The National lnsurance Company Lrmited v. 1. Arkuti Mohan

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petitron, the High Court may be pleased to grant STAY of all further proceedings including execution of the order and decree dt.15- O4-2O15 passed in M.V.O.P.No.168 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Vehicles Accidents claims Tribunal-cum-Vl Additional District Judge court, Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District pending disposal of the main MACMA. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2016(MACMAMP. NO: 2494 0F 20161 Between. 1, Arkuti l\/ohan, S/o Papaiah, aged about 54 years, Occ l-i I cer man. R1o #8-A. lncline Colony, Q No.T1-358, Godavarikhani. Ramagundam landal, Kalmnagar District.

2. Arkuti Sarojana, Wo Mohan, Aged about 49 years, Occ: I ousehold, R/o 8-A, lncline Colony, Q No.T'1-358, Godavarikhani. Ramagundam llandal, Karrmnagar District. .... Petrtioner/Re ;oondents No 1 & 2 AND 1 National lnsurance Company Limited, Rep. by its Bran( I lvlanager, DO-VIl, Janpath. New Delhi

2. Sriramoju Chandrasekhar, S/o Nagabhushanam, r yed about IVlajor, R/o H,No 3-98, Peddakaluva Village, Peddapally Il rndat, Karinrnagar District. (Respondent No 2 herein not necessary party) .... Responde I ;/Respondent No.3 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the cirr;r nrstances stated in the affidavit frled in support of the petition, the High Court 1ay be pleased to VACATE the stay order passed in MACMA.MP.No.1 r-14 of 2015 in MACIIA SR.N0.30814 of 2015 dt.29.09.2016 Counsel for the Appellant : SRl. A RAMAKRISHNA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents Nos.1 & 2 : SRl. VENKATESH I AR VARANASI Counsel for the Respondent No.3: - The Court made the following: JUDGMENT . IN THE HIGH COURT EOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT ITYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY M.A.C.M.A.No.206 of 2Ol9 DATE: 04.L2.2O25 Between: The National Insurance Compaly Lirnited, Rep. by its Branch Manager. Arkutr Mohan ,rnd twr) orhcl:j AND JUDGMENT: Appellant Rcspondents The appellant-insurance company pr-eferred this appeal, under Sectio[r 173 o[ the Motor Vehicles i\ct. I 9ti8 lhereinalier referrcd to as "the Act") challengir-rg the ordcr ancl dccrcc dated 15.04.2015 passed by the Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Trrbunal-cum-Vl Additional District Judge, Godavar-ikhani (hereinalter referred to as "the Tribunal") in O.P.No. 168 of 2012 whcreby the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- togcthcr $ith interest (a. 7.5oh per annurn in favour of the cLaimants i.e., respondent Nos. I and 2 herein, being the parents of the deceased-Late Arkuti Kumara Swamy, who died in a motor vehicle accident. 1

2. Thc briel lacts of Lhe czrse are that orr ( LO7 20 10, the dece.scrl. .gccl altout 25 ycars, along u,ith his fric.,l , (:rt raiah rrcnr to I']cddapalir orr IIr--ro llonda passion plus motorc-r. . , L car ing No Ap_ 15 A.l-7q.i7 and rvhile returnrng, an unknorvn . I ict<, allegc cllv dashcd apyrinsI the motorcyclc fro.r opposite directLr r . As :r resrL]r of tlre collisr,rr, thc dcceased ard his pirlion rider feI r rrvn, sustalrled injurics, and thc deceased died on rhe spot. A crimini c;rsc was also registcre(l as Crrme No.84 of 20 lO b_y the Basaltthnirrl: r l)olrce [or. ,he of'fe nccs :tccidcn r lirti{)lr to i}le r rn p l<:yecl ar a rrrrclcr Ser:tions 3O4-A an.l 337 IpC in r Sla tillg tltat thc dr:ceascd was unmarricrl . petrol bunk carnrng Rs_5,00Ol- per month and drrr o hrs sudden demise, rlrcv lost love and affection and also lr -. su|;;ort and contri[]uti()n ro tlre famlly. tllc claimants i.e.. th<, irrcnls ol the deceased frlcd thc aforesaid claim I)etilion under Scclr( r l(.l l-A of rhc Motor- Velrir:les Ac:r, 1988 b.-forc the Tribunal seekir.r 3 cornltcnsarion of Rs.a,00,OOO/-

3. lleforc thc lribunal, respondent No.I i.e,, owr. ( r cl tlrc vcl.ticle cntercd appcalr-ancc but did not chose to file counte llcspor)dcnt No.2-insurartcc company contested the claim on the 13r r Jnds that the deceased drovc the motor cycle in a drunken conditic r hr: did :rot possess a v.lid drivi'g liceace, and hence, insisted t LiLt the claim under Seclion l63A of thc Act was not maintiirr i5lc. as rhc .*.'-. 3 deceased was not a third-party but the owner/driver of the vehicle end praved to dismiss thn,.lairrr p,.r'ron.

