Telangana High Court
The Manager, United India Insuranie Co. ... vs Mohammad Reshma Begum And 3 Others on 10 February, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A.No.2975 OF 2014
JUDGMENT:
1. Aggrieved by the decree and judgment passed by the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum- the Court of IV Additional
District Judge (FTC), Siddipet, in O.P.No.72 of 2011, dated
10.04.2014, the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company in the said
O.P. preferred the present Appeal seeking to set-aside the order of
the learned Tribunal.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter be
referred as they were arrayed before the learned Tribunal.
3. The brief facts of the case are that initially, petitioners have
filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
and Rules 475/1B of A.P.Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 read with
Section 140 of M.V.Act, 1989 claiming compensation of
Rs.7,50,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum against the
respondents on account of the death of Late Mohammad Althaf
Hussain (hereinafter referred as 'the deceased') in a motor vehicle
accident that occurred on 27.01.2011.
4. It is stated by the petitioners that on 27.01.2011 at about
9.30 P.M., the deceased-Mohammad Althaf Hussain along with
another driver Ramulu started from Dubbak on Ashok Leyland
Lorry bearing No.AP-24U-1166 to dump the wood at Hyderabad
and after dumping the said wood, when they started return journey
MGP,J
on 28.01.2011 with empty lorry and when the lorry reached near
Habshipur X Road at about 7.00 p.m., the driver of the said lorry
drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner at high speed nad
applied sudden break. As a result, the deceased fell down from the
cabin and the rear wheels of the said lorry ran over the deceased
and the deceased died on the spot.
5. Based on a complaint, the Station House Officer of Dubbak
Police Station registered a case in Crime No.9 of 2011 under
Section 304-A IPC and filed charge sheet against the driver of
Ashok Leyland Lorry bearing No.AP-24-U-1166.
6. It is stated by the petitioners that prior to accident, the
deceased was hale and healthy, aged 31 years and used to work as
RTC driver on contract basis in Dubbak depot for Rs.5,381/-. Due
to sudden death of the deceased, the petitioners lost their bread
winner and were put to mental shock and became destitute.
Hence, filed claim petition seeking compensation against the
Respondent Nos.1 & 2, who are owner and insurer of subject
Ashok Leyland Lorry bearing No.AP-24U-1166
7. Respondent No.1, Owner of the Crime Lorry bearing No.AP-
24-U-1166, remained ex-parte.
8. Respondent No.2/Insurance Company filed its counter
denying the material allegations made in the claim petition
including, occurrence of accident, involvement of crime lorry, rash
MGP,J
and negligent driving on part of the driver of crime lorry, driver of
the crime lorry having valid driving license at the time of accident
and further contended that the deceased is a gratuitous passenger,
as such, respondent No.2/Insurance Company is not liable to pay
compensation and therefore, prayed to dismiss the claim against it.
9. Based on the pleadings made by both the parties, the
learned Tribunal had framed the following issues for conducting
trial:-
1. Whether the accident had occurred due to rash and
negligent driving of driver of crime vehicle Ashok
Leyland Lorry bearing No.AP-24-U-1166?
2. Whether the claimants are entitled for the
compensation? If so, what extent and from whom?
3. To what relief?
10. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the petitioners, PWs1 & 2
were examined and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. On behalf of
Respondent No.2/Insurance Company, RWs1 & 2 were examined
and Exs.B1 to B3 were marked.
11. After considering the evidence and documents filed by both
sides, the learned Tribunal had partly-allowed the claim petition by
awarding compensation of Rs.6,70,000/- along with interest @
7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization
payable by both the respondent Nos.1 & 2 jointly and severally and
adopted the principle of pay and recovery directing respondent
No.2 to deposit the compensation amount in the first instance and
MGP,J
later recover the same from respondent No.1/owner of the vehicle.
Aggrieved by the said finding, the present Appeal is filed by the
Insurance Company, who is arrayed as respondent No.2 in the O.P.
