Telangana High Court

Namani Latha vs Thiramdasu Ramadevi on 20 June, 2025

                                   1


      HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

                      M.A.C.M.A.NO.743 OF 2021

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the claimants, aggrieved by the Order

and Decree dated 18.10.2021 in M.V.O.P.No.351 of 2017 passed by

the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XIV

Additional Chief Judge (FTC), City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short

"the trial Court").

2. For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to

as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The case of the petitioners before the Tribunal was that on

13.08.2014 at about 11:30 p.m., the deceased/Thiramdasu

Ramesh met with an accident while going on his TVS XL bearing

No.TS-08-EB-4261 near Bhagyalatha Colony with an unknown

four wheeler, received head injury and was admitted in Osmania

General Hospital, where he succumbed to injuries on 04.09.2014.

The claimants sought a compensation of Rs.3,50,000/-.

4. The respondent No.1 remained ex-parte.

5. The respondent No.2 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 no other vehicle involved in the accident and that the ETD,J MACMA No.743_2021

deceased himself suffered the accident due to his negligent driving

and that there is a delay of 22 days in lodging the complaint. The

deceased was a rider of the two wheeler and is not a third party

and that he is not entitled to any compensation.

6. Based on above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the

following issues:

1) Whether the death of the deceased Thiramdasu Ramesh was due to rash and negligence driving of unknown four wheeler?

2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation. If so, at what quantum and what is the liability of the respondent?

3) To what relief

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

PW2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A10. On behalf of the respondents

RW1 was examined and got marked Exs.B1 and B2.

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

compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. Aggrieved by the said award, the

present appeal is preferred by the claimants seeking enhancement

of compensation.

9. Heard the submissions of Sri S. Chandraiah, learned

counsel for the appellants and Sri A. Malathi, learned counsel for

the respondent No.2.

10. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the

owner is the wife of the deceased and that the deceased is a third ETD,J MACMA No.743_2021

party and is entitled to compensation. He further submitted that

the claim petition was filed under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles

Act and that by virtue of the amended Act 163-A is repealed and

Section 164 is introduced which comes to the aid of the claimant

and the amount of compensation that has to be awarded in such

cases is Rs.5,00,000/- and therefore, has prayed to grant the said

compensation.

11. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the

deceased was driving the offending vehicle at the time of accident

and that there is a limit in the policy under Ex.B1 with regard to

the personal accident coverage to an extent of Rs.1,00,000/-. Thus

the claimants cannot claim more than Rs.1,00,000/- to which they

are entitled under the existing policy. He therefore, prayed to

uphold the order and decree of the Tribunal and dismiss the

appeal.

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

following points for determination:

1. Whether the claimants are entitled to enhancement of compensation?

2. Whether the order and decree of the trial Court need any interference?

3. To what relief?

ETD,J MACMA No.743_2021

13. POINT NO.1:

a) The counsel for appellants contends that the deceased is a

third party and is entitled to enhancement of compensation. It is

contended by the counsel for insurance company that the deceased

is the owner-cum-driver of the vehicle and thus, their liability is

limited as per the terms of the policy.

b) In Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited Vs.

Gaddam Swami Reddy and another 1; wherein a Coordinate

Bench of this High Court has held that to fasten the liability on the

Insurance Company, the claimant is required to establish that he

is either a third party or that his risk is covered under the terms

and conditions of the policy.

c) In Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Ramisetty

Srinivasa Rao and Others 2; the petitioners case is that he was

going along with his wife and two other employees in a Maruthi Car

which met with an accident, as its driver drove the car in a rash

and negligent manner. His wife is the owner of the car and it is also

put forth that he is the only earning member of his family. Thus,

the Insurance Company has contended that the injured-petitioner

is the defacto-owner of the car and thus, the Company is not liable

to pay any compensation, since he steps into the shoes of the

2013 ACJ 2586

2024 (2) ALD 828 (TS) (DB) ETD,J MACMA No.743_2021

owner and that he is not a third party. The Division Bench of this

High Court has held that the term 'third party' implies any person

other than the insurer and the insured, who are not parties to

insurance contract. By virtue of this decision, the contention of

the appellants counsel is that the deceased is a third party.

d) In the cited decision the deceased was not driving the vehicle

when the accident occurred. In the present case the deceased was

riding the TVS XL with which the accident occurred. Therefore, he

falls under the expression "Driver" as mentioned in the policy.

e) It is contended by the Insurance Company that the deceased

is the insured himself and is not a third party and thus is not

entitled to more than Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation. RW1

was examined by the Insurance Company to prove their contention

and Ex.B1 and B2 were marked. In the cross examination of DW1,

it is elicited that Ex.B2/Policy covers the risk of two persons and

that the policy was in force. He denied the suggestion that the

deceased was a third party.

f) A perusal of the policy under Ex.B2 reveals that it exists in

the name of Thiramdasu Ramadevi who is the wife of the deceased

and the policy is issued on 25.06.2014 and is valid up to

24.06.2015 for TVS XL bearing No.TS-08-EB-4261. Hence, it is

held that the deceased is not the owner of the vehicle. But he falls ETD,J MACMA No.743_2021

under the expression "Driver" as given in Ex.B2, which reads as

follows:

"Any person including the insured provided that a person driving holds an effective driving license at the time of the accident and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a license. Provided also that the person holding an effective Learner's license may also drive the vehicle when not used for the transport of goods/passengers at the time of the accident and that such a person satisfies the requirements of Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989."

g) However, Ex.B2 is issued to cover the personal accident

coverage for owner and driver to an extent of Rs.1,00,000/-. The

claimants cannot claim more than what is mentioned in the policy.

Though, it is argued by the appellants counsel that by virtue of

Section 164, he is entitled to Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation, the

compensation beyond the liability mentioned in the policy cannot

be granted. It is clearly mentioned in Ex.B2 that the personal

accident coverage for owner and driver is to an extent of

Rs.1,00,000/-. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the orders passed

by the Tribunal granting Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation.

Hence, the same is found to be just and reasonable and that the

claimants are not entitled to enhancement of compensation.

Point No.1 is answered accordingly.

ETD,J MACMA No.743_2021

14. Point No.2:-

In view of the finding arrived at point No., there is no need to

interfere with the orders passed by the Tribunal and therefore, the

same is upheld.

Point No.2 is answered accordingly.

15. Point No.3:-

In the result, the appeal is dismissed upholding the Order

and Decree dated 18.10.2021 in M.V.O.P.No.351 of 2017 passed by

the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XIV

Additional Chief Judge (FTC), City Civil Court, Hyderabad. No

costs.