Telangana High Court
Bandari Sujatha vs Satish B on 20 June, 2025
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA
M.A.C.M.A.No.365 of 2020
JUDGMENT:
The appellants/claimants filed the present appeal against the
Award and decree passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Nizamabad, (hereinafter
referred to 'learned Tribunal') in M.V.O.P.No.562 of 2015, dated
21.01.2020, wherein claimants had filed the claim petition under
Section 166-A and 166(1)(c) of M.V.Act, 1988 read with Rule 455 of
M.V.Rules, seeking compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- on account of
death of Bandari Gurumej Singh @ Gurumej Singh, (herein after
referred as 'deceased'), who died in Motor Vehicle accident occurred on
13.10.2014.
2. The brief facts of the case are that appellants/claimants filed
M.V.O.P.No.562 of 2015 under Section 166-A and 166(1)(c) of M.V.Act,
1988 read with Rule 455 of M.V.Rules seeking compensation for the
death of the deceased, who died in the accident. Appellant No.1 is the
wife and appellant Nos.2 and 3 are the daughters of the deceased. On
13.10.2014, on the instructions of Lorry owner i.e., i.e., respondent
NNR,J
No.1, the deceased started driving the Lorry bearing No.AP 25-U-4458
from Koramandal Cement Factory and was proceeding towards
Nizamabada and when he reached near Williamoon X Road, Tandur City
at about 10:00 a.m, however, the deceased drove the Lorry in reverse
side due to which he fell down from the steering seat and sustained
multiple fractures and other grievous injuries all over his body.
Immediately, the deceased was taken to Government Hospital, Tandur,
however, the deceased succumbed to injuries. The Police registered a
case in Crime No.205 of 2014 under Section 304-A of IPC against the
driver of the offending vehicle.
3. The contention of the appellants before the Tribnal was that as on
the date of accident, the deceased was aged about 47 years and was
earning Rs.10,000/- per month apart from batta of Rs.300/- per day by
working as driver under respondent No.1. Due to the said accident, the
appellants lost their dependency. The appellants claimed an amount of
Rs.15,00,000/- under various heads as compensation for the death of
the deceased.
4. Respondent No.1 filed written statement stating that deceased was
working as driver under respondent No.1 and the respondent No.1 paid
NNR,J
monthly salary of Rs.10,000/- per month and batta of Rs.300/- per day
and the lorry bearing No.AP-25-U-4458 is involved in the accident was
insured with Shriram General Insurance Company Limited i.e.,
respondent No.2, and the insurance policy is in force as on the date of
the accident.
5. Respondent No.2 - Shriram General Insurance Company Limited
filed a counter-affidavit, denying all the averments made in the claim
petition, including the manner in which the accident took place, age,
avocation and income of the deceased and submitted that the driver of
the offending Lorry was not holding valid driving licence at the time of
accident and further contended that the compensation claimed is
excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.
6. Basing on the pleadings and averments made by both the
counsels, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues:
i) Whether on 13.10.2014 at about 10:00 am near Williamoon X Road, Tandur,
accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of lorry No.AP-25-U-4458
by its driver?
ii) Whether Bandari Gurumej Singh @ Gurumej Singh received injuries in that
accident and died of the injuries?
iii) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount
and from which respondent?
iv) To what relief?
NNR,J
7. After perusing the oral and documentary evidences and going into
the entire record and the evidences placed by both the parties, the
learned Tribunal allowed the claim in part by granting compensation of
Rs.2,00,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum.
8. Being aggrieved and unsatisfied by the meager compensation
amount awarded by the learned Tribunal, the present appeal is filed on
the ground that the learned Tribunal ignored the evidence placed by the
appellants/claimants as well as respondent No.1 that the deceased was
earning Rs.10,000/- per month by working as driver under respondent
No.1 apart from batta of Rs.300/- per day. The Tribunal ought to have
assessed income of the deceased @ Rs.40,000/- per annum as per the
judgment passed in United Insurance Company Limited v.
C.Mallikarjuna 1.
9. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2-Insurance Company
contended that, as per the settled law, when a person drives a vehicle
with the consent of owner of said vehicle, such person for all practical
purposes steps into the shoes of the owner and cannot be considered as
2006(4) ALD 658
NNR,J
third party and the Tribunal has right rightly awarded the
compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- which is just and reasonable and needs
no interference by this Court.
10. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2-Insurance Company also
relied on the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in i)
National Insurance Company Limited v.Baljit Kaur & Others 2 and
ii) Deepal Girish Bhai Sony Vs. United India Insurance company 3
and i) National Insruance Company Limited v. Shanthi & Others 4.
11. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that has contended
that considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has
rightly awarded the compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- which is just and
reasonable and needs no interference by this Court.
12. The respondents have not filed cross-appeal against the Award
and decree passed by the Tribunal. As such, the claimant is satisfied
with the Award and decree and the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal. The only point arose before this Court in this appeal is that:
(2024) 2 SCC 1
2004 (5) SCC 385
2022 ACJ 1032
NNR,J
"i) Whether the Tribunal had rightly considered the claimants
petition filed under Section 163(A) read with and awarded just
compensation to the claimants.
ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for the compensation in view of
the self made accident and self negligence."
13. Admitted, the deceased died on 13.10.2014 due to self-accident of
the deceased and the petitioners filed claim petition before Tribunal
under Section 163-A of M.V.Act. As per settled law, though the risk of
the deceased was not covered as a third party, still his risk was covered
under a special or additional contract to grant compensation to the legal
representative i.e., claimants herein. As per the judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Ningamma & Anr v. United India Insurance
Company Limtied 5, it was held that in order to claim compensation,
the recipient had to be a third party. If the driver is the owner of the
motor vehicle or if the vehicle had been driven by another, he would
step into the shoes of the owner and therefore, from a reading of Section
163A, it is clear that the legal representative of the deceased is not
entitled to compensation."
(2009) 13 SCC 710
NNR,J
14. In a Judgment between Ramkhiladi and Anr Vs The United
India Insurance Company & Anr 6, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
observed that to claim compensation in a claim under Sec.163(A) of the
MV Act, the deceased has to be a third party to the policy.
15. In the instant case, the deceased under the instructions of owner
of the vehicle, drove the vehicle and accidentally fell down from the
cabin of the lorry and received fatal injuries all over the body and
succumbed to injuries. Admittedly, there is no vehicle involved in the
accident except the offending vehicle. Applying the principle held by the
Supreme Court in cited above, the Insurer is not liable to pay
compensation, since deceased is not a third party as per the provisions
of the M.V. Act, 1988.
16. In view of judgments discussed above, it can be safely concluded
that the deceased is not third party as he stepped into the shoes of
owner and by applying the principle held by the Apex Court more
particularly in Shanthi's Case (cited above), hence the Insurer is not
liable to pay compensation, since deceased is not a third party as per
the provisions of the M.V. Act, 1988.
AIR 2020 SC 527
NNR,J
17. The only aspect which the appellants/petitioners contended that
the payment of the compensation can be paid under the personal
accident but not as a third party as driver being engaged by the
respondent No.1 and owner of the vehicle and the learned tribunal
having considered the personal accident policy and the payment of the
premium of Rs.50/- was paid to the driver of the vehicle, the learned
Tribunal came to the conclusion that risk of the deceased was not
covered as a third party for grant compensation to his legal heirs. As per
Ex.P1 insurance policy, the insurance company has collected additional
premium of Rs.100/- for owner-cum-driver and Rs.50/- towards driver's
payment. Admittedly, on payment of Rs.50/- to the driver, the driver
was covered with coverage of personal accident to an extent of
Rs.2,00,000/-. Being the personal accident coverage in respect of the
driver and partly allowed the said claim-petition by awarding
Rs.2,00,000/- with interest @ 7.5%.
18. The Ex.B1 (Insurance Copy), the insurance had collected a
premium of Rs.50/- toward driver's premium and the Ex.B1 policy
shows that the extent of personal accident coverage to an extent of
NNR,J
Rs.2,00,000/-, hence the Tribunal granted Rs.2,00,000/- with 7.5%
interest to the claimants appears to be good and needs no interference .
19. Therefore, this Court do not see any ground to interfere with the
order passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional
District Judge, Nizamabad, in M.V.O.P.No.562 of 2015, dated
21.01.2020. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. There shall be no
order as to costs.
20. Miscellaneous petitions, if any are pending, shall stand closed.
_________________________________
NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA, J
20.06.2025
SHA
