The Manager, United India Insuranie Co. Ltd. Vs… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2025)

The Manager, United India Insuranie Co. Ltd. Vs… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the appellant/Insurance Company; the appeal was dismissed without costs and the Tribunal's award stands.

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant/Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation where the driver of the crime lorry does not possess a valid driving licence to drive the said vehicle (holding only a Light Motor Vehicle licence)? +1 more

Court's answer

Relying on the Supreme Court decision in Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and the circular instructions of the Transport Commissioner, Hyderabad (Circular Memo No.1963/R1/2018 dated 24.04.2018), a Light Motor Vehicle includes a transport vehicle up to 7500 Kgs, and no separate endorsement on the licence is required to drive a transport vehicle of the LMV class.

Ratio / Principle

Accordingly, Respondent No.1/owner of the subject lorry, possessing a driving licence to drive LMV, was entitled to drive the subject lorry.

Key takeaways

Policy conditions regarding the driver not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident cannot be considered a fundamental breach that contributed to the cause of the accident so as to discharge the insurer from liability; mere absence, fake or invalid driving licence, or disqualification of the driver at the relevant time, are not in themselves defences available to the insurer against either the insured or third parties.ratio¶20
The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company that, as the driver of the crime lorry held a driving licence only for Light Motor Vehicle and not for the subject lorry, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation, is unsustainable.ratio¶22
On quantum, no interference was warranted: the Tribunal considered the deceased's income at Rs.5,000/- per month, deducted one-third towards personal expenses, applied the relevant multiplier and arrived at Rs.6,70,000/-.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Telangana High Court (10.02.2025, Smt. Justice M.G. Priyadarsini), MACMA No.2975 of 2014: Appeal by United India Insurance Co. Ltd under Section 173 MV Act against the decree of 10.04.2014 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge (FTC), Siddipet, in O.P.No.72/2011, which had partly allowed the claim for the death of Mohammad Althaf Hussain (run over by the insured Ashok Leyland lorry on the return journey near Habshipur X Road) awarding Rs.6,70,000/- @ 7.5% p.a. jointly and severally against owner and insurer, on the pay-and-recovery principle. Sole appellate contention: the driver held only an LMV licence (not for the heavy lorry) and the owner wilfully entrusted the vehicle, breaching policy terms, so the insurer was not liable. Held, relying on Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and the Transport Commissioner's Circular Memo No.1963/R1/2018 (24.04.2018), that LMV includes transport vehicles up to 7,500 Kgs requiring no separate endorsement; non-holding of a valid/effective licence is not a fundamental breach contributing to the accident, and mere absence, fake or invalid licence or disqualification is no defence for the insurer against the insured or third parties; the insurer's contention was unsustainable. Quantum (Rs.5,000/- p.m. income, one-third deducted, multiplier applied) and pay-and-recover upheld; appeal dismissed without costs.

[^325s ]

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M,G.PRIYADARSINI

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 2975 0F 2014

Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor vehicles Act., against the Judgment and decree, made in O OP.No.72 ot 2011, dated. 10.04.2014 on the file of the chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- lV Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court) at Siddipet.

between:

The Manager, United lndia lnsurance Co. Ltd, Regional Office, TP HUB, 2nd Floor, Posennet Bhavan, Church Building Tilak Road, Ramkoti, Hyderabad500001.(Policy No 051403/31110102100004018, Validity from 29.10.2010 to 28.10 2011)

...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT No.2

AND

Mohammad Reshma Begum, Wo Late Althaf Hussain, aged 28 years, Occ Household

Mohammed Arshiya, D/o Late Althaf Hussain, aged 8 years, Minor

J Mohammed Bismilla Bee, Wo Late Hussain, aged 55 years, Occ: Household Respondent No.2 is minor under guardianship of The mother i.e., Respondent No. 1 being a natural mother. R/o Lacvhapet village of Dubba Mandal, Medak District.

