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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(2013 (7) SCC 62) ETD,J MACMA No.631_2021

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

(2019) 7 SCC 217 ETD,J MACMA No.631_2021

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.