The High Court · 2025

Rl/o.Bobbiligama Village, Sadasivpet [Vlandal, Medak District. Kallapally Vaisnavy, D/.o.Late.K.Srisailam, aged I 8 years, Kallapally Bhanu Prasad, S/.o.Late.K.Srisailam, aged 4 years, Minor, Rep.by its Resp.No.1. Kallapally Vittamma, Wo.K.Kistaiah, aged 52 years, Occ: Household, Rl/o.Bobbiligama Village, Sadasivpet Mandal, t\Iedak District. Kallapally Kistaiah, Sio.Balagonda, aged 58 years, Occ: Labour, Rl/o.Bobbiligama Village, Sadasivpet Mandal, Medak District. ... Respondents/Petitioners Patlolla Malleshwari, Wo.P.Anjanna, aged Major, Occ: Owner of Tractor No.AP-23-AD-8986, Rl/o.H.No.1-17, Busareddypally Village, IMunipally Mandal, tt/edak. Kappala [t/anikyam, Sio.Hanmaiah, aged 29 years, Occ: Driver of Tractor No.AP-23-AD-8986, R:/o.Pocharam village , P-ulkal Mandal, Medak District. (R-6 and 7 are not necessary) ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS ryY l.A. NO: 1 OF 2017(MACMAMP. NO: 3026 OF 20171 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 execution of decree and judgment passed in MVOP.No.54 of 2O14, dated 31 .01 .2017 on the file of the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal cum Principal District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy. Counsel for the Appellant: Sri Kota Subba Rao Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 5: Sri Palle Sriharinath Counsel for the Respondents No.6 & 7: - The Court made the following: ORDER -_l THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDII{ ONDA M.A.C.M.A. No.164l OF 2O17 JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the ordcr dated 31.01.2014 passed by the learned Motor Accidcnts Claims Tribunal-curh-principal District Judge, Meclak, at Sangarcddy, in M.V.O.p.No.54 of 2014, the 2"d respondent therein / Insurance Company preferred the present Appeal seeking to allou/ (hc Appcal by setting aside the order of the Tribunal.

2. For the sakc ol convcnicncc, thc parties hereinaftcr be referred as Lhey u,erc arrayed bciorc the Trial Court.

3. Thc bricf far:Ls of Lhc casc arc that lhe claimants have filed claim petition undcr Section 166 ot the Motor Vehicles Act, 19BB claiming compcnsarion of Rs.6,00,000/- from respondent Nos.1 to 3, for Lhc dcatlt ol-cir.ccasr:cl u,ho dtr:d in a motor vehicle accident that occurrcd on l9.Oll.20 I2 clue to thc rash and negligent driving of the driver of thc 'I'ractor bearing No.Ap-23-AD-8986. It is sLated that on 19.03.2012, at lO.OO I).M., ,a,hcn the deceased was rcturning lrom lir:ld by trai,clling in crimc vchicle, the driver ol the Tractor drovc thc vehiclc in a rash and negligent manner, due to which, it turned turtle, deceased fcll dou,n, sustained injuries and died on the spot. A casc was regislcred against the driver of the crime vchiclc. \ \ 2

4. According to thc claimants, thc dcccascd u'as agcd about 35 years and r,,,as earning l?s. 10,000/ - pcr month as agriculture laboure r at thc time ol a<;cidcn t. 1'hc pctilioners solely depended on the incomc of thc deceased and dttt: to suddcn demise, the lamily suffered financially and also lost. love and affection Therefore, the claimants filed claim peliLior-r sceking compensation of Rs.6,0O,O00/-. Before lhc Tribr-rnal, respondcrtt No. 1 , (hc ou'trcr of the crime

5. vehiclc and rcsponclcnt No.3, rhc drivcr ol thc crimc l'ehicle remained ex-parte. l?t:sponderlt No.2 Itlsuranc<: Oornpany filed counter afhclavit denying Lhc mannrlr oI acr:itlt:n[, dcath, age, avocation and income of the deceasetl and contcndcd Lhat the accident occurred only due to lhe rash and negligenI driving of the driver of the crime vehicle and lhe driver \vas not. having valid and subsisting driving liccnse at thc timt: ol accitlcr-rt, u'hich is in violation of thc conditions stipulatcd irr thc insurance polir:y'

6. Based ou the pleadings of both sides, thc leerrncd Tribunal has lramed thc lollou'ing issucs: i) Whether the death of the dececLsed occured in' the motor accident due to rash and negligent diuing of the driuer of the cime uehicle? ii) Wlrcther the petitioners are entitLecl Jbr compenso'tion as prayed for, if so, al LDhat Qmount. and ft'ont uhom'? iii) To uhat relieJ? ^) 3

7. During thc course oi triai, pWs I to 3 were examined and go[ marked Exs.A 1 to A6. On bchalf of re spondents, RWs 1 and 2 were examined and gol. marked Dxs.B1, 82 and X1 and X2. The learned Tribunal, after considering the rival contentions, allowed the claim petition by awarding Rs.6,00,000/- with an interest @7.5o/o per annum. Aggricvcd by compr:nsaLion amount granted by the Tribunal, thc Insurancc Company has prclerrcd the present appeal seeking to scL asidc thc Au.:rrd artd l)ccrcc datcd 3 l.O j,.2OlT.