12. Heard arguments submitted by Smt.Swati Guda, learned
Standing Counsel for appellant/Insurance Company who appeared
through virtual mode as well as Sri Palle Sriharinath, learned
counsel for respondents. Perused the record.
13. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for
appellant/Insurance Company while submitting arguments is that
though the driver of the crime Lorry do not possess driving license
to drive Heavy Motor vehicle, but the owner of the said Lorry
willfully and knowingly entrusted the vehicle to the said driver and
violated the terms and conditions of policy. As such, the
appellant/Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation to
the claim petitioners.
14. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
respondents/claimants contended that the learned Tribunal after
considering all the aspects, had awarded reasonable compensation
for which interference of this Court is unwarranted.
15. Now the point that emerges for determination is,
Whether the order passed by the learned Tribunal
requires interference of this Court?
MGP,J
POINT:-
16. Since there is no dispute about the occurrence of accident
and death of the deceased, this Court is not inclined to once again
discuss the above issues. The only point that has to be discussed
in the present Appeal is with regard to imposing of liability upon
Insurance Company though the driver of the crime Lorry do not
possess valid driving license to drive the said vehicle.
17. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the
Appellant/Insurance Company contended that though the
appellant/Insurance Company proved through the evidence of
RW2 that the driver of crime Lorry do not possess valid driving
license to drive Heavy Motor vehicle, but the learned Tribunal did
not consider the same and had wrongly imposed liability upon
Insurance Company.
18. In this regard, it is pertinent to refer to the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case between MUKUND DEWANGAN
Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED 1 wherein, the
Hon'ble Court held that a light motor vehicle includes transport
vehicle and a holder of light motor vehicle license can drive all the
vehicles of the class including transport vehicles. It is also made
clear through circular Memo No.1963/R/2018, dated 24.04.2018
issued by the Transport Commissioner, Hyderabad, wherein, it is
clarified that Light Motor Vehicle includes transport vehicle upto
(2017) 14 Supreme Court Cases 6639
MGP,J
7500 Kgs and no separate endorsement on the license is required
to drive the transport vehicle of light motor vehicle classes. There
is no requirement to obtain separate endorsement to drive the
transport vehicle if the driver is holding license to drive the light
motor vehicle, he can drive the transport vehicle of such class
without any endorsement to that effect.
19. In view of the above judgment and as per circular
instructions issued by Transport Commissioner, the Respondent
No.1/owner of the subject Tractor and Trailer who possess driving
license to drive LMV is also entitled to drive the subject Lorry.
20. Moreover, the policy conditions regarding driver not holding
valid and effective driving license at the time of accident cannot be
considered as fundamental breach that had contributed to the
cause of accident to discharge the appellant/Insurance Company
from its liability. In such circumstances, as stated supra, mere
absence, fake or invalid driving license or disqualification of the
driver for driving at the relevant time are not in themselves
defenses available to the insurer against either the insured or the
third parties.
21. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for appellant/
Insurance Company that as the driver of crime Lorry is having
driving license only to drive Light Motor Vehicle and not the subject
MGP,J
Lorry and therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay
compensation, is unsustainable.
22. As far as quantum of compensation in the impugned
judgment is concerned, the learned Tribunal, considering the
income of the deceased @ Rs.5,000/- per month, deducted 1/3rd
amount towards personal expenses of the deceased, applied
relevant multiplier and calculated compensation which ultimately
arrived at Rs.6,70,000/-.
23. So far as liability is concerned, the learned Tribunal applied
the principle of Pay and recovery directing the Insurance Company
to deposit the compensation amount in the first instance and later
recover the same from owner of the crime Lorry. This Court do not
find any reason to interfere with the said finding which is in proper
perspective. Hence, the Appeal is devoid of merits and substance
and is liable to be dismissed.
24. In the result, the Appeal filed by Insurance Company is
dismissed without costs.
25. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
______________________________
JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
Dt.10.02.2025
ysk