4. llrc Trrbunal, after hearins rhc parties and perusing oral and documcntary evidence, arvzrrded compensation of Rs.4,OO,O00/- rvith intcrcst at 7.5'% pcr annum from the date of petition till the date o[ deposir in favour of the claimants r.e., respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein and joint and several liability u,as lastened on the owner and the insurer o[ the motor vehit:le. C]rallenging the sarnc, the appcllant- insuruncr: colnpany filed thc prcsent appeal.

5. f,earned Standing Counsci appearirlg [or the appellant- ursLlr arrcc company vehemently contended that the Tr-ibunal committcd a fundamental error in placing liability on the insurer; the claim urrder the Act, in particular invoking Section 163-A thercof, was not maintainable in the facts of the case, because the dcceased himsclf was owner of the vehicle and responsible for the accident; a pcrson driving the vehicle cannot be treated as a "third party' for the purposes of Section 163-A; and, in the present casc, there was also evidence that the deceased was driving under the influence of alcohol and wrthout a valid driving licence at the time of accident, u,hich constitute breach of policy'bo,sf,litions and disentitle the insurer from indemnifying for the accident. In support of his contentions, learned Standing Counsel placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble 4 Supremc Court in Oriental lrlsu"ance Co. Ltd.. u- ) ajni Deuir ;rnd Ningamma and, another us. llnited Ind.ia Insun nce Compang Limitedz and prarcd frtr sr.r,.irrq aside the irnpugne<i r ,":rrd plrsscri lr-y the 'l)rbunal

6. On thc othcr hand, lcar.ned counsel appearirrI f,lt-rcsponclcnt Nos. I ancl 2 claimants argucd that once a motor velt ( t: accidenl has occLrr red, resulting irr dcath of a Jrcrson, the statutor -\ Sectl()11 I ()3 A ol thc Act 1rro,.,iclcs for .,no-[ault" corn I victinl or legal hcirs, rcgardless of rvho rvas drrrrins schetlre u r l(i('r rlsa iolt 1o lll(j ,rnd thLls thc .lairnants are crtutlcd 1cl comllensation under Seclio I

163.A u,ith,ru t Lhc nccd to ]rrovc ricgligcrrr.c or Iault, as thc claLitl i not trase(l oll ncgligcnce but on thc statutory no-fault compensatiol ;r:hcme and as such, the impugned award passed by the Tribunal dc iury inlclierencc. Lcat-ne,cl counsel also placed t: judgmerrt of the IIon'ble Suprerr]e Court in tlnlted. In )s n()r: wat fiutt ialcc on tlrc lio. Insurance Cornpang Limited us. Sunil Kumdr and another3 t r.d Shiuaji us United Ind.ia Insura,nce Co. Ltd..a and prayed to disrr ss the pres(.nt appeal filrd by lhn appellanr 2OO9l 2 SCC 417 (2009) 13 SCC 710 2018 (2)ALD 36 (SC) 2018 (2)ALD 36 (SC) 5

7. The core issue that arose for determination in this appeal is whether an insurer can raise any dcfence based on negligence/ lault on the part ol ihe vic tim/ driver/ o$,ne r of thc velricle, in a proceeding urrder Section 163-A ol M.V.ACL2. The said issue is no longer res [ntegra, as the samc has been authoritativcly answered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suntl Kumals case (3 supra), wherein it was held that Section 163-4 was intended by Parliament to provide "final compensation within a limited time frame on the basls of strxctured formuLa", so as to avoid protracted litigation over fault; the provision contains a " non obstante c\ouse," making clcar that liability under Section 163 A anses irrespective of other laws or generai tort pnnciples, corLsequently, in a proceeding under Scction 163-r\ the insurer cannot raise any defence of negligence (wrongful act, negiect or default) on the part of the victim/driver/ orvner; and to permit such a defence would defeat the legislative intent behind Section 163 A. The said doctrine was reafhrmed by a subsequent Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sftiucji's case (4 supra), which made clear that allowing negligence based defence under Section 163 A would defeat the no fault, structured compensation scheme and the same is bindrng on this Court. The question of maintainabiliry and entitiement under Section 163-4 of the Act does not, therefore, depend on proof of negligence, fault, drunken driving or licence at the time of accident. Once vehicle involvement and death resulting 6 therefrom are established, the Tribunal is em1t,r rerecl to grant cornpensation uDder the strucLurcd formula.