4 Ramesh D., S/o Laxmaiah, aged: Major, H,No 1-96, Saraswathi Nagar, Dubba Village and Mandal, Medak District. (Owner of Ashok Leyland lorry bearing No. AP-23-U-1 196)

...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS/RESPT.NO.1

Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. SWATI GUDA

Counsel for the Respondent 1 to 3 : SRI PALLE SRIHARINATH

Gounsel for the Respondent No.4: --

The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

r r. -..-^-t'

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

M.A.C.M.A.No.2975 OF 2Ol4

JUDGMENT:

Aggrieved by the decree and judgment passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum- the Court of IV Additional District Judge (FTC), Siddipet, in O,P.No,72 of 2OI1 , dared lO.O4.2Ol4, the 2"d respondent/ Insurance Company in the said O.P. preferred the present Appeal seeking to set-aside the order of the learned Tribunal.

For the sake of convenience, the parties hrrreinafter be relerred as they werc arrayed bcfore the learned Tribunal.

The llricf facts of the casc are that initiall.y, petitioners have filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rules 475/18 of A.P.Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 read q,ith Seclion 140 of M.V.Act, 1989 claiming compensation of Rs.7,50,O00/- along with interest @ 18% pcr annum against the respondents on account of the death of Late Mohammad Althaf Hussain (hereinafler referred as 'the deceased) in a motor vehicle accidenl that occurred on 27.O1.2OI1.

It is stated by the petitioners lhat on 27 .01.2071 at about 9.30 P.M., the deceased-Mohammad Althaf Hussain along with another driver Ramulu started from Dubbak on Ashok Leyland Lorry bearing No.AP-24U- 1 166 to dump the wood at Hyderabad and after ciumpir-rg thc said u,ood, when they started return journcy

2

M6P'] MAcMA.No.297soI2au

;

on 28.0I.2011 with empry lorry^{and whenthe lorry reachednear} Habshipur X Road at about 7.00^p.m., the driver^{of the said lorry} drove the vehicle in a rash and^{negligentmanner at high speed nad} applied sudden break. As a^{result, the deceased fell downfrom the} cabin and the rear wheels of^{the said lorry ran over the deceased} and the deceased died^{on the spot.}

Based on-a complaint,^{the StationHouseOfficer of Dubbak} Police Station registered^{a case in Crime No.9 of 2O 1 1 under} Section 304-A IPC and^{hled charge sheet against the driverof} Ashok Leyland Lorry^{bearing No.AP-24-U-1166}

It is stated by the^{petitionersthat prior to accident,the} deceased was hale^{and healthy,aged 31 yearsand used to work as} RTC driver on contract^{basis in Dubbakdepot for Rs 5,381/Due} to sudden death of^{the deceased, thc petitioners lost their bread} u,inner and were put to^{mental shockand becamcdestitute} Hence, filed claim^{petition secking compcnsationagainstthe} Respondent^Nos. 1 &^{2, who are ownerand insurer of subject} Ashok Leyland l,orry^{bearing No.AP-24U1166}

Respondent No.1,^{Owner of the Crime Lorry bearing No'AP-} 24 -U - l 166, remained^ex-Parte.

Respondent No.2/Insurance Company filed its^counter made in the claim Petition denying the material^allegations including, occurrence of accident,^{involvementof crime lorry, rash}

3

s - 'r:..'. 4

MGP,] MACMA No.)975 oI20la

and negligen t driving on part of the driver of crime lony, driver of the crime lorr1, having valid driving license at the time of accident and further contended that the deceased is a gratujtous passenger, as such, respondent No.2/Insurance Company is not liable to pay compe nsation and therefore, prayed to dismiss the claim against it.

I . Based on the pleadings made by both the parties, the learned Tribunal had framed the following issues for conducting trial:-

I Whether the acciderLt had occurred. due to rcLsh qntT n<,qligent drtuing of driuer of cime uehtcle Ashok [,e,r1land Loml bearinq No.Ap,24-U- 1 166?