8. The main contcnlion of Lhc learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company is that the appellant has no tiability to pay any compensation for the reason that the deceased was travelling in the crime vehicle as unauthorized passenger, sitting on side of driver seat and Lhere is no covcrage unc1er the Insurance policy covering thc risk ol Lhc dccr:ascd ancj con[cnded thal therc is no dispute regarding tllc naturo ol thc accidcnt ancl involvement o[ the tractor and that the deccascd was a labourer and travelling in the said tractor. It" is also nol in disputc that rhe material in the said vehicle was unloaded and thc dcceased was travelling in the said vehicle after unloading and returning to his house. The only contention of thc appcllant is that the deccased was travelling in the empty vehiclc altcr unk>ading thc material, as such, the policy is not applicablc to thc dcccascd and the Insurancc Company is not liable to pay any compensation. \ \ 4

9. Heard Sri Kota Subba Rao, learned counsel for the appellant None appeared for the respondents

10. The point which anrse bclorc tl-ris Court is that i) Wleth.er the Awarcl and decree passecl.bg Lea.mecl I'ibunal is liable to be set oside and the ctppetkmt- Insurance Company can be exorterott:r.1 .f rorn its liability? 1 1. It is pertinent to menlion that the respondents have not preferred any appeal or cross objcctions sccking cnhancement o[ [he compensation awarded by the 'l'riburrt:rl As sutcl'r, Ltrcrc is no dispule regarding the compcnsatiou au'ardcd by tl-rc lcarned Tribunal and there is also no dispute with rr:garcl to lhc manner of thc accidenl, rclalionship oI thc dcccasccl.

72. As secn from the re<:ord, adrnitteclh', iu thc insLant case, thc deceased was travelling as a gratuitous passengcr, r''"ho is an agricultural labourer after ur-rloading lhe matcrial, as per the appeltant, which is in violatiou of Lhc conditiorls stipulatcd in thc lnsurance Policy. The only qucslion u'hich arosc for cr-rnsidcration in the present appeal is with regard to u'hr:1hcr the learned Tribunai has rightly dirccled Lhe Insurance Oompany to pay the compensation amount trnd rccovcr thc samc from olhr:r' 5

13. Before proceeding further, it is relevanL to place reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manuara Khatun and others v. Rajesh Kumar Singh and othersl, wherein it was observed as u nclcr: -Nc]tlon6;[ "(14) 'fhe onlg queslion, rulr/clr onses for e:onstderation in these appeals, is whelher tLLe eppellcrtts are entlled lor ctt or<Ler qgainst the Insurer of the o.ffetrding uehicLe, i.e., (respotl(lent No. 3) to paA the aluarde(i sum to the oppellonts qrtd lhen Io recouer ttrc said o,rouni 1ro^ the insured (owner of the olfendinq uehicte'fata Sunlo) respondent No.l in the same proceedings. (15) The c.tfuresaid quesliotl, ln our opirion, remqins no more res integra. As we notice, it ttas subJect \tetLer of seueral decistons of this Couft rendered bg three Judge Bench ctnd two Judge Bench ttl past, uiz., National Insurqnce Co. Ltd.us. tsaljit Kaur & Ors,, (2OC)4) 2 SCC 1, lnsurance Co. Ltd. us. Challa Upendra Rao & Ors., (2004) S SCC 512, Ncttional Insurance Co. I.td. us. KaushaLoya Deui & Ors., (2OOB) g SCC 246, Nationctl Insurance Co. Ltcl. us. Rosttorr Lal, lOrcler ttatecl l9.t.2OO7 in SLp (c) No. 5699 of 20061, atrcl Nottottol lnsut(utc( Co t,l(7. t1s. paruathne.ni & Anr., (20o9) I SCC 7,3s. (16) 'fhis questnn atso [eLl for cctnsideratton recentlA in Manager, Nattonal Insurarrce (:ompanu l,tnuted. us. Su.ju t,. pauL & Anr., (su-pra) tuherein this Courl took note of preuious ca,se law on the suijecit "-ntire mentioned aboue and exarnined tlrc qLtestio\ irl the conlext oJ Sectton l4i of the AcL While allotuirtq the eppeal filect by the tnsuranie. Companll b17 reuersing the judllmenl of tlt" lttqh Cot1r1, it tues hel(l on facts tho:t stnce the uictim was trauellinq in offetrciincl uehicle es gratuitois passenger" and hence, the htsurance ConLpatut t'antrot be helcl liabLe to sufJer th; Uqbilitu aising out oJ'accidett on lhe strengtlt of ttrc: insurance poltcg. Howeuer, this Court keeptng in uieu the beneuolent object oj the Ait ctnd other reteuant factors aisitg in the case, issue.d the direcltons agoi.nst the Insura ruce Compang to poA the qwarded sum to the cLo'imc.nts ,id thun to recouer the said sum frotlt t.he oLsured tn tlLe s(tme proceedings bg applying the pincipte of "pag and recouer". 17. The. fctc:ts of the case oL ltcLnLl are somewhat tdentical to the Iacts of the cese nerLtioned supra begelt<e here, also LUe lind that the deceqsed were louttd trauellitq .ts !/retuitous possengers' in the offencling uehicle cutd tt utas for Lhts rectson, lhe utsurqice componles were exonerated. l, Soju I'. Paul's case (supra) atso haung h.eld that the uictint was "g^ratuttous passenger", this Couft. is.sued directions against the Insurer of the olfendtng uehicle b rtrst satsfg tLte atuqrcled arri then to recouer the same front Lhe htsurecl itt the sarrc: proceerlitgs. "rn,

