National Insurance Company Limited vs Avunoori Raju And 7 Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 4023 Tel

Telangana High Court

National Insurance Company Limited vs Avunoori Raju And 7 Others on 18 June, 2025

                                  1




     HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

                   M.A.C.M.A.NO.505 OF 2021

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company aggrieved by

the Order and Decree dated 16.12.2020 in M.V.O.P.No.40 of 2015

passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I

Additional District Judge, Warangal (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 petitioner before the Tribunal is that on

15.06.2014 the deceased Avunoori Aruna along with her husband

and others were returning to their Village Allipuram after attending

the funeral of a relative at Hanamkonda in an Auto bearing NO.AP-

36-Y-9613 and when they reached near Pensionpura Church at

around 2:30 p.m., a bike bearing No.AP-36-AK-2182 driven by its

rider V. Ramulu/respondent No.1 herein came in opposite

direction in a wrong route in a rash and negligent manner at a

high speed and dashed the auto, as a result of which, Aruna who

was sitting in the rear seat on the right side, fell down and the

motorcycle hit her and dragged her to some distance resulting in

injuries. Immediately, she was shifted to M.G.M Hospital, where ETD,J MACMA No.505_2021

she succumbed to injuries on the same day. Husband and children

of the deceased claimed a compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-.

4. Respondent No.1 has filed counter admitting that he is the

owner of the offending bike bearing No.AP-36-AK-2182 which is

insured with respondent No.2 and the policy is in force as on the

date of the accident, but he denied that the accident took place due

to his rash and negligence. It is further contended that since his

vehicle is insured with respondent No.2, it is the respondent No.2

which is liable to pay compensation if any awarded by the Court.

5. Respondent No.2 has filed counter denying the averments of

the petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident, the age,

avocation and income of the deceased. It is further contended that

the driver of the Auto allowed 5 persons to travel in the auto which

is not permissible and that the auto was overloaded and that the

rider of the motor bike had no valid driving license and their

Company is not liable to pay compensation. It is further contended

that the policy issued by them is not valid as on the date of the

accident.

6. Respondent No.3 has filed counter admitting his ownership

of Auto bearing No.AP-36_Y-9613 and contended that it is insured ETD,J MACMA No.505_2021

with respondent No.4 and that the policy is valid as on the date of

the accident. He denied his liability to pay any compensation.

7. Respondent No.4 remained ex-parte.

8. Respondent No.5 has filed counter denying the averments of

the petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident, age,

avocation and income of the deceased. It is further contended that

there is contributory negligence on part of the respondent Nos.1

and 3 resulting in the death of the deceased and that respondent

No.5 alone is not liable to pay compensation.

9. Based on the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal

has framed the following issues for trial:

i) Whether the accident occurred on 15.06.2014 was due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the rider of the Hero Honda Splendor Motor Cycle bearing No.AP-36-AK-2182 and the driver of the Bajaj Passenger Auto bearing No.AP-36-Y-9613?

ii) Whether the policies were in force and valid on the date of accident?

iii) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what extent?

iv) To what relief?

10. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PW1 and 2

and got marked Exs.P1 to P6. On behalf of the respondents RW1

and RW2 were examined and Exs.R1 to R3 were marked.

ETD,J MACMA No.505_2021

11. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded a

compensation of Rs.6,92,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, the present

appeal is preferred by the insurer of Speldor Plus bike bearing

No.AP-36-AK-2182.

12. Heard the submission of Sri N. Mohan Krishna, learned

counsel for the Insurance Company and Sri M. Rama Krishna,

learned counsel for respondent No.8.

13. Learned counsel for appellant has submitted that the order

passed by the Tribunal is contrary to the facts of the case and that

the Tribunal failed to consider the contributory negligence of

drivers of both the vehicles involved in the accident. He further

submitted that the driver of the motor bike did not have valid

driving license as on the date of the accident and that their

company is not liable to pay any compensation, but the Tribunal

has ignored the said fact. He further submitted that in case if this

Court comes to a conclusion that compensation has to be paid by

the Insurance Company, then pay and recovery may be ordered.

He further argued that the Tribunal has assessed the income of the

deceased without any proof and has awarded excess amount of

compensation. He therefore, prayed to set aside the order passed

by the Tribunal.

