The High Court · 2025

Petition under section i s1 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to vacate the lnterim stay orders granted in MACMAMp No. s2s2 of 2013 in MACMA SR No. 38164 of 2013 dated 10t10t2013. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2014(MACM AMP. NO: 1709 0F 2014) Petition under Section i 51 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to grant four [4] more weeks time from today for depositing harf of the decreetar amount in oP No.'r071r201o on the fire of the chairman, Motor Accidents craims Tribunal-V Addl. District Judge [FTC] Khammam, by extending the time granted earlier in TMACMA Mp No.S2S2t2013 in MACMA NO.2845/2013, d'.10.10.2013 and pass l.A. NO: 2 OF 2013(MACMA MP. NO:5252 oF 2013) Petition under section i 51 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to STAY the operation of the order and decree dated 22.03.2013 made in MAToP.No.1071r201o on the fire of the chairman, MACT V Additionar district Judge (FTC), Khammam at Kothagudema. Counsel for the Appellants :SRl. N MOHAN KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: KADARU PRABHAKAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.4: - The Court made the following: JUDGMENT a THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA M.A.C.M. A.No.2 845 0F 2013 JUDGMENT: Aggrie'red by the Award and Decree dated 22'03'2013 passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - V Additional District Judge (FTC) Khammam at Kothagudenr, in M.A.T O.P'No'107 1 of 201O the respondent No.2/ Insurance Company in the said O'P preferred the present Appeal to set-aside the Au'ard of the learned Tribunal.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter be referrecl as they were arrayed before the learned Tribunal.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petittoners have filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs'5'00'000/- against the respondents on account of the death of V.Venkateshwarlu (hereinafter referred as 'the deceased') in a road traffic accident that occurred on 28'O5'2O0B The petitioner Nos.1 and 2 ate tlie wife and son of the deceased and petitioner Nos.3 and 4 are the parents of the deceased' 2 N8K,J MACMA. No.2845 ol 2O7j

4. It is stated by the petitioners that on 2g.05.200g the deceased and others after completion of cutting of mangoes at Thimmaraopeta village were returning boarded an Auto bearing registration No.Ap 20 X SggB (hereinafter will be referred as trime vehicle,) and when they reached outskirts of Burada Raghavapuram Village at about g.3O pM, the driver of the said auto drove the same in a rash and negligent manner in a zigzag manner, as a result, deceased fell down from the auto and sustained severe injuries ald succumbed to injuries.

5. A case in Crime No.SS of 200g of Enkoor police Station, was registered under Sections 337 and 304_,{ of IPC and filed charge sheet against the driver of Auto bearing No.AP 2O X 5898.

6. It is submitted that deceased was working as coolie and earning an amount of Rs.20O/- per day and due to the sudden demise of the deceased, the petitioners lost love and affection and financial support. Therefore, respondent Nos.l and 2 being the owner and the insurer of the crime vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. I I ., 3 NBK,) M.lcMANo 2845ol2413 7 . Respondent No. 1 i. e ' , owner of the Auto bearing No.AP 2O 7, SB}B remained ex-parte before the learned Tribunal Responclent No.2, who is the insurer of the crime

8. vehicle, filed its counter denying the averments made in the claim petition including, age, avocation, income and occupation of the deceased and further contended that the Auto was orrer loaded with passengers, as such, due to the negligence of the deceased, the accident had occurred' Therefore, respondent No.2 is not liable to pay compensatiott and therefore prayed to dismiss the claim against them. g . Based on the pleadings made by both the parties' the iearned Tribunal framed the fotlowing issues for conducting trial: I 2 Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driuing of the dnuer Auto beaing No.AP 20 X 5898 in causing the death of the deceased V -Venkateshtu arlu? l\hether the claimants are entitled for ang compensation? If so, to tuhat amount and -from uthich of the resPon'dents? i i l I I t I I I I l 4 NBK,] MACMA-N1.2E45 ol 2013

3. To uthat relief.>

10. Before the learned Tribunal, on behalf of the petitioners, PWs.l & 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A3 were marked. On behalf of Respondent/lnsurance Company, RW. I was examined and got marked Exs.Bl to 86.

11. After considering the oral and documentary evidence on behalf of both the sides, the learned Tribunal partly_ allowed the ciaim petition by awarding compensation of Rs.4,52,0OO/- along with interest @)T.S% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realizatior. payable by both the respondent Nos. I & 2. Aggrieved by the said finding, the present Appeal is filed by the Insurance Company/respondent No. 2.

12. Heard arguments submitted by Sri Mohan Krishna, learned Standing Counsel for appellant/ Insurance Company as well as Sri Kadari prabhakar, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 7 to 4 /clatmants. perused the record. 1 3. There is no dispute with regard to the relationship between the petitioners arrd the deceased. There is also no r*E*[€Fg7 :1- .t ' ,/ - (': 5 NBK,I M,\CMA.No.2845 ol 2013 dispute with regard to subsistence of the insurance policy as on the date of the accident. Even ttrere is no dispute urith regard to the manner of the accident, as the learned Tribunal by considering the ora-l evidence of PW2 (eyewitness) and documentary evidence under Exs'A1 to A3 i.e., FIR, charge sheet and postmortem examination report, ansu,ered issue No.l holding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle ' Further, lhe petitioners have not filed any appeal seeking enhancement of comPensation.

14. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/ h-isurance Company is that the auto driver was not holding effective and vaiid driving license ' In this regard, the rr:spondent No.2 got examined its employee as RW.1 and got marked Exs.B1 to 86. Ex'B1 is the insurance policy pertaining to the crime vehicle, Ex'B2 is the copy of legal notice issued to the respondent No'1, Exs.B3 and 84 are the postal receipts and trxs 85 ar-id 86 are unserved covers addressed to respondent No.l at two dilferent addresses. 6 NBK,J MACMA Na.2A45oJ 2O1j

15. It is pertinent to state that learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has relied upon the charge sheet under Ex.A2 which discloses that the case has been registered under Section 181 of Motor Vehicle Act. Further, it is pertinent to state that except arguing that case has been registered under Section 18 I of Motor Vehicle Act, the respondent No.2 has not adduced any other evidence to prove that the driver of the crime vehicie was not holding effective or valid driving license. Further, the documents produced by respondent are only office copies of notice marked under Ex.B2, postal receipts marked under Exs.83 and 84, unserved covers addressed to respondent No.1 at two different addresses marked under Exs.BS and 86. All the Exs.B2 to 86 are during pendency of the proceedings of the case. The endorsement on the returned covers shows Ex.BS was returned due to wrong address ald Ex.B6 was returned with an endorsement addressee was not available- Therefore, it cannot be assumed that driver of the crime vehicle was not having effective driving license as on the date of the accident. Further, the Insurance Company has not examined RTA official to prove their contention that the 7 driver was not having valid and effective driving license at I 7 NBK.I MACMA.No 2845 af 2013 the relevant time of accident. Under these circumstances, the contention of learned counsel for appellant/Insurance Compaly that driver was not having effective or valid license which is violation of terms and conditions of insuralce policy, is unsustainable.

16. Therelbre, viewed from any algle, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Appeal is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. 17 . In the result, the Appeal is dismissed without costs Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand ciosed /ITRUE COPY/' i3!'$'"^i'Y*eiJffiR I a SECTION OFFICER """ To, ; Hlriet}s'trhN\Htr'ffi'il#;ll:il: GE u) , -.- t -3-*v- -y. .-r. i.: -it*liia€r* -.-, .- e! E-.aa , :r: a', HIGH COURT DATED:01 /0712025 -',,rT;=s...' :.- \/ L?-!{ r_ ^\r, - il''- .:':,. ,'.,'-, (.- . \,. ..).,\ :," ii 2U5 1/ '.; 1i\i:r.. lr-'T 1,) JUDGMENT MACMA.No.2845 of 2013 '- :: '-'r:,'i: -. " --r.i !r .1, '.':; DISMISSING THE MACMAWITHOUT COSTS IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD [ 32531 TUESDAY ,THE FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESEN\ THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICEVA6ESH BHEEMPAKA MOTOR ACC IDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 2845 OF 2013 Between: Reliance General rnsurance company, Rep by its Branch Manager, wyra Road, Khammam Town and Khammam District vide its cover note No.20070 110s704, Valid from 17.10.2007 to 16.10.2008. AND ...APPELLANT/R-2

1. Vattam swaroopa, wio Late Venkateswarru , Age : 22 years, occ: Househord, R/o. Ramachandrapuram vilage of Jururpad Mandar of Khammam District.

2. Vattam Sairam, S/o Late Venkateswarlu, Aged 3 years (minor), R/o Ramachandrapuram village of Julurpad Mandal of Khammam District. (R-2 being minor rep. by his mother and Naturar guardian R-1 Vattam Swaroopa)

3. vattam shanthamma, wo Ramanadham, Aged about 47 years, occ: Househord, R/o. Vankanumber vilrage of chandrugonda Mandar, of Khammam District.

4. Vattam Ramandham, S/o Veera Swamy, Aged about 52 years, R/o Vankanumber Village of Chandrugonda Mandal, of Khammam District (Case against R4 is abated on 14_11_2012)

5. B Ravi, S/o Sakram, Age: Major, Occ: Owner of piaggio Auto bearing No.Ap.2O X 5898, R/o. Balinin Thanda Village and post, Mulagudem, Khammam Rural Mandal of Khammam District. ...RESPONDENTS/PET|TIONERS No.1 to 4 & Rl .::i;asr:. Appeal filed under Section '173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1 988, aggrieved by the decree and Judgment d1.22.03.2013, passed in MAT.OP.No.'1071 ol 2010, on the file of the Chairman, lt/otor Accidents Claims Tribunal V Addl. District Judge (FTC), Khammam, at Kothagudem. 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 SRl. N MOHAN KRISHNA, Advocate for the Appellants and SRl. N MOHAN KRISHNA appeared for the Respondent No.1 to 3 and none appeared for Respondent No.4 & 5. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneus Appeal is hereby dismissed without costs.

2. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal SD/- M.OSMAN ALI BAIG ASSISTANT REGISTRAR llrue Copyll 6- To

1. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal V Addl District Judge SECTION OFFICER (FTC), Khammam, at Kothagudem.

2. Two CD Copies. GE/PSL \)/V HIGH COURT DATED:01/0712025 DECREE MACMA.No.2845 of 2013 DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS \".. .$