18......._.... 19.....,...... 20....,....... 21. [n uiew of the foreqoig dlscu.ssion, we are of the uieu th6:t the dlrection to United llldia lnsrance Contpang (respon(ietLt No. 3) _ theg being the.insurer of the offending uehicle which utas found. inuolued in iaustni acctdent dtLe to negltgence of iLs diuer need.s to be issued. directing thei ' AIn 20 tu scc l2o4 6 llJnited Indict Insurance Con4tanll resp{)ttdctLl No 3) to lirsl trtrL1| tlte awarded sum to the appetlonts (clainc.nts) atul lherr to recouer tlte partl otuarded sum from the otuner of the oJfendtLg uehicle (l'ato Surrto)-re-sltonderLt No.1 in execution proceedings aising rtt this uerlJ aase os per the lLtuJ laid down in Para 26 of Saju )'. Paul's cclse quoted supra " l+. With regard to exoneration of itlsurancc company liom ils liabilitl lo pay lhe compe nsatiun amollnl. it is icl, rrnl lo rnenlion that the Motor Vehiclcs Act is bencficial lcgisiation aimed at providing relicf to the vicLin-rs :rr-rd th<:ir f:rmilics ln National Insurance Company Limited v. Swarafl Singh and others2, the Hon'ble 1\pcx Court hcld as urndcr: " 107. We L(L!1, lrcweuer, Itaslett lo add tllQl lhe l'nbutlal and lhe coutl must. l'routeuer, exercise their luris<lLclrc;rt lo isslle -srlch o direction upon considerattott o[ the facts attd c[rcuttlstctttces oJ ecLclt" cQSe QtLd ift the euent such a directioru has been issued, despite ariuutg ctt a finrling of fact to the elfect that tlrc insurer hos been able to estabLisll that tlrc insured h(ls commrtted a breach of contract of insurance as enuisaged under sub clause (ii) oJ' clause (a) of sub section (2) of Sectiolt 119 of l.l1e Act, the insurance, contpany shall be etltitLed to realise the ouQrded attount from the outner or driuer of the uehicle, as lhe cQse may be, in execution of lhe same atactrd hauing reglard to the Prouisiotts oJf' Sectio,rs I 65 nrtcl 168 of lhe Act. lloueuer, ir LlLe eueti, huttu Lg rcgcrrd to the lt ulad sc<tpe of inquiry h the proceedinqs belore tle 'l'iltLttt<rL Ll l,Qd ttot bectt oltl<: Lo da so, the rnsuronce contpanlj nlQy iniu( e Q sepQrQle octiott tlrcre.for Qg(itlst the ou)rler or the driuer oI the uehicle or both, cts the cuse ntay be. 'l'lose excepttonel ccses rndy arise rulrcrL the eutdence becortt<:s auoilable to or cornes [o the notice of the insurer at a subsecluetll sta!]e or Jor otLe reason or tlle otlrcr, the insurer LLas nol giuetl otl opPoftunitU lo clefertd at aLl. Such a coLtrse o.[ ,d.ctiotl may rtlso I;e rcsotled lo Lultctl o fraud or collusion bt;ttueen the uictittt and tlte otLtter oJ tlu telicle is (lelected or cotnes to the knoluledge oJ the insurer at G Later stage.

