the wife of the deceased and the policy is issued on 25.06.2014 and .s valid up to 24.04?&1,5 for TVS XL bearing No.TS-08-EB-426 1. Hence, it is held that tLLe deceased is not the owner of the vehic 1e. But he falls under the expression "Driver" as given in Ex.B2, which reads as 6 ETD,] MACMA No.743 2021 follows "Ang person including the insured prouided that a person diuing holds an effectiue driuing license at the timi of the accident and is not disqualified from hold.ing or obtaining such a license. Prouided also that the person hold.ing ai effectiue Leanter's license may also driue the uehicle uhen not used for the transport of goods/ passengers ot the time of the accident and that such a person satisfes the requirements of RuIe 3 of th.e Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989." g) However, trx.B2 is issued to cover the personal accident coverage for owner and driver to an extent of Rs. 1,0O,O00/_. The claimants cannot claim more l-han what is mcntioned in the policy. Though, it is argued by the appellants counsel that by virtue of Section 164, he is entitled to Rs.5,OO,OOO/- as compensation, the compensation beyond the liability mentioned in the policy cannot be granted. It is clearly mentioned in Ex.B2 that Lhe personal accident coverage for owner and driver is to an extent of Rs.1,OO,O0O/-. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the orders passed by the Tribunal granting Rs. 1 ,00,OOO/ - towards compensatior-r. Hence, the same is found to be just and reasonable and that the claimants are not entitled to enhancement of compensation. Point No.1 is answered accordingly. 7 ETD,.' MACMA No.743 2021 L4. Point No.2:- In view of the hnding arrived at point No., there is no need to interfere u'ith the orders passed by the Tribunal ancl therefore, the same is uprheld. Point No.2 is answered accordingly.

15. Point No.3:- In the result, the appeal is dismissed upholcling the Order and Decrer: dated 18.lO.2O2l in M.V.O.p.No.351 o'2017 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims T.ibunal-cum-XlV Additional Chief .Judge (F-tC), City Civil Court, Hyderabad. No costs. Miscellaneous petrtions, pending if any, in tris appeal, shall stand clost:d Sd/- MOHD. ISMAIL ]EPUTY REGISTRAR \, SECTION OFFICER lV ACditional Chief Judge //TRUE COPY// \ To,

1. The Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cu (FTC), City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

2. One CC tc Sri S. Chandraiah , Advocate IOPUCI 3. One CC to A. Malathi, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies G E,4ram M, HIGH COURT DATED:2010612025 ,4 ,/,.,r' t_ --:=\ .r tn r a.\. "x.\\ JUDGMENT+DECREE MACMA.N o.743 of 2021 9r 15 SEP 2025 D6. S/. -' DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS a 1 q t IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD [3443 ] FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 743 OF 2021 Between:

1. 2. 3. Namani Latha, W/o Srinivas, Aged about 31 years, Occ. House wife Thiramdasu Shiva, S/o late Ramesh, Aged about 28 years, Occ. Tailor Thiramdasu Vikram, S/o late Ramesh, Aged about 27 yearc, Occ. Tailor Rl/o Plot No. 107, Ravina rayanareddy Colony, Hayathnagar Mandal, R.R. District ...APPELLANTS AND 1.

2. Thiramdasu Ramadevi, W/o late Ramesh, Aged about 46 years, Occ: House wife, Rl/o Plot No. 115, Ravinarayana Reddy Colony, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The Manager, United lndia lnsurance Co. Ltd., (HUB), ll Floor, Church Building, Ramkoti, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 against the Judgment and Decree passed in M.V.O.P.No.54 of 2014, dated 31-01-20'17 on the file of the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy. 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 S. Chandraiah, Advocate for the Appellants and none appeared for Respondent No.1 and A. Malathi, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: 1 . That the Motor Accident Civil Misceilaneous be and is hereby dismissed, upholding the order and decree dated 18-10-2021 in M.V.O.P.No.351 of 2017 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents C aims Tribunal-cum-XlV Additional Chief Judge (FTC), City Civil Court, Hydt:rabad.

2. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal //TRUE COPY// Sd/- MOHD. ISMAIL TY REGISTRAR Etv D J\: SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The [\/otor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XlV Additional Chief Judge (FTC), City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

2. Two CD C;opies GE/kanr W HIGH COURT DATED:2010612025 -., - ,1t.,.'\ , /..\ 15 sr l" it PA6 i) s: li .t/ DECREE MACMA.No.743 of 2O21 * - .'ra ' a./ '- ,;./' l"r DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS \