Telangana High Court

Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Salma Begum on 27 June, 2025

                                  1




      THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

                   M.A.C.M.A.NO.604 OF 2021

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company, aggrieved by

the Order and Decree dated 30.03.2021 in M.V.O.P.No.420 of 2013

passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional

District Judge, Mahabubnagar (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 was that on

16.08.2013 the deceased boarded an auto rickshaw bearing No.AP-

22-W-4838, when the auto reached near Rangaswamy Temple in

the limits of Bhoothpur at about 7:20 p.m., it hit a Lorry bearing

No.AP-15-X-8789 which was parked in the middle of National

Highway No.44 without taking any precautions such as lighting

indicators, as a result the deceased sustained grievous injuries and

died while being shifted to the hospital. The claimants sought a

compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-.

4. The respondent No.1 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 was no negligence of lorry driver and that he was never ETD,J MACMA No.604_2021

charged with any fine for wrong parking. It is further contended

that his vehicle is insured with respondent No.2 and thus

respondent No.2 is only liable to pay compensation if any, awarded

by the Court.

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

the lorry driver does not have valid driving license as on the date of

the accident and that their company is not liable to pay any

compensation. It is further contended that the accident occurred

only due to the negligence of the auto driver and thus, the owner

and insurer of auto are liable to pay compensation and that their

company is not liable to pay compensation.

6. The respondent No.3 filed counter admitting that he is the

owner-cum-driver of the auto, but contended that the accident has

occurred only because the lorry was parked in a negligent manner

in the middle of the National Highway without taking any

precautions. He further contended that he was held to be accused

in the case just due to the influence of respondent No.1/the owner

of the lorry. It is further submitted that a fine of Rs.100/- was

imposed on the driver of the lorry for its wrong parking.

ETD,J MACMA No.604_2021

7. Based on the above rival contentions, the Tribunal has

framed the following issues:-

1. Whether the accident occurred on 16.08.2013 at about 7:20 p.m., near Munni Rangaswamy temple within the limits of Bhoothpur Village and Mandal occurred due to negligent parking of the lorry bearing registration No.AP-15-X-8789 by its driver on the middle of the national highway No.44 as a result of which the deceased who was travelling in an auto rickshaw bearing registration No.AP-22-

W-4838 colluded with the said lorry sustained injuries and died in the said accident?

2. Whether crime vehicle lorry bearing registration No.AP-15-X-8789 is insured with the respondent No.2 company and the policy was in force as on the date of accident?

3. Whether the respondent No.1 has violated the terms and conditions of the policy by entrusting the crime vehicle who is a driver who is not having valid and effective driving license as contended by the respondent No.2?

4. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, what amount and from whom?

5. To what relief ?

8. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PWs 1 to 4

and got marked Exs.A1 to A7. On behalf of the respondents, RW1

to 3 were examined and got marked Exs.B1 and B2.

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

compensation of Rs.14,30,068/-. Aggrieved by the said award, the

present appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company.

10. Heard Sri A. Rama Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the

Insurance Company and Sri Mohammed Abdul Haleem, learned

counsel for the respondents.

ETD,J MACMA No.604_2021

11. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the

crime record shows that the accident occurred only due to the rash

and negligence of the auto driver. No rash and negligence has been

attributed against lorry driver. Thus the Tribunal was wrong in

fixing liability of 60% on the owner and insurer of the lorry while

fixing 40% liability on the owner of the auto. It is his contention

that just because the auto did not have insurance, the Tribunal

has fastened the liability on the Insurance Company which is not

just and proper.

12. He further argued that there is no iota of evidence before the

Tribunal to fix the liability on lorry driver. Though it is contended

by the petitioners that the lorry driver was charged with a fine of

Rs.100/- for wrong parking, it is not proved before the Tribunal

and that the said exhibit is created for the purpose of the case. He

further argued that without any evidence, the Tribunal has given a

speculative order fixing liability on the owner and insurer of the

lorry. He therefore, prayed to set aside the award by allowing this

appeal.

13. The learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand

has submitted that the rash and negligence of auto driver is

admitted in this case. However, there is negligence on part of the

lorry driver for parking the lorry without any indicators in the ETD,J MACMA No.604_2021

middle of the road, as it was dark in the night, the auto driver

could not avoid the accident. He further argued that they filed

Ex.X1 and got examined PW3 in support of their contention. They

relied upon Ex.X1, the challan-cum-receipt for collecting

compounding fee from the lorry driver. Thus, they could prove that

the driver of the lorry was also negligent in parking the lorry, which

gave rise to the accident. He therefore, submitted that there is no

infirmity in the orders passed by the Tribunal and has therefore,

prayed to uphold the same.

