Telangana High Court
M/S. National Insurance Company ... vs Smt. D. Laxmi And 2 Others on 10 July, 2025
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
M.A.C.M.A.No.328 OF 2023
JUDGMENT:
-
This is an appeal preferred by the appellant/Insurance
Company aggrieved by the order, dated 24.06.2022 passed in
M.V.O.P.No.3160 of 2016 by the learned Chairman, Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil
Courts, Hyderabad (for short, 'the Tribunal').
2. Heard both sides. Perused the record.
3. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.1/claim
petitioner filed the claim petition seeking compensation of
Rs.20,00,000/- at 18% per annum on account of death of one
D.Shekar in a road traffic accident. The claim petitioner is the
mother of the deceased D.Shekar. On 28.08.2016 at 5.45 A.M.
when the deceased was proceeding on his Yamaha FZS bearing
No.TS 02 EA 4081 from Parvada to Pashamailaram and when he
reached near main gate of Teja Venture in the limits of
Indrakaranam Village, the Splendor motorcycle bearing No.TS 15
EJ 1807 driven by its rider in high speed came in opposite
direction and dashed the vehicle of the deceased resulting in
multiple grievous injuries all over his body and died on the spot.
In the circumstances, respondent No.1 filed the claim petition.
The claim petitioner got examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and got marked
Exs.A1 to A8 and Exs.X1 to X3. The appellant/respondent No.3
has got examined R.W.1 and got marked Ex.B1-copy of insurance
policy. Upon examining the oral and documentary evidence, the
Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.18,99,761/- with interest
at 9% per annum. Aggrieved by the same, the insurance
company preferred the present appeal.
4. In grounds of appeal, the impugned order is challenged on
two grounds i.e., 1) the deceased was not wearing helmet at the
time of accident and the collision occurred due to impact between
two vehicles; hence, contributory negligence on the part of the
deceased must be taken into consideration and 2) awarding of
future prospects at 40% when there was no security for the job
of the deceased.
5. During arguments in appeal, learned counsel for the
appellant insisted that there was negligence on the part of the
deceased as he was not wearing helmet and since there was
head on collision, the contributory negligence has to be taken
into consideration. While so, learned counsel for respondent
No.1 pleaded that not wearing of helmet need not be a ground to
infer violation of terms and conditions of the policy or negligence
and in that regard relied upon the judgment of the Honourable
Supreme Court of India in Anjana Narayan Kamble v. Branch
Manager, Reliance General Insurance Company Limited 1,
wherein it is held that,
"The fact that the deceased was riding on a motor cycle along with the
driver and another, may not, by itself, without anything more, make
him guilty of contributory negligence. At the most it would make him
guilty of being a party to the violation of the law. Sec.128 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, imposes a restriction on the driver of a two
wheeled motor cycle, not to carry more than one person on the motor
cycle. Sec.194C inserted by the Amendment Act 32 of 2019, prescribes
a penalty for violation of safety measures for motor cycle drivers and
pillion riders. Therefore, the fact that a person was a pillion rider on a
motor cycle along with the driver and one more person on the pillion,
may be a violation of the law. But such violation by itself, without
anything more, cannot lead to a finding of contributory negligence,
unless it is established that his very act of riding along with two
others, contributed either to the accident or to the impact of the
accident upon the victim. There must either be a causal connection
between the violation and the accident or a casual connection between
the violation and the impact of the accident upon the victim. It may so
happen at times, that the accident could have been averted or the
injuries sustained could have been of a lesser degree, if there had
been no violation of the law by the victim. What could otherwise have
resulted in a simple injury, might have resulted in a grievous injury or
even death due to the violation of the law by the victim. It is in such
ACJ-2023-0-346
cases, where, but for the violation of the law, either the accident could
have been averted or the impact could have been minimized, that the
principle of contributory negligence could be invoked. It is not the
case of the insurer that the accident itself occurred as a result of three
persons riding on a motor cycle. It is not even the case of the insurer
that the accident would have been averted, if three persons were not
riding on the motor cycle.
In the present case, there is no such evidence of contributory
negligence except fact of three riders on the motor cycle and of not
wearing helmet by the deceased. Therefore, in view of the enunciation
of law, we find that the High Court was not justified in deducting 30%
of the amount of compensation assessed by the Tribunal for the reason
that the deceased was triple riding the Motor Cycle or was not wearing
a helmet. The violation of rules for driving a motor vehicle is not a
ground to deduct the amount of compensation awarded unless there is
proof of either the accident could have been averted or the impact
could have been minimized."
6. Coming to the issue of contributory negligence, a perusal of
the record shows that insurance company did not take such a
defence while filing counter. In fact, the counter contains routine
objections raised about violation of terms and conditions of the
policy, for driving licence violation and the validity of the
insurance policy. There is no whisper about the deceased not
wearing helmet or inference as to contributory negligence due to
head on collision. When it came to recording of evidence, an
admission is made about issuing package policy for Splendor pro
motor cycle for the period between 08.11.2015 and 07.11.2016
and the policy was in force at the time of accident. A reference is
made to the effect that charge sheet is filed against one Jonnada
Madhu under Section 182(1) of Motor Vehicles Act as he was
driving the insurance vehicle without valid licence. However, no
evidence is led to show driving licence violation. The only
document filed is Ex.B1-insurance policy. Therefore, driving
licence violation was not be taken into consideration.
7. Further, when the issue of contributory negligence was not
raised before the Tribunal, it is not warranted that such a ground
be raised in the appeal. The evidence of P.W.2 not withstanding
mere wearing or non-wearing of helmet at the time of accident
cannot be taken into consideration for inferring contributory
negligence when said issue was not canvassed before the
Tribunal.
8. Lastly, irrespective of whether the employment is stable or
not, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi
and others 2, when the deceased is aged less than 40 years with
private employment or self employment, 40% has to be added
2017 ACJ 2700
towards future prospects. As such, this Court does not see any
reason to interfere with the percentage of income added towards
future prospects by the Tribunal. As such, there are no merits in
the appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.
9. In the result, M.A.C.M.A.is dismissed. There shall be no
order as to costs.
Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this appeal, shall
stand closed.
_________________
RENUKA YARA, J
Date:10.07.2025
ssp
