Partly allowed

The Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. G. Padma

Telangana HC13 Jun 2025MACMA/253/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Cross-appeals by an insurer and a claimant over motor accident compensation under Section 163-A. Holding the deceased, who was driving his brother's motorcycle, to fall within 'driver' rather than third party, the court limited compensation to the policy's owner-driver cover of Rs.1,00,000, reducing the Tribunal's award.

What did the court decide?

MACMA 319/2021 dismissed; MACMA 253/2021 partly allowed, compensation reduced from Rs.3,70,000 to Rs.1,00,000 with 7.5% interest; excess already withdrawn not recoverable.

The Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs G… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

t34441

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA,,DEVI EADA

¶7

M.A.C.M.A.Nos: 253 & 319 ot 2021

¶8

MACMA.No.253 o12021

¶9

Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act,^'1988 against the order and decree dated 15-06-2020 passed in MVOP.No.1817 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Xl Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts at Hyderabad.

¶10

Between:

¶11

The Bajaj Allianz General lnsurance Co. Ltd, Represented by its Branch manager (Agency Operations), Saphire Square, 3'd Floor, 6-8-885/7, Somajiguda CirCle, Hyderabad.

¶12

AND

¶13

..AppellanURespondent No.2

¶14

G. Padma, Wo late lvallaiah, Age. 45 years, Occ. Household, R/o H.No.3-176, lslampura, Bhongiri Village and Mandal, Nalgonda District.

¶15

2 G Anjaneyuru, s/o Late rMa,aiah, Ase: Major:'5;;%t,l"?""Jrtrlt#?,:liTJ?: 76, lslampura, Bhongiri Village and Mandal, Nalgonda District (Ovirner of the Motorcycle bearing No. AP 24 AL 2548)

¶16

...Respondent No.2/Respondent No.1

¶17

lA NO: 2 OF 2021

¶18

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the operation of the Order and Decree dated 15-06-2020 passed in t\4.V.O.P.No.'1817 of 2015 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - Cum - Xl Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad.

¶19

lA NO: 3 OF 2021

¶20

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to pass orders by permitting the^petitioner to withdraw 50% of decreetal amount deposited by the Respondent No.2/lnsurance Co. by vacating interim stay orders, dated 0904-2021 passed in l.A. No.2 of 2021 in II4ACMA No.253 of 202'1 .

¶21

Counsel for the Appellant: Sri A. Rama Krishna Reddy

¶22

Counsel forthe Respondent No.1 : Sri T. Vishwarupa Chary

¶23

MACMA.No.319 of 2021

¶24

Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Ailotor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the order and decree dated 15-06-2020 passed in MVOP.No.'1817 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Xl Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts at Hyderabad.

¶25

Between:

¶26

G. Padma, Wo late Mallaiah, aged about 50 years, occ: Household, R/o.H.No.31-76, Islampura Bhongir Village and Mandal, Yadadri Bhongir District.

¶27

...ClaimanUAppellant

¶28

AND

¶29

G. Anjaneyulu, S/o. late Mallaiah, aged t/ajor, Occ: Busrness, R/ o . H.No.31-76, lslampura. Bhongir Village and Mandal, Yadadri Bhongir District

¶30

The Bajaj Allianz General lnsurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by its Branch Manager, (Agency Operations), Saphire Square, 3'' Floor, 6-B-885/7, Somajiguda Circle, Hyderabad.

¶31

...Respondents/Respondents

¶32

Counsel for the Appellant: Sri T. Viswarupa Chary

¶33

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Sri A. Rama Krishna Reddy

¶34

The Court delivered the following: COMMON JUDGMENT

¶35

¶36

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA^{DEVI EADA}

¶37

M.A.C.M.A.NO.253 & 319 0F²⁰²¹

¶38

COMMON JUDGMENT:

¶39

Both these appeals arise out of the Order^{and Decree dated} 15.06.2020 in M.V.O.P.No.1817 of 2O15^{passedby the Chairman,} Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Xl^{AdditionalChief Judge,} City Civil Court, Hyderabad^(for short "the^Tribunal").

