The High Court · 2025

Petition under section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased To grant STAY of all fu(her proceedings including execution of the decree daled 27- 8-2019 passed in O.P. No. 56 ol 2017, on the file of Addl. MACT-cum- Principal District and Sessions Judge, Adilabad. lA NO: 1 OF 2021 - Petition under section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased To vacate the lnterim Stay granted in l.A.No.3 OF 2O2O in M A C M'A No. 111 OF 2020, dated 05.o2.202O by permitting the petitioners/respondents 1 and 2 herein to withdraw the dePosited amount Counsel for the Appellant: Sri M. Satish Reddy Counsel for the Respondents 1 and 2: Sri S. Surender Reddy The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT THE HON'BLE SRI WSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA M.A.C.M.A.No.111 of 2O2O JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the appellant-lnsurance Company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Award and decree passed by the court of the M.A.c.T-cum-principal District and Sessions Judge, Adilabad (hereinafter referred to ,learned Tribunal,) in M.V.O.P.No.56 of 2017, dated 27.O8.2019, wherein, learned Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs.6,00,000/ - claimants / respondents herein.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties wiil be hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed before the learned Tribunal.

3. The brief facts of the case are that claimarrt hled M.V.O.p.No.56 of 2077 under Section 163-A) of Motor Vehicle Act, 19gg seeking compensation on account of death of the deceased i.e., Aegolapu @ Pusala Mahesh Goud. On 27.O3.2014, the deceased was proceeding on motorcycle bearing No.AP- t 5-AQ-6533 from Chintaguda (K) village to Indaram as pillion rider along with his rider ald when they reached near Shri Shri Nagar Reliance Petrol pump, Chunnambattiwada, 2 Mancheriai, thc ricler of said motorcycle drove it in a rash and negligent - manner rvith high speed. due to u,hich thc deceased fell dou,n on the road and sustaincd grievous injuries and died on the spot. The rider of the saicl motorcycle also clied while undergoing treatment. The Police, Mancherial, registered a case in Crime No. 160/2014 under Sections 304-A, 338 of IPC against the rider of motorcycle bearing No.AP-15-AQ-

4. Due to the said acctdent, the claim:rnts suffered mentai agony, hnancial problems and future source of income of the deceased, S claimants u'erc dependent upon deceased. The claimants claimed al amount of Rs.6,00,000/ as compensation for the death of the deceased under various heads

5. The conrention of the claimants before the Tribunal, as on the date of accident the deceased u,as aged about 25 years and used to earn Rs. 12,000/ pcr month as a lorry driver which he used to contribute the same lor the n elfare ol the familv. Due to the sudden death of the deceased, the claimants No.1 lost her husband and claimant No.2 u'ho is father of the deceased lost their son ald both the claimants Iost their conjugal happiness and lost deceased's company and there is no other - person to take care of the claimants and the petitioners lost therr ) dependencY.

6. Before the learned Tribunal, respondent Nos'1 - Owner of motorcycle bearing No.AP-15AQ 6533 remained ex-parte ' Respondent No.2 - United India Insurance Company Limited, filed counter-afhdavit' denying all the averments made in the claim petition' including the manner in u,hich the accident took place, age, avocation and income of the deceased and contended that rider of the motorcycle is not having valid and effective license at the time of the accident and the compensation claimed is excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 7 . Basing on the pleadings and averments made by both the counsels, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues which reads as under: 1 . Whether the deceased' Aegolapu @ Pusala Mahesh Goud' died in a motor uehicte accident that"occirred on 27'O3 2O74 at about O7'45 pl.i, n"o, Stti Nagar Reliance Petrol Pump, Chunnambattiuada' 'Manchenal, inuotuing the motorcgcle beoing No AP-l5-AQ-6533?

