Partly allowed

M.Balamani and 2 Ors. v. Mr.a.Mahesh Kumar and Anr.

Telangana HC12 Sept 2023MACMA/2262/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court partially allowed a civil miscellaneous appeal challenging a Tribunal order that exonerated the Insurance Company. The Court held that Section 163-A imposes no-fault liability, meaning the driver's lack of a valid license does not affect the insurer's primary liability to pay compensation to the statutory heirs.

What did the court decide?

The findings of the Tribunalexonerating respondent No.2 (Insurance Company) from liability are set aside. Respondent No.2 is directed to pay the awarded amount to the appellants and recover the same f

M.Balamani and 2 Ors. Vs Mr.a.Mahesh Kumar and Anr. — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

t^3216l

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR AT HYDT&EABIITE^{OF TELANGANA}

¶3

TUESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND IWENIiiHh;E"'''

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.LAXMAN

¶6

MOTOR ACCID ENT CIVIL MISCEL LANEO US APPEALNO :2262oF 2007

¶7

Appear fired Under Section 173 0f Motor Vehicres Act against the order and decree in op No 355 of 2006 d"t"; ;6;;-;ool"in the fire of the court of the SfJI:X.y'or Accident craims i,,[rili-"ri,]"pril",prr District Judge Medak at

¶8

Between:

¶9

M.Balamani Wo.Madhusudan Dangareddy, Medak District. Reddy Household R/o.shantinagar,

¶10

, MS:[.Bt,rD/o.Madhusudan^{Reddy Student R/oShantinagar,} Sangareddy,

¶11

M.Sirisha, Dio.Madhusr_ r.srfl U/G of

¶12

ftr e i r n^j i u ia r rio,'#, tii fl?: sr:r,ir, :J :fl T: [, f, "5:? 31ff :?

¶13

AND

¶14

...Appellants claimants

¶15

MR.A.Mahesh Kumar S/o Rajaiah Owner of Lorry No.A tR 459 R/o.H.No. 1 -4-'l 60, Botakpur, Musheera'bad, S"irnO"iiO- i''"'

¶16

2 New lndia Assurance Company Ltd., rep by its Branch Manager R/o.Branch office 3-5't/3, Raghavendhia tlirn"ibnl'oip.'inltji", Batnagar, Hyderabad R - 1 dismissed for default vide Court Order dated 11_0Z_2016

¶17

..Respondents/Respondents

¶18

Counsel for the Appellants : SRl. C pRATAp REDDY

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRl. p HARINATH GUPTA

¶20

The Court delivered the foltowing: JUDGMENT

¶21

,-,,.

¶22

THE HON'BLE^{SRI JUSTICEM' LAXMAN} NTCrvIL^{MIscELLANEOUS} APPEAL MOTOR^ACCIDE No.22 62^0F2007

¶23

JUD^GMENT:

¶24

1 The Present^{IdotorAccident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is} filed^{by the appellants -claimantschallenging the orderand} d.ecree,^{dated O6'09' 2OO7 in O P'No'355of 2OO6 on the file of the} Chairman,^{Motor Accident C1aims Tribunal -cum- the Principal} District^{Judge,Meclak at Sangareddy'(hereinafter referred to as} "lribunal').

¶25

The only^{point involved in the present case is that the} Tribunal^{failedto see that the claim is madeunder Section163-A} of Motor^{Vehicles Act, 1988and the requirementof Section 163-4} satisfied.^{The Tribunal ought to have fixed the 'liability on both} the respondents^{and if there is violationof any policy terms in} between^{respondents since the deceased'is covered by third party} policy, the^{lega1 heirs cannotbe denied of the beneht under policy'} At the most,^{for violation of such policyterms by the owner of the} vehicle, the^{lnsuranceCompany is entitled to recoverhaving paid} to amount to the appellants.^{Therefore, the Tribunalwas wrong} in exonerating the Insurance company from liability. Therefore, fhe present appeal.