¶40

For convenience and clarity, the-parties^{herein are referredto} as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

¶41

The case of the petitioner before the^{Tribunal was that on} 21 .O1.2012 at about 23:00 hours, thc^{deceased-G.Laxmanand his} friend Srinivas were going from Nalgonda to^{Bhongir on motorbike} bearing No.AP-24-AL-2548 and on the way,^{when theyreached} Chityal Village, an unknown vehicle coming^{in the same direction,} dashcd the motor bike from behind, as a result^{of which the} deceased and his friend fell down.^{and sustained serious injuries.} The deceased died on the spot. It is^Lheircase that^{the deceascd} was hale and healthy and was aged^{26 years, he was doing Kirana} Business and used to earn Rs.9,OOO/-^{per month.They soughta} compensation of Rs.9,00,0OO/- by hling a^{petition under Section} 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act.

¶42

The respondent No. 1 remained ex-parte.

¶43

¶44

¶45

ETD,J MACMA Nos.253 & 319 2021

¶46

5, The respondent No.2 filed counter denying the avermcnts of the petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident and the age, avocation and income of the deceased. They further contended that as pcr the FIR an unknown vehicle has hit the motor bike and thus, it comes under the provisions of Hit and hun cases. Further, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation. They further contended that the deceased did not have a valid driving license as on the date of accident and that their company is not liable to pay any compensation.

¶47

Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues for consideration:-

¶48

1 Whether the accident took place due to the rash and negligent drtutrtg of the motor bike beaing No.Ap-24_AL 2548 causing death of deceosed-G. Loxman?

¶49

2 Whether the petitioner is enti ed for compens(1tion. If so, to whqt amount and from uhonr?

¶50

To uthat relief ?

¶51

To prove their case, the petitioner got examined pW1 and Exs.Al to A4 were marked. On behalf of the responclents RW1 was examined and Ex.B1 and 82 were marked.

¶52

Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded a c?Fpensation of Rs.3,7O,O0O/-. Aggrieved by the said order and decree, the present appeal is hled by the Insurance Company.

¶53

ETD,J MACMA Nos.253 & 319 2021

¶54

¶55

Heard Sri A. Rama Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company and Sri T. Vishwarupa^Chary, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶56

Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has submitted that the order of the Tribunal is contrary to^law and^weightof evidence and that the Tribunal ought to have^{seen thatthe} deceased is not a third party, but he is the younger brother^{of the} insured r.e., respondent No.l before the trial Court^{and the said} fact was admitted by PW1 in her evidence. Even then, the^Tribunal failed to consider the said fact. He further argued that the deceased was driving the vehicle of his brother who is the owner of^the vehicle and that he does not come under the meaning of third party and therefore, the Tribunal ought not to have entertained the application. He further argued that the Tribunai has committed error in quantifying the compensation and has awarded huge amounts without observing the conditions laid down in the^policy. He further argued that if this Court holds that the deceased is^a third party, then it has to follow the Second Schedule as^{per the} statute. He therefore, prayed to set aside the order and decree^of the Tribunal by allowing this appeal.

¶57

Learned counsel for the claimant, on the other^{hand, has} argued that the^deceased is a third party,^{since he} is^neitherthe insured nor the^insurer and that the claim^petition is^{very much}

¶58

¶59

¶60

ETD,I MACMA Nos.253 & 319 2021

¶61

maintainable before the Tribunal. He further, argued that the Tribunal has granted meagre amounts without following the cost inflation index and that the Tribunal has simply awarded the compensation under the second schedule, but failed to consider the raise in cost of living and the cost inflation index. He therefore, prayed to enhance the compensation.

¶62

Based on the above rival contentions, this Court frames the

¶63

' following points for determination,

¶64

1 WhetLter the deceased is third patTA? If so, tDhether the Insurance Compang is tiabTe to-pag compensation?

¶65

2 Wether tlE conpensation granted_ bg the Tibunql is just and reasonable?

¶66

3 Whether the order and decree of the Tibunal need. qnA interkrence?

¶67

1. To what retief>

¶68

1 3. Point No. 1:

¶69

a) The deceased is the brother of respondent No.1 who is tl-re owner of the motor bike bearing No.Ap-24-AL-2548. on the fateful day, the deceased was going on the said motor bike from Nalgonda to Bhongir, and on the \ ray he met with an accident as an unknown vehicie has hit it from behind. The present petition is filed by the mother of the deceased against the owner and insurer of the motor bike. Since, it is filed under Section 163_4, the petitioner need not prove the rash and negligence on part of the rider of the motor bike. The contention of the appellant counsel is

