Telangana High Court
United India Insurance Company Ltd., vs Nayakwadi Lalitha And 3 Others on 10 June, 2025
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
M.A.C.M.A.NO.35 OF 2025
JUDGMENT:
The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-Insurance
Company aggrieved by the impugned order, dated 18.04.2016 in
M.V.O.P.No.378 of 2011 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal-cum-I Addl.District Judge at Nizamabad (for short,
'Tribunal') and thereby, seeking to set aside the impugned order.
2. Heard Sri V.Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the appellant-
insurance company and Sri M.Raja Malla Reddy, learned counsel for
the respondent Nos.1 and 2/claim petitioners.
3. The appellant herein is the respondent No.3-insurance company,
respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein are the claim petitioners and respondent
No.3 herein is the respondent No.1-driver of the crime vehicle and
respondent No.4 herein is the respondent No.2-owner of the crime
vehicle before the Tribunal. For convenience, the parties hereinafter are
referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.
4. The brief factual matrix of the present appeal is that on 07.02.2003
at about 5.30 p.m., while N.Limbadri, aged about 10 years (hereinafter
referred to as 'deceased') was playing infront of the house of T.Maruthi
at Arsapally village, the driver of Car bearing registration No.AP-09-M-
2348, drove the car in rash and negligent manner and hit the deceased
and as a result, the deceased sustained head injury and while
undergoing treatment at Sai Krishna Super Speciality Neuro Hospital,
he died on 05.03.2003. On a complaint, the Police, P.S. Traffic,
Nizamabad registered a case in Crime No.44 of 2003 against the driver
of crime vehicle and filed charge sheet altering the section of law from
Section 337 IPC to Section 304-A IPC.
5. The claim petitioners filed MVOP No.378 of 2011 claiming
compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- on account of death of deceased.
According to the petitioners, the deceased was aged 10 years, was hale
and healthy and on account of said accident, petitioners suffered mental
agony.
6. Before the Tribunal, respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained ex parte.
Respondent No.3-Insurance Company filed counter denying all the
allegations in the claim petition as regards the accident to the deceased,
age, avocation and income of the deceased. It was further contended
that respondent No.2 is not aware of criminal proceedings lodged
against the driver of crime vehicle; that as per the complaint, the driver
of the crime vehicle drove the vehicle in rash and negligent manner in a
drunken state and hit the balcony top area in front of the house of
petitioners, where the deceased was playing and therefore, the
insurance company is not liable to pay compensation as respondent
Nos.1 and 2 violated the rules and regulations of the Motor Vehicles
Act, and the compensation claimed is excessive and exorbitant and
prayed to dismiss the claim petition.
7. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following
issues for trial:
1. Whether accident occurred on 07.02.2003 at about 5.30 p.m.,
in front of the house of T.Maruthi at Arsapally village, due to
rash and negligent driving of Car No.AP-09-M-2348 by its
driver ?
2. Whether Nayakwadi Limbadri received injuries in that
accident and died of the injuries ?
3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation ? if so,
to what amount and from which respondent ?
4. To what relief ?
8. On behalf of the petitioners, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and
Exs.A1 to Ex.A24 were marked. On behalf of the respondent No.3-
insurance company, R.W.1 was examined and Ex.B1-copy of insurance
copy was marked.
9. The Tribunal, on due consideration of oral evidence and
documents placed on record, came to conclusion that the accident took
place due to rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle by its driver
and awarded total compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- along with interest
@ 7.5% per annum. The Tribunal further directed the respondent No.3
to pay compensation to the petitioners at first instance and thereafter to
recover the same from the respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally.
10. During the course of hearing, though the learned counsel for
appellant-insurance company has advanced arguments on multiple
grounds, has mainly raised the ground of liability of insurance
company. He would further submit that in the complaint itself as well
as charge-sheet, it was specifically mentioned that the driver of the
crime vehicle was in intoxicated condition and therefore, the Tribunal
ought to have exonerated the insurance company from its liability
instead of allowing the claim petition and fastening the liability on the
appellant-insurance.
11. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2/claim
petitioners submitted that on due consideration of the evidence and
material placed on record, the Tribunal had rightly awarded the
compensation and no grounds are made out to interfere with the award
passed by the Tribunal and prayed the Court to dismiss the appeal.
Consideration:
12. Perusal of the record would disclose that though copy of the
charge-sheet is marked as Ex.A20, no evidence is placed on behalf of the
insurance company to prove the contention that driver of the crime
vehicle was in intoxicated condition at the time of the accident. Further,
no material is placed as to whether the driver of the crime vehicle was
convicted in a criminal case nor it was proved that driver was in
intoxicated condition at the time of the accident and in fact, in the
charge, driver of the crime vehicle was not charged for the offence of
driving the car under intoxication at the time of accident.
13. It is settled principle of law that burden shifts on to the insurance
company to prove the contention that insurance company is not liable
to pay compensation as the driver of the crime vehicle was under the
influence of intoxication at the time of accident. In the present case, the
insurance company failed to examine eye witness or place any material
on record to prove that the driver of the crime vehicle was under
influence of alcohol at the time of accident. Therefore, the Tribunal
rightly directed the respondent No.3-insurance company to pay the
compensation to the petitioners at first and thereafter recover the same
from respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally. Therefore, there are
no merits in the appeal and the appellant-insurance company failed to
make out any case warranting interference with the impugned award.
14. In the result, the Appeal fails and is accordingly, dismissed. The
appellant-insurance company is directed to deposit the compensation
amount, as directed by the Tribunal, within a period of eight weeks
from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. There shall be no
order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications if any shall stand closed.
_________________________________
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY,J
Date: 10.06.2025
kkm