¶26

¶27

This Court by order dated 11.O7.2016 dismissed the^appeal against respondent No.1 for nonpayment^{of batta for notice. This} Court considered the fact that^{respondentNo.1 has not} participated in the^{proceedingsand he was set exparte,In the} said background,^{the notice couldhave been dispensedinstead of} notice to respondent^{No.1. In the said circumstances,the order of} dismissal is recalled^{and notice is dispensedwith'}

¶28

l,earned counsel^{representing Insurance Company has} submitted that the^{Tribunal rightlydismissedthe liability against} the lnsurance Company^{on accountof failure to provethe} existence of^{valid license to the deceased. when the license is not} exists, the Insurance^{Company is not liable to pay for death of} deceased who^{has no competenceto drive the vehicle'}

¶29

Heard both sides.

¶30

6,Inthesaidbackgroundoffactsandcircumstancesthiscase to be disposed of.^{In the light of the said contentions' Section} 163-A is relevant,^{which reads hereunder:-}

¶31

163A. Special^{provisions as to payment of compcnsation on} structurcd^{formula basis.- (I) Notwithstanding nny'hingcontained} in this Act or in^{anyother law for the tirne beingin fbrce or instrulnent} ir"v.i.ng ,f-t" forcc^{of law, the ownerof the lnotor vehicleof the} autholised insurcr^{shall be tiablc to pay in tho caseof dcath or} p"r*un"n, disablernent^{due to accidentarising out rlf the use of motor} veliicle, cornpensation,^{as in<licatedin thc Scconcl Schedule' to the} lcgal heirs or the victitn,^{as thecase tuay be'}

¶32

¶33

t I

¶34

Explanation.-Fol thc pLttlloscs of^{thissub-section,} "pennauent as in the clisabitity" shall have the satnc rneaning^andextent Workmen's Co.r.npensation Act, 1923⁽⁸ ol^1923).

¶35

(2) In any clairn fbr compensation undel sub-section^{(1), ttrc claimant} shall not be reqtrired to plead or cstablish^{that the deathor pennallent} disablement in rcspect of which thc clairn^{has beenmade was due to} any wrongful act or ncglect or default of^{the orvner of the vchicle or} vehicles conccmcd or of any otltcr^persou.

¶36

(3) Thc Centrat Govemment rnay, keeping in view the cost of living by notification in thc Official Gazette, frorn tirne^{to time amend the} Second Schedulc.

¶37

A close scrutiny of the above provision, for maintaining^the claim under 163-A of MV Act, the claimants have^{to prove that} there r,r,as an acciclent and such accident^{was -result of use of} motorvehicle and in the said accident, the^{person suffered death} or injuries. If these three ingredients have established,^the claimants automatically get fixed compensation.^{The provision do} not recognize an)/ act or omission on the part of the deceased or injured, which has contributed for the accident. The liability is fixed on no fault basis ald not based on the fault liability, which was on accolrnt of act or omission on the part of the deceased. Driving the vehicle without license may be an act or omission on the part of the deceased, which constituted the ccjntributing factor for the accident, such act or omission amounts to be act of negligence. The claim under Section 163-.4 of MV Act is based on no fault theory. The act or omission has no significance. Thus, non-holder of license has no bearing on the liability in the present

¶38

¶39

¶40

case. Therefore,^{the Tribunal ought to have allowed the claim} against respondent^No.2also '^{As rightlycontended by the} counsel for^{InsuranceCompany,the owner has given the vehicle} to the driver,^{whopossessno license,such an act constitutedthe} violationofpolicyterms.Ifthereisviolationofpoticyterms'the Insurance^{Companyis not liable to pay' The evidenceon record} clearly^{showsthat there is a violation of policy terms on the part} of the owner^{of the vehicle in allowingthe deceased to drive the} vehicle without^{there being any license' It is violation of statutory} policy.^{The deceased was coveredunder statutory policy'} Therefore,^{the Insurance Company shallpay and recoverthe said} amount.

¶41

B. Accordingly,^{the appeal is partly allo.*'ed' The findingsof} the Tribunal^{exoneratingrespondent No'2 from liability is set} aside^{and respondent No'2 is directed to pay the awarded amount} to the appellants^{and recoverthe same from the owner on the} strength^{of this award' Thereshall be no order as to costs'} Miscellaneous^{aPPlications if any sha-tl stald<:losed}

¶42

SD/. V KAVITHA, ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR.