14. Based on the above rival submission, this Court frames the

following points for consideration:-

1. Whether the lorry bearing No.AP-15-X-8789 was negligently parked on NH-44 without observing any precautions giving rise to the accident resulting in the death of the deceased-Md. Taheer Pasha?

2. Whether the Order and Decree passed by the Tribunal need any interference?

3. To what relief?

15. Point No.1:-

a) The FIR and Charge Sheet discloses that the crime is

registered against the driver of the Auto bearing No. AP-22-W-

4838. The contents of the charge sheet under Ex.A4 reveal that the

accident occurred as the driver of the auto has driven the auto in a

rash and negligent manner and dashed to a stationed lorry bearing

No.AP-15-X-8789, due to which the deceased who was travelling in

the auto, sustained fatal injuries and died.

ETD,J MACMA No.604_2021

b) PW1/Smt. Salma Begum in her evidence has spoken that

her husband went in the auto bearing No.AP-22-W-4838 met with

an accident and died.

c) The contention of the appellant counsel is that there was no

negligence of the lorry driver in parking the lorry. While the

contention of the respondent counsel is that the lorry was parked

negligently in the middle of the road on the National Highway-44

without taking any precaution, which resulted in the accident.

d) A perusal of the Charge Sheet under Ex.A4 and the Crime

Detailed Form under Ex.B2 cumulatively shows that both the

vehicles were bound towards same direction. The lorry was parked

on the right side of the NH-44, and the auto also went on the

wrong direction that is towards right side of the road and hit

against the rear side of lorry and it is also not in dispute that the

accident occurred due to the night hours i.e., at 7:30 p.m. Thus,

while parking a lorry on to its right side of the road, the lorry driver

must have taken enough precautions by switching on the

indicators.

e) Ex.X1 marked by the petitioners in the evidence of PW3

discloses that a Challan of Rs.100/- was collected from the owner

of the lorry. PW3 is the Sub Inspector of Police, Bhoothpur. His

evidence reveals that they collected Rs.100/- towards ETD,J MACMA No.604_2021

compounding fee from the driver-cum-owner of the lorry bearing

No.AP-15-X-8789 and that they have issued Ex.X1 which is an

attested copy of the said receipt. In his cross examination he

admitted that, it is not mentioned in the charge sheet under Ex.A4

about the compounding fee collected from lorry driver under

Ex.X1, but denied the suggestion that Ex.X1 is the false receipt.

PW3 is the public servant and he deposed that they have collected

Rs.100/- compounding fee from the lorry driver, mere non

mentioning of the said fact in charge sheet, does not render Ex.X1

to be false.

f) The Insurance Company got examined RW2 who is a Sub

Inspector of Police, Sangareddy who previously worked at

Bhoothpur Police Station. He is the person who has filed the

charge sheet in the said case under Crime No.180 of 2019. He

admitted in his cross examination that on a State Highway or

National Highway, the vehicle should be parked only in the

prescribed parking place. He further admitted that Ex.X1 is the

Fine Receipt issued by their Police Station and that the fine was

imposed on the owner-cum-driver of the lorry under Section 122

and 177 of the Motor Vehicles Act. He further admitted that the

driver was not shown as the accused in the charge sheet. Ex.X1

bears the signature of S.I of Police Bhoothpur.

ETD,J MACMA No.604_2021

g) RW3 is the owner-cum-driver of the lorry. He denied that

the Police have imposed a fine of Rs.100/- on him for wrong

parking of his lorry and he denied that Ex.X1 contains his

signature. It is further elicited from him that no auto rickshaw has

hit his lorry from the back side, which appears to be a false

statement as it goes against the crime record. Therefore, the

evidence of Rw3 is not reliable. Thus, an overall perusal of the

evidence on record reveals that the lorry was parked to the right

side of the road in a wrong place and thus, has contributed to the

accident. On the other hand, it is further elicited from the S.I of

Police examined as RW2 and PW3 that they have issued Ex.X1

under which they collected fine from the lorry driver for wrong

parking. Therefore, based on the evidence of PW3, RW2 coupled

with Ex.X1 and Crime Detailed Form under Ex.B2, it is held that

there was negligence of lorry driver in parking the lorry and that

the auto driver was also negligent in driving the auto in a wrong

direction and hitting it against the parked lorry.

Point No.1 is answered accordingly.

16. Point No.2:-

In view of the reasoned finding arrived at Point No.1, it is

opined that the Tribunal has rightly fixed the liability of 60% on

the owner and insurer of the lorry while fixing 40% liability on the ETD,J MACMA No.604_2021

owner of the auto. Hence, there is no need to interfere with the

award passed by the Tribunal.

17. Point No.3:-

In the result, the appeal is dismissed upholding the Order

and Decree dated 30.03.2021 in M.V.O.P.No.420 of 2013 passed by

the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District

Judge, Mahabubnagar. No costs.