¶70

ETD,J MACMA Nos.253 & 319²⁰²¹

¶71

¶72

,, ,.|,

¶73

that since the deceased is the brother^{of the owner and was riding} the motor bike at the time of^{accident,the claim would be} restricted to the terms and conditions^{of the policy.}

¶74

b) To prove his contention, the counsel^{for InsuranceCompany} has relied upon .hlingam rna and^{dnother. Vs- Unlted Indian} Assurance Compang Limitedl;^{in the said casethe deceased was} travelling on Hero Honda motor^{bike, whichhe borrowed fromits} real owner. It wasr held in the said^{caseby the ApexCourt that a} bare perusal of Section^{163-A would make it explicitly clear that} the persons like the deceased^{in the presentcasewouldstep into} the shoes of the owner of^{the vehicle.In a case, whereinthe victim} died or where he was^{permanently disableddue to an accident} arising out of the aforesaid^{motor vehicle, in that eventthe liabiliry} to make paymenl of compensation^{is on the InsuranceCompanyor} the owner, as the case may^{be as providedunder Section 163-A'} But if it is proved that the^{driver is tlee owner of the motorcycle, in} that case the owner could^{not himself be arecipient of} compensation, as a liability^{to pay the same is on him.}

¶75

c) The counsel for Insurance^{Company has also relied upon} National Insurance Compang Limlted^{Vs. Slnithaand Others2;}

¶76

¶77

'^{AIR2oo9 sc 3056}

¶78

'^{r (20t2)ACC 524 (sc)}

¶79

¶80

ETD,,] MACMA Nos.253 & 319 2021 6

¶81

.:.1

¶82

wherein it was held that Section 163-A of the Act is founded under the "No Fault" liability principle.

¶83

d) He further relied upon New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Sad.anand. Mukhi and Other#; wherein the son of the insured while driving the motor bike met with an accident and died. In the said case, it was held that the driver of the vehicle is not a third parqr and as such, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to pass any order under Motor Vehicles Act.

¶84

e) Relying on the said Judgment, a Coordinate Bench of this High Court in Ortental Insurance Company Limited. Vs. patha

¶85

Gangannma and. Otherst; has held that the deceased who is the son of the owner of the vehicle, died in an accident while driving the said vehicle, is not a third party and he is only a legal heir of the insured and as such, the insurer is not liable to pay any compensation, since the risk of the deceased was not covered by the Policy.

¶86

0 On the other hand, the counsel for claimant has relied upon Neu India Assurance Comgtang Limited. Vs. Sharnti Bopanna

¶87

and Others5; in the said case, the deceased was travelling in a car which belongs to his employer and it was driven bv another

¶88

' lzoqg;^rScc+rz

¶89

o :ozo 1s61 ,+Lo roz 1.rs.1 . AIR 20 I 7 SC 2857

¶90

EID,] MACMA Nos.253 & 319 2021

¶91

¶92

person. It was contended by the Insurance Company that the deceased is not a third party, because he was an employee sitting in the car. It was held rn the said case that the deceased was indeed a third party being neither the insurer nor the insured.

¶93

g) lrarned counsel for the claimant has further relied upon the decision of a Division Bench of this High Court between Oriental Insttrance Compang Limited Vs. Ranr,lrlsettg Sriniaasa Rao and Others6; 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 wile is the owner of [he 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 owner and that he is not a third party. The Bench has held that the term 'third party' implies any person other than the insurer and the insured, who are not parties to insurance contract. In the said case the deceased was not driving the vehicle at the time of accident, but in the present case, the deceased was driving the vehicle with which the accident occured.