2.Whethertherewasanyinsurancecouerageforthemotorcgcle ii.o*ng No.AP 15-AQ-6533"and if so, does the policg couer the nsk of deceased- and iJ so, utas there ing breoch of policg condition alleged bg the respondents? 4

3. Whttl. tLtere the oqe, auocatiort and the earnings qf deceased?

4. Vrhether the petttione.rs rtre, entitled for compensation, if so, to tuhctt afitounl and aqain:;t tuhotn?

5. 'l'o tuhat r<:lief?" B. After perusing the oral and documentary evidcnces and going into the entire record and the evidences placed by both the parties, the learned Tribunal allou'ed the claim petition and come a conclusion that the claimants r.r.ould be entitled lor an compensation award of Rs.6,00,00/ along s,ith interest @ 7 5 % per annum

9. Hearcl Sri M.Satish Reddg, learnecl counscl for the appellant Insurance Compzrny i.rnd Sri S.Surender Reddg, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 & 2. None appears for respondent No.3. Perused the material on rccord i 0. Being aggrieved by the compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal. the prescnt appeal is filed b), the appellalt/Insurance Companv on the ground that rider of the motorcycle bearing No.AP-15- AQ-6533 \ /as not having drivir-rg license and due to the rash arld negligent driving of Lhe motor cyclc, the accident occurred and the deceased who r.vas sitting as pillion rider fell down and died on spot and further averred that the Tribunal ought to have appreciate the fact that - 5 the policy was issued with a liability policy and does not cover the risk of the pillion rider i.e., deceased, however the Tribunal erred in coming to the conclusion that the deceased being pillion rider was third party.

11. Learned counsel for the appeliant further averred that the Tribunal failed to have appreciate the evidence of RWl-Administrative Offrcer and Ex.Bl-Charge Sheet and trx.B2-Insurance Policy and granted colossal compensation amount to the claimants by fixing the income of the deceased @ Rs.4,50O l- per month. The Tribunal ought to have dismissed the claim petition or ought to have exonerated the appellant from liability as the policy was issued in case of liability only policy, the insurer-appellant is not required to cover the risk of the pillion rider and pray this Court to set aside the order passed by the learned Tribunal and allolr, the present appeal.

12. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submits that after considering the entire evidence available on record, the learned Tribunal has awarded just compensation, u,hich needs no interference

13. Admittedly, the claimants have not filed cross-appeal against the Award and decree passed by the Tribunal. As such, the claimants are deems to be satisfied with the Arvard and decree and the compensation 6 a\rrarded by the Tribunal. The only point arose before this Court in this appeal is that: "t) Whether the leunted Tribtrnal ltas riqlttl4 ftr.ecl the liability on tlrc appellont to pau the t:ompensation ii) Whether the Tillunal had righlly cori-sltJer the claimants petition ftled under Section 166 (A) Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and auarded just compcnsation to the claimants. " Point No.1 & 2:

14. The main contention of the appellant-lnsurance Company before this Court is that the deceased u,as travelling on the two wheeler as pillion rider and his risk is not covered as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, as the Insurance Policy is only a " Liabilitg on Policg and Act Policg" and also the rider of the rnotor cvcle was not having driving licensr: to ride the said drive the motor cycle which rs breach and violation of the contractual condition embodied in the insurance policy. 1 5. Admitteclly, the deceased rn as pillion rider on the motor cycle Ex.A1 FIR ancl Ex.A4 clearlv reveals the involvement of the crime vehicle in the accident, trx.A2-lnquest Report, Ex A3-Postmortem Examination report disclosed that the nature of the accident occurred, resulting in death of the deceased due to the involvement of the motor bearing 7 No'AP-15-AQ-6533. Ex.B2 disclosed that the poricy was in force at the time of accident, however on keen perusal of the Ex.B2-lnsurance company, it revears that lnsurance poiicy is onry "Liabitity only policy,, and there is no premium paid and no additional premium was paid to cover the pillion rider.

