Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in United India Insurance Compang Ltd., Shimla v. Tilak Singh and others, wherein it is held that

Judgment

5. b. Counsel for the Appellants: M/s. Harinath Reddy Soma Counsel for the Respondent Nos. I to 5: Sri M.Ajay Kumar Counsel for the Respondent No.6: None Appeared The Court made the following: JUDGMENT / i I l I I i : I 'r

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY M.A.C.M.A.No .1516 of 2o.24 JUDGMENT: The presenl appeal is filcd by the appellanL-insurance Company, t,rggpievcd by the Orde r dated 28.C)3.2024 in M.V.O.P.No.5i38 of '2021, passcd by rhe learned Ohairman, Motor vehicle Accident claims Tribunal-cum-XXVIi-Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad.

2. The altpell:rnt herein is the respondent No.2, re:;pondents No.1 to 5 are ciaimants and respondent No.6 is rcspondent No. 1, before the Tribunal.

3. Heard Sri Flarinath Reddy Soma, learne<l Standing Counsel for the appellant and Sri M.Ajay Kumar., learned Counsel for respondents No.1 to 5.

4. The brief facts of the case, rvhich led to irling of the present appeal, are that respondcnts No.l to s filed claim petition uide M.Y.O.lr.No.538 of 2021, seeking compensation of Rs.2O,O0,OOO/-, on account of death of one Ll.Narsimulu (deceased), in a road accident that took place on 3l.or.2o2L. The deceased along with other vegetabre vendors errgaged an Auto Trolley bearing No.TS 15 uc r43s (crime ',ehicle), for 2 transport of vegetables from Kondapur to vegetable market of Moosapet, patancheru, and when they reached near Bharat Petrol Pump, Rudraram Village, patancheru, the driver of the Auto Trolley, driven it in a rash and negrigent manner at high speed,, due to v'hich the Auto Trolley turned turtre. As a result, the deceased sustained fatal injuries and died.

5. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of craimants, p.ws .r and.2 were examined and Exs.Al to Ag, were marked. on behalf of the respondents, R.ws. 1 and 2 were examincd and Exs.B 1 to 85 were marked.

6. The Tribunal considering the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, awarded Rs. 17,59, 960 / - with proportionate costs as compensation along with interest @ T.s% per annum from the date of petition ttll realization and fastened liability on appellant and respondent No.6 jointly and severally. 7 - The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the driver of the Auto Trolley did not possess a valid Driving License as on the date of accident. He further submitted that it is the statutory duty of the owner of the vehicle to see that the driver to whom the vehicle was entrusted holds an effective driving license to drive such vehicle. He further submitted that I iI T $ , a since there is clear violation of the conditions of the policy, appellant cannot be made liable to pay compensation. He also submitted that the crime vehicle involved in the accident is a "Goods Carner Vehicle" meant for carrying only goc,ds, but not for carrying passengers, and in the case on hand, tirc: deceased was travelling in the Auto Trolley, as an unauthorizeC passenger along with six others, and even as per R.C of Auto Trolley, the seating capacity is only for two persons i.e., driver and cleaner/helper. He also submitted that there was a specific condition in the poticy that the vehicle is excluded frorn carrying passengers, thus there is breach of policy concliLion by the owner of the vehicie and he is solely liable to pay corrlpensation. Therefore, prayed to allow the present appeal.

8. Per corttra, learned Counsel for respondents No.l to 5 u,ould submit that the Tribunal has rightly considered the application and awarded just and reasonable compensation, and no grounds are made out to interfere with the awi:.rd passed by the Tribunal.

9. Perusal of the impugned Order would disclose that deceased wia.s travelling in the crime vehicle and sat in the trolley portion of the crime vehicle along with five other passengers with vegetable bags. p.w.1 in his cross-examination \ \ I I I i I I I i I : i ; i , i , i I I I i i i I * I I I I I I $ B T $ ! t I i I I, It I I I * t ! f, 6 t I I * .& 4 stated that deceased sat in the trolley portion of the auto with vegetable bags at the time of accident. The Tribunal has concluded that accident has taken placed due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle.