108. Atthough, as noticed hereitbefore, therc Qre cerTain special Ieaue petitions utherein the persons ltauing the uehicles at the lune tahen the aicidents took place did not hold any Licence at ctlL, irt the facts and circumstoftces of the case, LDe do r.ot intend to set o.side tlte' said autards' Such anuards mag atso be satisfied bg the petitiotrcrs hereit subject to their righl to recouer the sante from the oLoners o.[ tLrc uehicles in the ma nner laid dotun thereit."

15. ln the light of the facts and circumstallccs ol Lhc case and afore said settled legal position and as held by thc l lon'blc Supreme , 12004)3 S(:C 297 7 Court in Manuara Khatun and Swaran Singh cases (supraf , this Court is of Lhc considcrcd opinion that the Tribunal had rightly awarded thc compcnsation zrnd dircclcd the Insurance Company to first satisfy the ar.r'ard and l:rter recover thc same from the driver and owncr of the crime vehiclc i.e., rcspondent Nos. 1 and 3 and thereby, thc Au'ard and Decrcc dated 3l .O1.2014 passed in M.V.O.P.No.54 of 2Ol4 by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum Principal District Jtrdge, Mr:dak, at Sangareddy, impugncd ordcr passcd by thc lcarncd Tribunal needs no interfercncc of t.his c.r-rrL. 'r'trr-rs, rlrc. appcar is devoid of merits and the samc is liablc to be dismisscd.

16. As a rcsulL, thc Appcat is dismisscd. There shall no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if an}., shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// Sd/- MOHD. ISMAIL EPUTY REGISTRAR ECTION OFF]CER To, Medak at Sangareddy. 1' The Motor vehicre Accidents craims Tribunar-cum-principar Diskict Judge, 2. One CC to Sri Kota Subba Rao, Advocate tOpUCl 3. One CC to Sri palte Sriharinatfr, nAvocate lbeJCJ' 4. Two CD Copies GE/kam M HIGH COURT DATED:2010012025 15 5EP 206 * oc s,)^Trl! ,/ JUDGMENT+DECREE MACMA.N o.1641 of 2017 DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS A,u q I \ IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD I3443I 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: 1641 OF 2017 Between: THE ROYAL SUNDARAN/ ALLIANCE lNS. CO. LTD., Through its Manager, A Block, 5th floor, Jeruvel Pawan Twers, Raj Bhavan Road, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. ...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT No.2 AND

1. K LAXMI, W/o Late.K.Srisailam, aged 37 years, Occ: Household, Rl/o.Bobbiligama Village, Sadasivpet Mandal, Medak District.

2. Kallapally Vaisnavy, D/.o.Late.K.Srisailam, aged 18 years, 3. Kallapally Bhanu Prasad, S/.o.Late.K.Srisailam, aged 4 years, Minor, Rep.by its Resp.No.1.

4. Kallapally Vittamma, Wo.K.Kistaiah, aged 52 years, Occ: Household, Ri./o.Bobbiligama Village, Sadasivpet Mandal, Medak District.

5. Kallapally Kistaiah, S/o.Balagonda, aged 58 years, Occ: Labour, R/o.Bobbiligama Village, Sadasivpet Mandal, [\/edak District. ... Respondents/Petitioners 6. Patlolla Malleshwari, Wo.P.Anjanna, aged Major, Occ: Owner of Tractor No.AP-23-AD-8986, Rt/o.H.No.1-17, Busareddypally Village, tvlunipally Mandal, Medak.

7. Kappala lvlanikyam, S/o.Hanmaiah, aged 29 years, Occ: Driver of Tractor No.AP-23-AD-8986, Rl/o.Pocharam village , P-ulkal Mandal, Medak District. (R-6 and 7 are not necessary) ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS Appeal filed under Section 1 73 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 against the Judgment and Decree passed in M.V.O.P.No.54 of 2014, dated 31-01-2017 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 Kota Subba Rao, Advocate for the Appellant and -.-=-- Sri Palle Sriharinath, Advocate appeared for the Respondent No.1 to 5 and none appeared for Respondent No.6 and 7. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: 1. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous be and is hereby dismissed;

2. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. //TRUE COPY// Sd/- MOHD. ISMAIL REGISTRAR ON OFFICER To,

1. The lt/otor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy.

2. fwo CD Copies GE/kam M, .:,.,,.} 15 SE P 2U ! c.' * D * '.r€-o HIGH COURT DATED:201OG12025 DEGREE MACMA.No.1641 ot 2017 DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS 1 \ q