16. In United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Shimla vs Tilak Singh And Orsr, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, the risk of the death or bodily inyury to gratuitous passenger does not apply and the relevant portion of the order is extracted hereunder: " ln our uieut, ctlthough the obseruation made in Asha Rani,s case (supra) u.tere in connection with carrying passengers in a goods uehicle, the same tuou Id apptg utith equal force to grotuitous passengers in ang other uehicle also. l.hus, we must uphold. the contention of the appellant_insurance compdnA that it owed no liability toutard the injuries suflbred. bg the deceased. Rajind.er Singh who was a pillion rider, as the insurance policy uas a statutory policlt, and hence it d_id not couer the isk of death of or bodily injury to g ratuitous p as s eng e r. For the aforesaid reasons, we allotu the appeal and. set asid_e the impuqned judgment hokling th.1t the oppellant_insuronce compang is not liable to paA the compensatiott awarded to the cl4imants., | 200,6 AIR SCW 1a22 8 - |7.Int]nitedlndialnsuranceCompangLtdusScthishKumarz, the Madras High court has also held that the Tribunal erroneously held that the pillion rider is a third party and came to conclusion that the piliion rider is a grattritous passenger in case ol Act Policy and the ' relevant operating portion of the order is extracted for read reference: 11 .Tlrc contention of the oppellant is thal the policy in tluestion is ottlg an Act policy and- it couers ':isk and liability in respect of the third ptrfties ontg and il. does not couer the rtder ond pillion ider of the Motor bike. The l st r<:spond-ent hc-s not disputed that the policy issued bg the appetlant is onlg an Act Policg. It is noL the case of the 1.t respondent thot policg issued bg the appellant is comprehensiue policg couering both ider and pilliort rider of the Motor btke' The Tribunol fctstened the tiabitity of the appeltan't on the qround that the lstrespon(len.tu)ctsathirclparly-suchJindittqiserrolleous.ltisulell st'tlled that in an Act Poticy the rider arul tlrc pillton dder of the two utheeler ere not couerecl and Insurct rtce ( omponq is not liable to pag compensntion for the bod.itg injuies or the deoth Whether' the pillion rider is couered tLncler the Act Polictl or not u)as cortsidered bg the Ilon'ble Apex CoLttl in the Judgment reporled in 2OO6 (4) SCC 4O4 !(lrited lrttlia Instrrance Co- Ltd., Shimla Vs. Tilak Singh and othersl, tLlhereintheHon,bleApexCourThasheldthatthepillionriderisnot t:ouerecl in the Act Policg and the Insuronce compony is not liabLe to paA compensatiott to the pillion rider' 2 2019 scc online l"1ad 16849 ', 9

12. In the present case, the lnsurance Policg in Ercstion ts only 'Act Policy' and 7st respondent u)os o pillion nder. In uiew of principles that emerged- tn the judgments rekrred to aboue, the lst respondent - is, not .o .third partg. and.he is onlg a gratuitous po.ssenger. Tlrc contention of the learned counset for the 1't respondent that the lst respondent is o pillion rider ond the Tibunal ightlg directed the appellant to paA the compensation is utithout meits. The Tibunal erroneouslg held that the 1* respondent, pillion ider is a third portg and appellont is liable to poA compensotion. In the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2OO6 (4) SCC 4O4 extracted aboue, it has been held that pillion ider is a grotuitous possenger in case of Act Policy. In the judgment of the Hon'bLe Apex Court reported in 2OO7 (5) SCC 428 [Oriental Insuronce Co. Ltd., us. Meena Vaigal], the Hon'ble Apex Court referring to Asha Rani's case, [Neu-t India Assurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Asho ranil, held in parograph No.18 as follotus: 'In other toords, this Court clearlg held that the apparentlg tuide utords 'ony person' are qualified by setting in u.thich theg occur and that'anA person' is to be understood as a third party". As per the judgments referrecl to aboue, in an Act Policy, the pillion ider in a tu-to-tuheeler is a gratuitous passenger and appellant is not liable to paA compensation to the 1 st respondent. In uiew of the fact that the appellont is not liable to poA onA compensation, the questiort of pag and recouery does not ortse. '

13. In uieu-t of the Judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the atuard of the Tribunal is set astde ond the Ctuit Miscellaneous Appeal is olloued. The appellant / Insurance Compang is permitted to withdrau.t the amount deposited in the credit of the claim petttion, bg 10 -- fling necessarA application before lhe Tribunal. Consetluenl.l t.1 conner:ted miscellaneous petitiort is closed. " No cosfs

18. Coming to the present case on hard, It is evident that the deceased was a pillion rider at the time of the accident, r'vhich was neither disputed by both the parties, and the Insurance Policy is only an "Liabilitg onlA PolicA and Act Policg" and in the light of the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment discussed above, it is clear that deceascd u,as trar.elling in the offending vehicle as a pillion rider and lnsuralrce Company did not take any premium for pillion rider lrom the owner of the Motor Cycle, therefore, the question of iiability on the appellant-ln surance Company to the pay the compensation for the death of the deceased (pillion rider) does not arise

19. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considcred opinion that the learned Tribunal has committed error treating the deceased to be third partlr and making appellant-lnsurance Compan,r liable to pav compensation, and the Au,ard passed against insurance company is not correct in the e1'e of law, hence, the order passed by the learncd Tribunal in M.V.O.P.No.56 of 2017, dated

27.08.2019 is liable to be set aside in for as the appeliant 1S concerned r I t i I I I - 11

20. In the result, this M.A.C'M'A is allowed and the Award and decree passed by the Motor Accidents Claim s Tribunal - Cum - Principal District and Sessions Judge, Adilabad in M V O'P'No'56 of 2Ol7 , dated 27 .O8.2Olg is hereby set aside in so lar as the appellant - [nsurance ComPanY is concerned'

21. It is made clear that, if the claimants have already withdrawn the said award amount, the appellant-insurarce company is not entitled to recover the same from the claimants' However, the lnsurance Company can proceed to recover the compensation amount paid to claimants' from the owner of the Motor Cycle by follou'ing due procedure contemplated under law. 22 Miscellaneous petitions, if any are pending, shall stand closed Sd/- M. JAWAHAR RED ASSISTANT REGI R //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-Cu Sessions Judge, Adilabad. Principal District and

2. One CC to Sri M. Satish Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri S. Surender Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies HIGH COURT NNR, J DATED: 2411112025 S:tATE oF q :) o $1t tt $\[q (,) 'q \. Rf' JUDGMENT+DECREE MACMA.No.111 of 2020 ALLOWING MACMA WITHOUT COSTS ,/-'-:- \ (6 -.-i^srcl-lzr; t/ IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENry FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 111 OF 2020 Between: United lndia lnsurance Company Limited, Represented by its Branch Manager, Branch Office Balaji Complex , Ranga Reddy Road , Mancherial , District Adilabad ...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT No. 2 AND 'l . Aegolapu @ Pusala Premala @ Premala, Wo . Aegolapu @ Pusala Laxman Goud @ Laxmaiah S/o Sambaiah, Age .59 Years, Occ. Household,

2. Aegolapu @ Pusala Laxman Goud @ Laxmaiah, S/o Sambaiah, Age .67 Years, Occ .Nil Both are Ri/o Chintaguda (K) Village , Mandal Kaghaznagar, Presently at Ramnagar, Adilabad.

3. Kumara Swamy M, S/o Posham, age. Major Occ Owner of Motor cycle bearing No .AP -15-A0-6533 R/o ST-2-1514, Pannur, Kamanpur Village, Dist Karimnagar 505001. ...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT No. 1 Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V.Act against the judgment and decree dated 27-8-2019 in O.P. No. 56 of 2017 on the file of the Court of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-Cum-Principal District and Sessions Judge, Adilabad. 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 case and upon hearing the arguments of Sri M. Satish Reddy, Advocate for the appellant and Sri S. Surender Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and none appeared for Respondent No. 3 either in person or by Advocate. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the MACMA be and hereby is allowed and the award and decree passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-Prl.Dist & Sessions Judge, amount; Adilabad in M.V O P No 56t2O17 ' dl27 t}l2}lg'is hereby setaside in so far as , ti]?in:'h.#;x'r1",x3"#B3ll'3,i"J"T'il31;', withd rawn the said award 3 That the appella nt-lnsura nce company be and hereby is not entitled to p'o'"ed to recove r' the , l"^:,:lti;""T ",'#'''X.1 il?[" "t'; I o9 lv- :,T ^ amount oiiii?" tli'ii"iJi'o*.tn" owner of the motor cycle by ^nrnnensation ilil[iil;;; p;otLJ"" contemplated under']aw; tn-e iriuunat shall stand confirmed in all 5. That save as atoresato ti: ;:;H; other aspects; and 6. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal' , Sd/. M. JAWAHAR REDDY REGISTRAR AS ISTANT /iTRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER To, 1 . The Chairman Sessions Judg , Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-Cum-Principal District and e, Adilabad

2. Two CD CoPies HIGH COURT NNR, J DATED: 24t11t2025 DECREE MACMA.No.111 ot 2020 ALLOWING MACMA WITHOUT COSTS -Jrs q