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION^OFFICER

To,

1 The Chairman,^{Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- Principal District Judge} Medak at^{Sangareddy. (with records' if any)}

¶47

2 o"" Cc^{to sn'i c prininp REDDY, Advocate toP-u-ql} J O." CC^{to SRl. P HARINATH GUPTA, Advocate [OPUC]} 4 Two CD^CoPies

¶48

ADK d

HIGH COURT

DATED:1 210912023

JUDGMENT

MACMA.No.2262 ot 2001

¶55

1: tl
1l
,,-,1]
1C\c J!, i)
-<br>--
* r,0 t

¶56

PARTLY ALLOWNG THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS

¶57

@c'rto
&
<br>

¶58

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶59

TUESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF^SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^THREE

¶60

PRESENT

¶61

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^M.LAXMAN

¶62

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL^{MISCELLANEOUSAPPEALNO t22620F2007}

¶63

Between:

¶64

l.M.BalamaniWo.MadhusudanReddyHouseholdR/o.Shantinagar, Sangareddy, Medak District.

¶65

2.M.Anusha,D/o.MadhusudanReddyStudentR/o.Shantinagar,Sangareddy, Medak District,

¶66

3.M.Sirisha,D/o.MadhusudanReddyStudent[P2and3areminorsU/Gof

¶67

iii"it niiriri mother P1l R/o.shantinagar, Sangareddy, Medak District'

¶68

...ApPellants^claimants

¶69

AND

¶70

MR.A.Mahesh Kumar^{Sio.Raiaiah Owner of Lorry No ATR 459 R/oH No'} 1-4-166, Bolakpur, Musheerabad,^{Secunderabad'}

¶71

2 New lndia Assurance^{Company Ltd, rep by its Branchlr4gnagerR/oBranch-} Office 3-51 /3, Raghavendhra^{Mansion, Opp.HALGate, Balnagar' Hyderaoao}

¶72

R - 1 dismissed^{for default vide Court Order dated 11-07-20'16}

¶73

...ResPondents/ResPondents

¶74

Appeal filed^{Under Section173 of MotorVehiclesAct against the Orderand} decree in^{OP No.355of 2006 dated 06 09 2007 on the file of the Court of the} ChairmanMotorAccidentClaimsTribunal-cum-PrincipalDistrictJudgeMedakat SangareddY.

¶75

.RDER:^{This appearcoming on for hearing_ and upon perusing the grounds} of appeal,^{the Judgment} "nO^{O""i""of the Lower Court} PRATAP^{and the REDDY' Advocate material papers forrn} the Case^{and upon n""''ng inl"'is"u"m"etit} "t^sn1 I the Appellant^{and of SRl p iranrriniHGUPTA' Advocate for the Respondent No 2'}

¶76

This Court doth Order and Decree as^follows:

¶77

'1 . That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is partly allowed

¶78

fhalthe findings of the Tribunal exonerating^{respondent No 2 from liabilityis} set aside and respondent No.2 is directed to^pay the awarded^{amounl to the} appellants and recover the same from the owner^{on the strength of this award}

¶79

That there shall be no order as to costsⁱⁿ this^appeal

¶80

SD/. V KAVITHA, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR.

//TRUE COPY//

sEcTto OFFICER

To,

1, The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- Principal District Judge Medak at Sangareddy. (with records, if any)

¶85

fwo CD Copies

ADK

HIGH^COURT

DATED:12lilgl2023

DECREE

MAGMA.N^{o'2262 of 2007}

¶94

PARTLY^{ALLOWTNGTHE MACMA} WITHOUT^GOSTS gqa

¶95

\4^I

M.Balamani and 2 Ors. v. Mr.a.Mahesh Kumar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Balamani and 2 Ors. v. Mr.a.Mahesh Kumar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Addula Gopal Reddy Vs Kodiganti Shanker Reddy

Bojja Radha Bai and 4 others Vs P. Prasad and 2 others

Mekala Sanjanna ( died) Vs Kudukuntla Kousalya

Mohd. Parvez Vs A.P. State Electricity Board

Malothu Saravva Vs Nerella Kanakaiah and 3 Ors.

K.Kashinath Alias Kashinatham Vs K.Bhoomalingam and Others.