10. The appellant raised tr,vo principal contentions that the driver was not having valid driving license and that deceased was unauthorized passenger along with five others as they were travelling in auto trolley, which is meant for goods transport. To substantiate their claim, appellant examined the Administrative Officer of R.T.A, Sangareddy District, as R.W.2 and in his evidence he stated that crime vehicle is a goods carriage vehicle with seating capacity of two persons i.e., driver and helper/cleaner. R.W.2 further stated that except driver and helper no other person is allowed to travel in goods carriage and that as on the date of accident, the crime vehicle did not have valid fitness to ply on the road and that the same was not in road worthy condition. R.W.2 further stated that the driver of the crime vehicle was having L.M.V non-transport license and that unladen weight of the crime vehicle is 1219 Kgs and as per circulars issued by the Central Government, any vehicle with gross weight of below 7,500 kgs is a light motor vehicle. It is admitted that as per circular issued by R.T.A in 2019, there is no differentiation between transport and non-transport vehicle I 5 having weight of below 7500 kgs. It is evident from the record that appellant/insurance Company has placed on re<:ord Ex.83- copy of the R.C of crime vehicle, Ex.B4-copy of fitness history of the crime vetricle and Ex.B5-copy of Driving iicense ol the driver of the crime vehicle.

11. The Tribunal has allowecl the claim petition ancl fastened liability on the appellant and respondent No.6 (or,t-ne: of crime vehicle) rrt'ith an observation that deceased was the o\\rner of the crime vehic[<: and by referring to Section L4Z(L) oi rhe Motor vehicles ,{ct. As per Section 147(ll of the Motor vehicres Acr, Insurancc company is liable to pay compensa[ion for the injuries sustained or death caused to the owner of the goocls vehicle or is authorized representative or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the motor vehicle in a public place. L2. It is evident from the impugned order r-hat except claiming thatt deceased was the owner of the crime vehicle, claimants/respondents have not placed any material to shor,r, that deceased was the owner of the crime vehicle. The documents placed on record by the appellant/insurance company and evidence given by the Administrative officer of R.T.A, u,ho was examined as R.W.2 were n()t properly 6 appreciated by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has come to erroneous conclusion that deceased was the owner of the crime vehicle without their being any material and therefore, conclusion of the Tribunal is r,t ithout any basis and contrary to material on record

13. [n the light of the material placed on record i.e., Exs.B3, 84 and the evidence of R.W.2, the crime vehicle was a transport vehicle and its seating capacity is only two persons (driver and helper/cleaner) and deceased was travelling in the trolley as unauthorized passenger. Therefore, there is clear violation of terms of Insurance Policy and as such, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation.

14. It is relevant to refer to the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in United India Insurance Compang Ltd., Shimla Vs. Tilak Singh and others, wherein it is held that "in our uieu;, although the obseruation mad"e in Asha Rani's case were in connection with carrying passengers in a goods uetticle, the same uould applA uith equal force to gratuitous passengers in any ottrcr uehicle also. Thus, ue must uphold the contention of the appellant-lrtsurance Company that it owed" no liabilitg toward. the injuries suffered bg the deceased-Rajinder Singh tuho was a pillion rider, as the insurance policy was a statutory policg, and f / -'.oo' I i I i : : , i I I I I I I t I I , t i I ! t ! I I I t I { ^\: { { s I ! Ai I* :r,I)?s,ffiElr .._. ::: .,.!r .? -- 7 hence it did- not couer ttrc .jsk of d.eath of or bodily injury to gratuitous passenger. For the aforesaid. reasons, ilte appellant_ Insurance company is not riabte' to paa th.e compensation awarded to i.he clairnants." 15' Further, the learned Judge of this court in M'A'c'M'A.No.2ss9 of 2oog, held that "the uehir:/e is a mini lorry which ls a transport uehicle and- the persons traueUirug are unauthorizecl passengers. This court has no hesitcttion to hord. that the insurance compana is not tiabte to pay the compensatiort and the owner alone is liable to pay the compensatior,.,,.