ETD,J MACMA No.505_2021

14. Learned counsel for respondent No.8/Auto bearing No.AP-

36-Y-9613 has submitted that the Tribunal has fastened the

liability on both the Insurance Companies and that they have

complied the orders of the Tribunal by paying 50% of the

compensation.

15. Based on the above rival contentions, this Court frames the

following points for determination:

1. Whether the compensation granted by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?

2. Whether the rider of the motor bike has not possessed valid driving license as on the date of the accident?

3. Whether the order and decree of the Tribunal need any interference?

4. To what relief?

16. POINT NO.1:

a) PW1 asserted that the deceased was an Agricultural labourer

and was earning Rs.6,000/- per month. No proof is filed in this

regard.

b) In Ramachandrappa Vs. Manager, Royal Sundaram

Alliance Insurance Company Limited 1, the Apex Court has held

that in the absence of any proof of income with regard to a

labourer, Rs.4,500/- per month can be safely taken as the income.

In the present case, the deceased is stated to have been an

(2011) 12 SCC 236 ETD,J MACMA No.505_2021

agricultural labourer as per the contention of the claim petitioners.

The Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased as

Rs.3,000/- per month. The record reveals that the deceased lady

was aged about 30 years. In the facts and circumstances, the

income of the deceased as assessed by the Tribunal i.e., Rs.3,000/-

per month appears to be just and reasonable.

c) The Tribunal has taken the right multiplier '17' that is

appropriate for the age of the deceased. The Tribunal has taken

into consideration all the other principles laid down in National

Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others2 and

has awarded compensation of Rs.6,92,000/-. Though the counsel

has argued that the Tribunal has assessed the income to be high,

the said argument is not tenable as the Tribunal has assessed the

income of the deceased to be Rs.3,000/- only which is quite

reasonable. Therefore, the quantum of compensation is not

interfered by this Court as it is found to be just and reasonable.

Point No.1 is answered accordingly.

AIR 2017 SCC 5157 ETD,J MACMA No.505_2021

17. Point No.2:-

a) The contention of the appellant counsel is that the rider of

the motor bike did not possess a valid driving license and thus

their Company is not liable to pay any compensation.

b) To prove their contention they got examined RW1 who works

as Junior Assistant in RTO Office, Warangal. His evidence reveals

that their office has issued license on 17.12.1985 for driving Light

Motor Vehicle and Motorcycle to one O.Ramulu S/o Narsaiah and

the same is valid up to 08.07.2019. Ex.R1 is the Extract of Driving

License issued by their Office to O. Ramulu who is the rider of the

motor bike. A perusal of Ex.R1 reveals that he possessed license to

drive LMV non-transport and Motorcycle with gear. The license to

drive motorcycle was issued on 17.12.1985 and is valid up to

08.07.2019. In the renewal column also it is shown that it was

renewed from time to time.

c) The Insurance Company also got examined RW2 who is a

Senior Assistant in the National Insurance Company. He deposed

that O. Ramulu, who is the rider of the motor bike, did not possess

valid driving license as on the date of the accident and that he was

charge sheeted under Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act and

Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code. In his cross examination he ETD,J MACMA No.505_2021

denied the suggestion given by the petitioners counsel that

respondent No.1 was having valid driving license.

d) A perusal of the charge sheet reveals that the Police have

filed charge sheet under Section 181 of the M.V Act also against O.

Ramulu who is arrayed as against accused No.1. However, as

discussed supra, a copy of driving license filed under Ex.R1 shows

that the accused had valid driving license as on the date of the

accident and it is further deposed by RW1 that the accused had

valid driving license issued by their Office which is valid from

17.12.1985 to 08.07.2019. Therefore, considering the evidence of

RW1 coupled with Ex.R1, it is held that the contention of the

appellant counsel is untenable in this regard. Hence, it is held that

the driver of offending vehicle had valid driving license and that the

Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation.

Point No.2 is answered accordingly.

18. Point No.3:-

In view of the finding 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.

ETD,J MACMA No.505_2021

19. Point No.4:-

In the result, the appeal is dismissed upholding the Order

and Decree dated 16.12.2020 in M.V.O.P.No.40 of 2015 passed by

the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional

District Judge, Warangal. No costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appeal, shall

stand closed.

_________________________________ JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA Date: 18.06.2025 ds