Telangana High Court
The National Insurance Company ... vs Mohammad Fayaz on 13 June, 2025
1
HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA
M.A.C.M.A.NO.631 OF 2021
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company, aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 04.02.2020 in M.V.O.P.No.393 of 2016 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- XXVII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad (for short "the Tribunal").
2. For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. The case of the claim petitioner before the Tribunal was that on 06.04.2016 at about 11:30 p.m., petitioner was proceeding on motor bike bearing No.TS-05-EC-3540 as a pillion rider along with his friend from Panjagutta towards Lakdikapool and when they reached Khairatabad 'X' road, suddenly one Car bearing No.AP-09- CE-4649 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came at a high speed, dashed to the petitioners vehicle and as a result, the petitioner fell down and received fracture injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Omni Hospital, Kukatpally and later on he was shifted to NIMS Hospital and was discharged on 20.04.2016 and he was re-admitted on 30.04.2016. Thus he incurred a sum of ETD,J MACMA No.631_2021 2 Rs.80,000/- towards medical expenses. He sought a compensation of Rs.2,50,000/-.
4. The Respondent No.1 and 2 remained ex-parte.
5. The respondent No.3 filed counter denying the averments of the petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident, the age, avocation and income of the petitioner. It is further contended that the driver of the crime vehicle did not possess valid driving license as on the date of the accident and thus, their company is not liable to pay any compensation.
6. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues for trial:
1) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by R1?
2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation. If so, from whom to what extent?
3) To what relief?
7. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PW1 to PW3 and got marked Ex.A1 to A10. On behalf of the respondents, RW1 was examined and Ex.B1 was marked.
8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.6,10,577 with interest @ 7.5% per annum. Aggrieved by the said award, the present appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company.
ETD,J MACMA No.631_2021 3
9. Heard the submissions of Sri Nandhan Sharma, learned counsel representing on behalf of Sri G. Raj Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Akkam Eshwar, learned counsel for the respondents.
10. Learned counsel for appellant has submitted that the order of the Tribunal is contrary to law and that the Tribunal has granted excessive amounts without any basis. He further argued that the driver of the car was a minor and faced proceedings before the Juvenile Court and that the said fact was not considered by the Tribunal. Since the minor did not hold valid driving license, the Insurance Company ought to have been exonerated from its liability. He further argued that the Tribunal has granted huge amounts under various heads which is not proper. He therefore, prayed to exonerate the Insurance Company from the liability of paying compensation.
11. The learned respondent counsel on the other hand has submitted that the Insurance Company has not adduced any evidence to prove that the driver did not possess valid driving license as on the date of accident. In the absence of the same, the Tribunal has rightly granted the compensation and fixed the liability on Insurance Company. He therefore prayed to uphold the order and decreed passed by the Tribunal.
ETD,J MACMA No.631_2021 4
12. Based on the above rival submissions, this Court frames the following points for determination:
1. Whether the compensation and the rate of interest on it granted by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?
2. Whether the driver of the crime vehicle did not possess a valid driving license as on the date of the accident. If so, whether the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation?
3. Whether the order and decree of the trial Court need any interference?
4. To what relief?
13. Point No.1:-
a) The petitioner stated to have sustained grievous injuries in the accident and he got examined PW2 and PW3 in support of his contention. PW2/Dr. P. Prakash who is the Professor in the Department of Plastic Surgery in NIMS Hospital, Punjagutta has deposed with regard to the injuries sustained by the petitioner and the nature of treatment given by their hospital.
b) PW3/P. Raju Kumar who is the Billing Manager in NIMS Hospital deposed that the petitioner was admitted twice in their hospital and for the two spells, the Hospital has charged Rs.50,350/- on the first occasion and Rs.38,630/- on the second occasion for the treatment of his injuries. He further deposed that towards Pharmacy Bills and Investigation Charges another amount of Rs.34,597/- was paid by the petitioner. Thus in all Rs.1,23,597/- was paid by the petitioner. In his cross ETD,J MACMA No.631_2021 5 examination, he admitted that the petitioner was treated during the first instance in Plastic Surgery Department and in the second instance in Orthopedic Department. There is nothing on record to discredit his evidence. From the evidence of PW1 and 2 and the Discharge Summary filed under Ex.A4, the injuries sustained by the petitioner, the treatment underwent by him and the medical bills paid by him under Ex.A7 are elicited. Ex.A3 is the MLC issued by NIMS Hospital showing that the petitioner sustained laceration over chin and over right upper limb which are grievous in nature.
Thus, the Tribunal by taking into consideration the entire evidence on record has granted Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering which is reasonable.
c) It is elicited during the evidence of PW2 that the petitioner sustained injuries such as 1) In face right per orbital edema present. 2) Right black eye (vision and EOM normal). 3) Tenderness present in infra-orbital reason right side. 4) Swelling over left preauricular region. 5) Mouth opening restricted for two fingers. 6) Anterior open bite present 7) Loss of teeth upper in incisor. 8) Horizontal Laceration below the Lower lip measuring 3 x 0.5 cm Contamination. 8) Horizontal superficial laceration present over the chin. The patient also having fractures in 11. Proximal third and middle third junction both bones fore-arm. 12. Right lower limb Grazed abrasion over anterior aspect of right left and knee.