16. In the lighL of above discussion and legal p,tsition, this court is of the considered view that award passr:d by the Tribunal fastening liability on the appellant_insuranc€r company is unsustainable and the same is riable to be set aside and the owner alone is liable to pay the compensation. 17 ' Accordingry, the appeal is a,owed and the Award dated 28'03'2024 in M.v.o.p.No.53g of 2021 passed by rr-re: Tribunal is set aside as against appellant-insurance company. There shall be no Order as to costs. Miscellar-reous closed. petitions pending, if &oy, shall stand \ //TRUE COPY// SD/- M. OSNAAru ALI BAIG REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To, Secunderabad.

1. The Chairman, MACT-cum-XXVll Additional C 0 2. One CC to Sri-Harinath Reddy Soma Advocate tOpUCI 3. One CC to Sri M.Ajay Kumar Advocate tOpUCI 4. Two CD Copies R/gh ::--";;*--:;*#; hidr udge, City Civil Court at *J 1 f'', s' d [ 2 DRAFTS ] lHE S :i ?irlortilrffi -, .. .:.-. '.1Ti" . HIGH COURT DATED:2810812025 JUDGMENT+DECREE MACMA.No.1516 ot 2O24 ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS. &e - *rit-rf i iitrtrry{e#*jtr: [ 3383 I IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRt JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALtSHETry Between: lM/s cholamandalam MS General l1su.r.an99^cgmpgly Ltq., Represented by its Manager, 1-2-7312 and 1-2-63 to 64, No.302, grd Ffdoi S.n.A,I"rO., parttine, Secunderabad-500 003. ...AppellanU3.d Respondent AND H.No. 12-8-12115, Mettuguda, Secu-nderabad_SOO Ot Z.

7. !f .Anitha, wo Late U.Narsimulu, Aged. 35 years, occ. House wife, R/o. 8. i.l Qang^olhri, D/o Late U.Narsimulu, Aged. 10 years, occ. student, R/o. H.No. 12-8-121 15, Mettuguda, Secunddrabad_S OO 017 . 9. !.l.fL4!',_"ne, D/o Late U.Narsimulu, Aged. g yearJ, oCc. student, R/o. H.No.12- 8-12115, Mettuguda,. Secunderabad-5oo o17. (RdspondeniJ no.z ino s ueing minors are.r9p.t. 9v llrgr mother.and.n?luralgdardiin, Responoeni no.1) r 12115, Mettuguda, SecunderaUarJ'-SOO Ot7.

10. U.Ellaiah, S/o Late _U.papaiah, Aged. 67 ye#s, occ. ivil,-n7o. H.G. e-B_ 11. U.Anusuia, wo U.Ellaiah,.{q"_d.55 years, occ. Nil, R/o. H.No .12-g-1211s, -^ f{etlyquda., secunderabad-Sl} 012. ... nesponoentslietitioners 12. Neeli sathish Kumar, S/o Laxmaiah, Aged. Major, occ.'owner-cum-orirer oi crime vehicle no.TS 1 s uc 7435,_R/o.H.trto.+-'t 9, ch.Konoapui Virrag", Kondapur Mandal, Sanga Reddy District-502 306. '|- -.' - '' - - Appeal fited U nder Section 17 3 ofMotor and decree in M.V.O.P.No. 538 of 2021 dated.28-03-2024 on the fit6 of the Court of Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XXVll Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, at Secunderabad. ";:::r:r::l-;:::::::: This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material p-apers in'the Case and upon hearing the arguments of M/s. Harinath Reddy Soma, Advocate for the Appellant and of Sri M. Ajay Kumar, Advocate for the Respondent Nos.1 to 5 and None appeared for the respondent No.6. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is allowed; 2. That the award dt'. 2810312024 in [M.V.O.P.No. 538 of 2021 passed by the Tribunal be and hereby is set aside as against Appellant-lnsurance company; 3. That save as aforesaid, the Judgment and decree of the Tribunal shall stands confirmed in all other respects; and

4. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. /TRUE COPYII SD/- M. OSMAN ALI BAIG REG $,ECT!ON OFFICER To, KU

1. The Chairman, MACT-cum-XXVll Additional Chief City Civil Court at Secunderabad. 2. Two CD Copies f HIGH COURT DATED:28/08/2025 DECREE MACMA.No.1516 ot 2O24 ALLOWNG THE MACMA WTHOUT COSTS. Jr4hr