¶94

6 zoz+ p1 ryo vt (rs) (DB)

¶95

¶96

¶97

ETD,I IMACMA Nos.253 & 319 2021

¶98

h) The counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court to Bajaj Allianz Genera.l Insurance Compang Limited. ys. Gaddam Sra.llami Red.dg and anotherT; 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. In the said case, the injured_petitioner who was driving the car,,dashed a tree on the road side and thus, sustained fracture injuries. The Bench held that the claimant in the instant case is admittedly not a third party and that he did not adduce any evidence showing that the accident occurred in the course of his employment with the respondent No.2 who is the owner of the vehicle or that under the terms and conditions of the policy, under which the car involved in the accident was insured *.ith the appellant-lnsurance Company, his risk is covered. With the said observation, the appeal f,rled by the Insurance Company was allowed.

¶99

4 A perusal of Ex.Bl/Policy reveals that it covers the risk of owner-driver to an extent of Rs. 1,00,00O/ _. It is further mentioned that the term 'driver' includes^.ang person inctud.ing the insuredprouided that a person diuing hold.s an effectiue diuing license at the time of the accid-ent and is not d.isqualified. from holding or

¶100

'^{zon ecl zssa}

¶101

ETD,J MACMA Nos.253 & 319 2021

¶102

¶103

¶104

obtoining such a license. Prouided also that the persons Ltolding an effectiue Learner's license maA also drtue the uehicle uhen not used for^{the transport or goods/ passengersat the time of the accident} ond that such a person sofisfes tlw requirements of Rule 3 of the Centrol Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989'.

¶105

j) Thus, after going through all the above cited decisions, it is inferred that the deceased is not a third party in the present case as he was driving the vehicle of the insured and that he falls under the term "driver" as mentioned in the policy. The claim petition filed by the mother of the deceased is maintainable and the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation as per the terms and conditions of the Policy.

¶106

k) The Ex.Bl/Policy reveals that a premium of Rs.SO/- is paid towards PA coverage of owner-driver. Thus, it is held that the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation to the petitioner to the extent of limited liability mentioned in the policy.

¶107

Point No.1 is answered accordingly.

¶108

Point No.2:-

¶109

a) The contention of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company is that if the deceased is held to be a third party and when the claim petition is filed under Section 163-A, the annual income of the deceased cannot be more than Rs.4O,OOO/- as per the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act.

ETD,J MACMA Nos.253 & 319 2021

¶114

b) On the other hand, the counsel for the claimant contended that the deceased is a third party and the compensation under Section 163-,4 has to be granted by taking into consideration, the cost inflation index in addition Lo the second schedule.

¶115

c) In support of their contentions, they have relied upon several decisions ofApex Court and High Courts.

¶116

d) It is already held under point No.l that the deceased falls under the term 'driver' as mentioned in the policy and the claimant is entitled to compensation of Rs. 1,O0,OOO/ as stipulated rn the policy covering the risk of owner-driver.

¶117

Point No.2 is answered accordingly

¶118

15. POINT NO.3:-

¶119

In view of the finding arrived at point No.1 and 2, it is helcl that the order and decree of the Tribunal does not need any interference with regard to the tiability of respondents and the same is upheld. But with regard to quantum of compensation, it needs to be reduced from Rs.3,7O,OOO/- to Rs.1,OO,OOO/-.

¶120

Point No.3 is answered accordingiy.

¶121

16. PTOINT NO.4:

¶122

In the result, the MACMA.No.319 of 2O2i filed bv the claimant is dismissed and MACMA.No.2S3 of 2O2l filed bv the

¶123

ETD,.I MACMA Nos.253 & 319 2021

¶124

¶125

insurance Company is partly allowed modifying the Order and Decree dated 15.06.2020 in M.V.O.P.No.1817 of 2OLS passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Xl Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, reducing the compensation from Rs.3,70,OO0/- to Rs.1,OO,000/- which shall carry interest @7.5% per annum from the date 9f claim petition till realization. However, the record shows that the claimant has already withdrawn 50% of the compensation deposited by the Insurance Company. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the amount that is already received by the claimant and if at all the amount that is already received by the claimant is found to be in excess, the same shail not be recovered by the insurer keeping in view the objective of beneficial iegislation. No costs

¶126

Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appeal, shall

¶127

stand closed.

¶128

SD/- MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUry REGI TRAR

¶129

//TRUE COPY//

¶130

SECTI OFFICER

¶131

One Fair Copy to the^{HON'BLESMT. JUSTICETIRUMALA DEVI EADA} (For Her LordshiP's kind Perusal)