8. in thc present case, thc Tribunal has corrcctir principle and hcld that negligencc or fault on the p thc said 'l)pli8d rrt of deceased (rider/ou,ner) rl,'as irrelevant for adjuclicatron undcr. S rction 163-A of thc Act, and the claim was entertaincd and quantific. on the basis of the stn-rclured forntula. Thus, the impugned awarl passed bv the Tribunal grantrng compensatron ol Rs-4,OO,O00/ rl favour o[ thc claimants -rc spondcn t Nos.1 and 2 herein is thus ir-r : ccorclance rr,ith law.

9. Rcsultantly. the prosenr appeal fails anci is ;rccordingly dismissed. No order as to cosLs. As a scquci, rhc misccllaneous petitions pend ir g, if any, stLail stand clos;ed- SD/- ItJ JAWAHAR REDDY ASSI iTANT REGISTRAR lrTRuE COPYI/ i SECTION OFFICER \,] ." ; *H"d1lb$,ifilffiifi*Htriflt'"1# i ffi ' r;;r' " 4 Two CD Copies GE/PSL Vr i t I HIGH COURT DATED:0411212025 ORDER MACMA.No.206 of 2019 .--::: --; ji:Sl''...*- : :., ,'\, r: Ct.'.i\ "ii:'1,' 0 : i'lAR ii.i{D ( DISMISSING OF THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS te""e IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD [ 32e6 ] THURSDAY.THE FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 206 OF 2019 Between: The National lnsurance Company Limited, Rep. by its Branch Manager, DO-VI. Janpath, New Delhi -1 10 001 . (lnsurance Policy Certificate No. 3507013'1096200745216 Valid from 26.08.2009 to 25.08.20'10) (Respondent No.2 in the wVOP) ..,APPELLANT AND

1. Arkuti liilohan, S/o Papaiah R/o B-A, lncline Colony. Q.No T1-358, Godavarikhani, Ramagundam Nilandal. Kanmnagar District.

2. Arkuti Sarojana, Wo l4ohan R/o B-A. lncltne Colony. Q.No T1-358, Godavarikhani, Ramagundam Mandal Karimnagar District.

3. Sriramoju Chandrasekhar, Sio Nagabhushanam, Owner of Hero Honda Passion Plus Motor Cycle No.AP- 15 -N-7957 , Rio H No.3-98, Peddakaluva Village, Peddapalli lvlandal, Karimnagar District ' (Respondent No.1 in the IVIVOP) ,..RESPONDENTS Appeal filed under Section 173 of M VAct, aggrieved by the order and decree dated 15.04.2015 passed in M.V.O.P.No.168 ol 2O12 on the file of the court of the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-VI Additional District Judge Court, Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusrng the grounds of appeal, the judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the case and upon hearing the argument of SRI A. RAMAKRISHNA REDDY, Advocate for the Appellants and SRl. VENKATESHWAR VARANASI Advocate appeared for Respondent No.1 & 2 and none appeared for Respondent N0.3. ,ry7 This Court doth Order and Oecree as follows:

1. That the Motor Accident Civil l\iliscellaneous Appe; I l)e and is hereby dismissed.

2. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. lllrue Copyll SD/- [,I JAWAHAR REODY ASSIS TANT REGISTRAR \ ;ECTION OFFICER To

1. The Motor Vehlcles Accidents Claims Trrbunal-Cum-Vl r lditional Distrrct ^ J udge 2. Two CD Copies. GE/PSL Y*- Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District.(with re ;crds if any) ^Co_urt, HIGH COURT OATED:04h2t2025 ORDER MACMA.No.206 of 2019 '1E S rA c ,r 7 c J 'L i il lB 207t z * t\. irlATC t DISMISSING OF THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS u d(€h j6*