ETD,J MACMA No.631_2021 6 Considering the said injuries, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony. The tribunal has also awarded Rs.30,000/- per each injury that amounts to Rs.3,33,000/-. The Tribunal has also awarded the amount paid under medical bills to an extent of Rs.1,25,577/-. Since the petitioner underwent treatment for two spells, an amount of Rs.10,000/- is granted towards transportation charges and Rs.10,000/- is granted towards extra-nourishment and Rs.2,000/- towards damage of clothes. A total amount of Rs.6,10,577/- is awarded by the Tribunal which is opined to be just and reasonable and therefore the same is upheld. However, the appellant counsel has prayed to reduce the rate of interest from 7.5% to 6%. But in all the cases, this Court is consistently awarding interest @ 7.5%. Hence, in the present case also the interest i.e., awarded by the Tribunal @ 7.5% is upheld. Therefore, it is held that an amount of Rs.6,10,577/- with interest @ 7.5% awarded by the Tribunal is held to be just and reasonable.
Point No.1 is answered accordingly.
14. POINT NO.2 :-
a) The contention of the Insurance Company is that the driver of the crime vehicle was a minor and was not possessing valid driving license as on the date of accident. A perusal of Ex.A1/FIR and charge sheet/Ex.A2 reveals that the accused is a Juvenile, ETD,J MACMA No.631_2021 7 aged about 17 years who was driving the Car bearing No.AP-09-
CE-4649, while the injured petitioner was going along with another person on Pulsor Bike bearing No.TS-05-EC-3540 from Film Nagar to Panjagutta, when they reached Khairatabad X road, the accused who was driving the Innova Car bearing No.AP-09-CE- 4649 came from Necklace Road in a rash and negligent manner, dashed to the vehicle of the petitioner, due to which the accident has occurred resulting in injuries to the petitioner and the accused was charge sheeted under Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act apart from the IPC offences. Thus, it is elicited that the driver of the car was aged only 17 years and as per the Motor Vehicles Act, one has to be a major i.e., one who has crossed 18 years can apply for a Driving License and a person holding a valid driving license only has to drive the motor vehicle.
b) Section 3 and Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act are extracted hereunder for the sake of reference:-
Section 3:- Necessity for driving licence. - (1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective driving licence issued to him authorising him to drive the vehicle; and no person shall so drive a transport vehicle [other than a motorcab or motor cycle] hired for his own use or rented under any scheme made under sub-section (2) of section 75 unless his driving licence specifically entitles him so to do. (2) The conditions subject to which sub-section (1) shall not apply to a person receiving instructions in driving a motor vehicle shall be such as may be prescribed by the Central Government.
ETD,J MACMA No.631_2021 8 Section 181:- Driving vehicles in contravention of section 3 or section 4. - Whoever drives a motor vehicle in contravention of section 3 or section 4 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine [of five thousand rupees], or with both.
c) Thus, the driver of the crime vehicle has violated Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act and it is also the wrong committed by the owner of the car who is respondent No.2 to hand over the vehicle to a minor for driving the same.
d) The contention of the Insurance Company is that since the driver of the crime vehicle did not possess a valid driving and there is a violation of provisions of M.V Act, their company is not liable to pay any compensation.
e) In the decision of the Apex Court in United India Insurance Company Limited vs. S. Iyyapan 1, it was held that even though the insurer has taken the defense that there is a breach of conditions of the policy excluding the Insurance Company from the liability that the driver is not duly licensed in driving the crime vehicle which met with the accident, third party has a statutory right to recover compensation from the insurer and it was for the insurer to proceed against the insured for recovery of 1 (2013 (7) SCC 62) ETD,J MACMA No.631_2021 9 the amount paid to the third party, in case, there was any breach of conditions of the insurance policy.
f) The Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh & Telangana in Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Acchigari Prasad and Others 2, held that even though the driver of the offending vehicle was not possessing any licence or valid licence, when the insurance policy was in force at the time of the accident, the Insurance Company can be directed to satisfy the award in the first instance, by paying the award amount to the claimants and then recover the same from the owner of the vehicle.
g) In the latest judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court dated 1.7.2019, rendered in Parminder Singh vs. New India Assurance Company Limited & Others 3, it is held that if no driving license is possessed by the driver of the offending vehicle, the principle of `pay and recovery' can be ordered to direct the Insurance Company to pay the compensation to the victim and then recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle.
h) In the light of the above cited decisions, it is held that the respondent No.3/Insurance Company is directed to pay the compensation amount at the first instance to the 2 2015 (3) ALT 238 3 (2019) 7 SCC 217 ETD,J MACMA No.631_2021 10 claimants/petitioners and later, recover the same from the insured/respondent No.2, since the respondent No.1 does not have any driving license to drive the offending vehicle on the date of accident.
Point No.2 is answered accordingly.
15. Point No.3:-
In view of the findings arrived at point No.1 and 2, there is no need to interfere with the Order and Decree of the Tribunal and the same is upheld.
Point No.3 is answered accordingly.
16. Point No.4:-
In the result, the appeal is partly allowed modifying the Judgment and Decree of the Tribunal with regard to the liability fastened on the appellant and the appellant/Insurance Company shall pay compensation and recover from the respondents. No costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appeal, shall stand closed.
_________________________________ JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA Date:13.06.2025 ds