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 stay the operation of the order and decree daled 0210112023 passed in M.V.O.P.No.62 OF 2019 of the file of the Court of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - Cum - ll Additional District and Sessions Judge, at Adilabad. lA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 dispense with the filing of the certified copies of the pleadings, depositions and documents in Ex.A1 to A8 and Ex.B1 to 83 in M.V-O.P.No 62 OF 2019 on the file of the Court of the Chairman, lt/otor Accidents Claims Tribunal - Cum - ll Additional District and Sessions Judge, at Adila bad. Counsel for the Appellant : SRl. A RAMAKRISHNA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI KONDADI AJAY KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.2: The Court made the following: JUDGMENT 7 THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA M c A.N 10 2 2 JU DGMENT: Heard Sri A.Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Kondadi Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.1. perused the record.

2. This is an appeal preferred by the appellant/respondent No.2 insurance company aggrieved by the order, dated 02.01.2023 passed in M.V.o.P.No.62 of 2019 by the rearned chairman, Motor Accident claims Tribunal-cum-II Additionar District and sessions Judge, Adilabad (for short, 'the Tribunal,), wherein an amount of Rs.19,71,600/- with interest at7.5o/o per annum has been awarded for a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.12,00,000/_ due to the injuries sustained by respondent No. 1-claimant in a road traffic accident

3. The brief facts oF the case are that respondent No.l/craimant was a cooli. Respondent No.2/respondent No.1 was the owner_cum_ driver of the tractor and trailer which was involved in the accident and the appellant is the insurer of the offending vehicre. on 03.07.20L7, respondent No.2 engaged respondent No.1 for loading and unloading of paddy bags in the tractor and trailer. After loading of paddy bags at Rangapet Village when the vehicle was proceeding towards Khanapur market near Ramreddypalle Village at 19:00 hours, \ \ ; 2 respondent No.2 has driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, lost control and applied sudden brakes without taking precautions. At that time, respondent No' 1 who was proceeding on the trailer fell down on the road and the trailer ran over from the right leg resulting in crush injury of right foot with deglove injury upto knee. Respondent No'1 was taken to GovernmenthospitalatKhanapurandlatertoGovernmentHospital, KarimnagarandlastlytoGandhiHospital,Secunderabad,wherehe underwent operation and amputation of right leg below knee level on 05.07.2017 and was discharged on 07.O7.2017' In this process, respondent No.1 incurred expenses towards treatment, transportation,etc.,andsufferedpainandtrauma'Therefore,the claimant filed the claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 12,00,000/-.

4. Respondent No.1 got examined P.Ws.l to 3 and got marked Exs.A1 to AB. The appellant got examined R.W.1 and got marked Exs.B1 to 83. The Tribunal perused the evidence on record and awarded compensation of Rs.19,71,600/- with interest at 7'5o/o per annum and the same lead to filing of the present appeal. In grounds of appeal, the appellant pleaded that the insurance

5. company cannot be fastened with liability as the appellant was travetling as an unauthorized passenger and therefore, the question of pay and recovery does not arise. The appellant got examined i I I I I i I I i I I I I i I i 3 R.W.1 and got marked Exs.81 to 83 i.e. insurance policy and copies of registration certificates of tractor and trailor. As per Ex.Bl, no premium was paid by the owner cum insurer for covering of risk of labourer and the seating capacity of the tractor is 'f i.e. for the driver and no second person is permitted to travel in the trailor. The documents crearry estabrish that there was no premium paid for risk of labourer and therefore, respondent No.1 is an unauthorized passenger. Therefore, no liability can be fastened on the insurance company. It is pointed out that the judgment reried by the Tribunal in case of Anu Bhanvara and others v. IFFCO TOKIO Generat fnsurance Company Limited and othersl, is not relevant to the facts of the present case. Further, the appellant contends that the monthly income of respondent No.1 0ught to have been taken at Rs.4,500/- but not at Rs.7,000/- and that future prospects are not to be awarded. As such, prayed that the impugned order be set aside.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the seating capacity of the tractor is'1'. There is no seating capacity for a trailer, whereas respondent No.1 was travelling in the trailer as an unauthorized passenger and therefore, the insurance company has no liability to pay the compensation.

7. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 while arguing that the principle of pay and recovery would be applicable though the risk of reqpondent No.1 is not covered under insurance policy. ' lzozolzo scc osz l I i I I I 4 B. A perusal of the record shows that respondent No.1 was engaged for loading paddy bags into the trailer for transporting from Rangapet Village to Khanapur market. As per the insurance policy for the trailer marked under Ex.AB, the seating capacity is.1, i.e. only for the driver. Clearly, no place is available for a conductor or a cleaner. The total seating capacity is shown to be'1, very clearly in the policy. The contents of Ex.A8 policy reveal that respondent No.1 was an unauthorized passenger who is not covered under the insurance policy. An examination of the insurance policy of the trailer shows that the seating capacity is '0', i.e. trailer is meant for transportation of goods but not passengers. However, since a valid policy was in force for both tractor and traileD this court is of the opinion that the policy of pay and recovery as per the judgment in Nationat Insurance Company v- Swaran Singhz would be applicable and therefore, the Tribunal did not commit any error in ordering pay and recovery.

9. Coming to the next ground of taking the income of the injured respondent No.1 at Rs.7,000/- per month, the appellant contends that as per the judgment of the Hon,ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramachandrdppa a. Manager, Rogal Sund.aram Alliance rn',trantce compang Limite&, the notionar income ought to have taken at Rs.4,500/- per month. However, as per the judgment of the t 4o+1z1nLo :e '1zqt1 r: scc z:e I I I i I I I I I i I I I 5 Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Nationat Insurance Company Limited v. pranay Sethi and others4, there shall be an enhancement on the percentage basis for every three years and such an enhancement should be at the rate of LOo/o for every three years under conventionar heads. In the instant case, the accident occurred in the year 2017, therefore the notionar income by adding 10o/o for each 3 years would be far excessive compared to Rs.4,500/_. Therefore, this court is not inclined to interfere with the notional monthly income considered by the Tribunal.

10. In view of the above discussion, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment and the appear is riable to be d ism issed.

11. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this appeal, shall stand closed. ./ { tol} hLl )3oo //TRUE COPY// SD/- M. OSMAN ALI BAIG sl TANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To,

1. -The.c.hairman, District and Sessions Judge, at Adilabad. Motor Accidents craims Tribunar - cum - il Additionar -

2. One CC to SRt. A RAMAKRISHNA REDDY Advocate [OpUC] 3. One CC to SRt. KONDADT AJAY KUMAR Advocate [OPUC] 4 Two CD Copies & GE/gh HIGH COURT DATED:01/0812025 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.1510 of 2023 --ia=:: z-' ! trE s TAT F ( .\ I ! 15 SEP 2ffi _,-:.tFAt,' DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS t q IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD t34421 FRIDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE RENUKA YARA MOTOR ACCI DENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOU S APPEAL NO: 1510 0F 2023 Between: chola MS- (choramandaram M-s) Generar rnsurance co. Ltd, represented bv its -5oll gid Fi.i.;i"?;il irr.", Branch Manaqer, Branch offiie s.R. nrCao", Secunderabad ...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT NO.2 AND

1. Yata Swa1y, Sio Rajeshwar, Age. 21 years, Occ. Coolie, presenflv Nil. Presenfly R/o Mavatj Viilage an-d Man6ai, A'dilabaJDi;i;il .... RESPONDENT NO.1/ PETITIONER

2. P..Chandla Shekar @ Shekar, S/o Rajamallu, Age. Major, Occ. Owner_cum_ Driver of crime vehid-e.Traclor and rriiteiuearirig ruo- is or-eceii2l in.i' t",i,R;noanet vittase''F'/J eeu|.ni'ilIv'-iiil"]"" A[i:ff IRT;"[1: Jl|.xo;,t ...RESPONDENT NO.2/ RESPONDENT NO.1 Appeal filed under section 173 of M.v.Act, against order and Decree dated 02-01-2023 passed in M.v.o.p.No 62 oF 2o1g on the file of the court of the chairman, Motor Accidents craims Tribunar - cum - il Additionar District and Sessions Judge, at Adilabad. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the judgment and Decree of the Lower court and the materiar papers in the case and upon hearing the argument of sri A. Ramakrishna Reddy, Advocate for the Appellant and sRr KONDADI AJAY KUMAR, Advocate appeared for Respondent No.1 and none appeared for Respondent No.2. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneus Appeal be and is hereby dismissed.

2. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal l[frue Copyll SD/- M. OSMAN ALI BAIG T REGISTRAR ASS ECTION OFFICER To

1. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - Cum - ll Additional District and Sessions Judge, at Adilabad.

2. Two CD Copies. GE W, \ \1 HIGH COURT DATED:01/0812025 ,4 ,. .. - -:-\ - ---:.4: -= - i i'tr -"-r<.-\- (,;-' \-., l.'o(: DECREE MACMA.No.1510 of 2O23 15 sEP 206 a (: {' * D€.SP,AT f.'J DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS I \ q ilt