Telangana High Court

Iffcotokio General Insurance Company ... vs Sana Padma on 25 June, 2025

                                  1

      HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

                   M.A.C.M.A.NO.495 OF 2021

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company, aggrieved by

the Order and Decree dated 23.03.2021 in M.V.O.P.No.81 of 2015

passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II

Additional District Judge, Karimnagar (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

13.07.2014 at about 3:00 p.m., while the deceased was returning

to his house on Scooter, when he reached near Rana Rexene works

at Bellampally Chowrastha, one Tata Van bearing No.MH-33-4378

driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed,

dashed the deceased from his back, due to which the deceased fell

down, sustained severe head injury and died on the spot. The

claimants sought a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-.

4. The respondent No.1 died during the pendency of the

proceedings.

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 ETD,J MACMA No.495_2021

the accident occurred due to the rash and negligence of the

deceased himself and that there is no rash and negligence on part

of the driver of the Tata Van bearing No.MH-33-4378. It is further

contended that their vehicle is insured with respondent No.3 and

that in case if this Court awards any compensation, it is only

respondent No.3 which is liable to pay compensation.

6. The respondent No.3 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

the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess valid driving

license and that the offending vehicle was not having valid permit

and thus, their company is not liable to pay any compensation.

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

following issues:

1) Whether the accident had occurred on account of the use of the offending vehicle Tata Van bearing No.MH-33-4378 by respondent No.1?

2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation. If so, to what amount and from whom?

3) To what relief?

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

PW2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P10. On behalf of the respondents

RW1 and 2 were examined and Ex.R1 was marked.

ETD,J MACMA No.495_2021

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

compensation of Rs.8,08,540/-. Aggrieved by the said award, the

present appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company.

10. Heard the submissions of Sri Ramachandra Reddy Gadi,

learned counsel for the Insurance Company. None appeared on

behalf of the respondents.

11. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted the

offending vehicle did not have valid permit as on the date of

accident and has placed reliance on Ex.P3 and contended that

when there is no permit to the offending vehicle, there is gross

violation of the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act and therefore, the

Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation. He

further argued that the rider of the Scooter i.e., the deceased and

also the driver of the Tata Van did not possess valid driving license

as on the date of the accident. He further disputed the quantum of

compensation awarded by the Tribunal saying that the Tribunal

has wrongly calculated the quantum of compensation.

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

following points for determination:

1. Whether the crime vehicle bearing No.MH-33-4378 did not have valid permit as on the date of the accident. If so, whether the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation?

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

ETD,J MACMA No.495_2021

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

4. To what relief?

13. POINT NO.1:

a) The learned counsel for the appellants has strongly relied

upon Ex.P3/Form-54 i.e., Accident Information Report. His

contention is that the permit particulars are not mentioned in

Ex.P3. A perusal of Ex.P3 does not disclose that Form No.54 has

any such column to be filled with regard to the permit. Therefore,

this Court cannot hold that the said contention of the appellant

counsel is proved.

b) Before the trial Court the insurer got examined RW1 and 2,

but their evidence does not throw any light on this aspect.

c) RW2 has mentioned in his chief affidavit that the crime

vehicle did not have valid permit to ply in the State of Telangana

and has filed Ex.R1/the true copy of Insurance

copy. But for his statement, in chief examination there is no other

evidence to prove his contention that the crime vehicle had no

permit to ply in the State of Telangana. He admitted in his cross

examination that he has not filed any document to show that both

the offending vehicles do not have any permit. He further admitted

that in Ex.P7/MVI report, it is only mentioned that the permit is

not produced. Though, he stated that the owner has not produced

the permit, he has not produced any proof to show that they have ETD,J MACMA No.495_2021

issued notice to the owner to produce the permit. It is further

elicited from him that they have not verified about the permit while

issuing the policy. He further admitted that they would issue

insurance policy even without any permit. He further stated that it

is not mentioned in Ex.R1/Policy that it would be invalid in case if

there is no permit. Therefore, a perusal of Ex.P7/MVI report

reveals that the permit is not produced, but it is not mentioned

that the vehicle does not have any permit. Further when the RW2

himself has admitted that even without any permit, they would

issue the Insurance Policy, it is the validity of the Insurance Policy

that matters to cover the risk of the accident and the question of

permit does not fall for any consideration. However, with the

evidence on record, the appellants could not prove that the vehicle

does not have valid permit, as on the date of the accident and it is

held that the insurance company is liable to pay compensation.

Point No.1 is answered accordingly.

14. POINT NO.2:

a) PW1 asserted that the deceased was a Retired Employee

who worked as ADE in Electricity Department and was getting a

net monthly pension of Rs.49,235/- and filed Ex.P10. Therefore,

the Tribunal considering the said fact placed on record, has

followed the legal principle of awarding half of the pension amount

as the income and rounded up the same to Rs.24,618/-, thus since

there is only claimant 50% deduction is made and has also applied ETD,J MACMA No.495_2021

a right multiplier for the age of the deceased i.e., '12' and has

arrived at a just compensation of Rs.8,08,540/-.

b) The Tribunal has rightly assessed the compensation by

following the guidelines of National Insurance Company Limited

Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others 1 and has arrived at an amount of

Rs.8,08,540/-. Hence, it is held that the compensation awarded by

the Tribunal is just and reasonable.

Point No.2 is answered accordingly.

15. Point No.3:-

In view of the findings arrived at point Nos.1 and 2, there is

no need to interfere with the order and decree passed by the

Tribunal and therefore, the same is upheld.

Point No.3 is answered accordingly.

16. Point No.4:-

In the result, the appeal is dismissed upholding the Order

and Decree dated 23.03.2021 in M.V.O.P.No.81 of 2015 passed by

the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional

District Judge, Karimnagar. No costs.