Sk Jani, Warangal Dist vs Torrikonda Sangaiah, Khammam ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 1245 Tel

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 1245 Tel
Judgement Date : 15 March, 2023

Telangana High Court

Sk Jani, Warangal Dist vs Torrikonda Sangaiah, Khammam ... on 15 March, 2023

Bench: Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao

                         1                                  RRN,J
                                              MACMA No.1062 of 2015


     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

                  M.A.C.M.A.No.1062 OF 2015

JUDGMENT:

This MACMA is filed by the appellant/petitioner under

Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, aggrieved by the order

and decree, dated 17.11.2011, passed in M.A.T.O.P.No.591 of

2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II

Additional District Judge (FTC, Khammam) (for short "the

Tribunal").

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be

hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a

claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,

1988 claiming compensation of Rs.50,000/- on account of

injuries sustained by the petitioner in the motor vehicle

accident. On 15.09.2002, the petitioner along with one Shaik

Kamal boarded auto bearing No.AP-U-9134 at a Kalvavoddu of

Khammam proceeding to his village and when it reached near

Church of Kachirajugudem Village at about 8 p.m., another 2 RRN,J M.A.C.M.A.No.1062 of 2015

auto bearing No.AP-20-U-7793 which came in an opposite

direction in a rash and negligent manner with high speed

dashed against the auto, due to which the petitioner sustained

multiple grievous injuries and fractures to his right thigh. The

Police Khammam Rural registered a case in Cr.No.270 of 2002

against the driver of the auto AP-20-U-7793. The petitioner is a

coolie by profession and because of the said accident, he is not

in a position to attend his coolie work and is not able to attend

even normal duties. Hence the claim petition.

4. Respondent No.1 remained ex parte before the Tribunal.

Respondent Nos.2 and 3/Insurance Companies filed counter

affidavits by denying all the material averments and stated that

the accident occurred only due to gross negligence on the part

of the driver of auto No.AP-20-U-9134. Respondent No.2 has

categorically stated that no policy was subsisting as on the

date of the accident and respondent No.1 had obtained a policy

with them after three days from the date of the accident.

Respondent No.3 has categorically the driver of the offending

vehicle did not possess a valid driving licence, due to which, 3 RRN,J M.A.C.M.A.No.1062 of 2015

conditions of the policy are violated. As such respondents are

not liable to pay any compensation. Hence, they prayed for the

dismissal of the petition.

5. To prove his case, the petitioner examined himself as

PW.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A4 and the respondents

examined RW.1 and RW.2 and got marked Exs.B1 to B4.

6. On appreciating the evidence on record, the Tribunal

allowed the petition in part by granting compensation of

Rs.25,000/- to the petitioner with a directing that only the 1st

respondent/owner of the vehicle is liable to pay the

compensation amount and the respondents No.2 and

3/Insurance Companies were exonerated from their liability.

Hence, the present appeal is filed by the petitioner.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned

counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 and perused the

record.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that

Tribunal ought to have fixed liability against respondents No.2 4 RRN,J M.A.C.M.A.No.1062 of 2015

and 3 as the Insurance policies were subsisting both at the

time of, and after the accident. Accordingly, prayed to allow

the appeal.

9. Learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3/Insurance

Companies contended that as respondent No.1 violated the

terms of the policy, the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the

claim against them. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the appeal.

10. Upon bare reading of the impugned order, it is observed

that the Tribunal found that the 2nd respondent/Insurance

Company is not liable to pay compensation as per Ex.B1/policy

which was in force from 18.09.2002 to 17.09.2003 whereas

admittedly, the accident occurred on 15.09.2002. Hence, this

Court finds no error in the above finding of the Tribunal.

11. With respect to the findings of the Tribunal in favour of

3rd respondent/Insurance Company, it is observed that the

Tribunal exonerated the 3rd respondent from the liability on the

ground that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess

a valid driving licence which resulted in violation of policy. The

Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited 5 RRN,J M.A.C.M.A.No.1062 of 2015

vs Swaran Singh & others1 and in the catena of decisions,

directed the Insurance Company to pay the compensation and

liberty is granted to it to recover the paid amount from the owner of

the vehicle, in case of violation of conditions of Insurance Policy.

Applying this decision to the present case, this Court is of the

view that the 3rd respondent/Insurance Company can be

directed to pay the compensation amount to the petitioner and

recover the same from the respondent as it is established that

the policy issued by the 3rd respondent in favour of the 1st

respondent was very much in force as on the date of the

accident.

12. With regard to the quantum of compensation, this

Court finds no reason to enhance the same as there is no

compelling evidence adduced by the petitioner to prove that he

is entitled to higher compensation. As such, the Tribunal was

justified in awarding Rs.25,000/- to the petitioner.





      2004 (3) SCC 297
                                6                               RRN,J
                                            M.A.C.M.A.No.1062 of 2015

13. In view of the foregoing reasons, this appeal deserves to

be allowed in part, however, without interfering with the

quantum of compensation.

14. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed in part. The 3rd

respondent/Insurance Company is directed to pay the

compensation amount of Rs.25,000/- with interest at 7.5%

from the date of petition till the date of realisation within two

months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The

petitioner is permitted to withdraw the entire amount upon

such deposit. The 3rd respondent/Insurance Company is at

liberty to recover the amount from the 1st respondent/owner of

the vehicle. There shall be no order as to costs.