2 the

Whether llrc claimants are entitted fo, cornpensatiort? If so, tuhat ertent and from uhom?

3 To uhat relieJ?

Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the petitioners, pWsl & 2 u,ere examined and trxs.Al to .46 were marked. On behalf of Responde nt No.2/Insurance Company, RWs I & 2 were examined and Exs.B1 to 83 were marked.

11 After considering the evidence and documents filed by both sides, the iearned Tribunal had partly_allowed the claim petition by awarding compensation of Rs.6,7O,O00/_ along with interest @ 7.5'% per annum from the date of petition t l the date of realization payable by both the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 jointly and severally and _adopted^{thc principle ol pay and rccovery} direcrrng rcspondent No.2 to deposit thc compensation amount in the 1lrst instance and

4

MGP,I MACMA.No.29^{t5oI20 t4}

later recover the same from^{respondcnt No.1/ownerof the vehicle'} Aggrieved by the^{said hnding,the present Appealis filed by the} Insurance Company,^{who is arrayedas respondcnt No'2 in the O'P'}

Heard arguments^{submitted by Smt-SwatiGuda, learned} Standing Counsel^{for appellant/ Insurance Company whoappeared} through virtual^{mode as well as Sri PaileSriharinath,learned} counsel for respondents.^{Perusedthe record'}

The only contention^{raised by thclearned counselfor} appellant/ Insurance^Cornpany ''n'hiie^{submittingargumentsis that} though the driver^{of the crime Lorrydo not possess driving licensc} to drive Hearlz^{Motor vehicle, but the owner of thc said Lorry} willfully and knowingly^{entrustedthe vehiclcto thc said driverand} violated the terms^{and conditionsof policy'As such' the} appcllant/ Insurance^{Company is not liable to pay compensationto} the claim petitioners.

L4. On the other^{hand, learned counsel for} the respondents/^{claimantscontended thal the learned Tribunalafter} considering all^{the aspects, had awarded reasonable compensation} for which interference^{of this Court is unwarranted'}

15 Now the^{point that emerges for determinationrs,}

Wvther the order^{passed bg the leorned Tibunal} requires interference of^{this Court?}

5

MGP,) MACMA.No 29.t5 ol 2a14

..1

POINT:-

Since there is no dispute about the occurrence of accident and death of the deceased, this Court is not inclined to once again discuss the above issues. The only point that has to be discussed in the present Appeal is with regard to imposing of liability upon lnsLrrance Cornpany though the driver of the crime Lorry do not possess vali<l driving license to drive the said vehicle .

During [he course of arguments, learned counsel for the Appellant/ Insurance Company contended that though the appellant/ In surance Company proved through the evidence of RW2 that the driver ol crime Lorry do not possess valid driving license to drive Heary Motor vehicle, but the learned Tribunal did not consider thc same and had wrongly imposed liability upon In surance Company.

In this regard, il is pertinent to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Courr in the case between MUKUND DtrWANGAN Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED r wherein, the Hon'ble Court held that a light motor vehicle includes transport vehicle and a holder ol' light motor vehicle license can drive all the vehicles of tlre class including transport vehicles. [t is also made clear througir circular Memo No. 1963 lR I 2OlB, datecl 24 .O4 .2OlB issued by the Transport Commissioner, Hyderabad, wherein, it is clarified that Light Motor Vehicle includes transport vehicle upto

' 1ZOtz.1^{t+ Suprenrc} Coud Cases 66J9

6

I i t \

MGP,] MACMA.No 29/5 oJ 2011

7500 Kgs and no separate endorsement on^{the licenseis required} to drive the transport vehicle of^{light motorvehicleclasses. There} is no requirement to obtain^{separate endorsementto drive the} transport vehicle if the driver is holding^{license to drive the light} motor vehicle, he can drive thc^{transport vehicle of suchclass} without any endorsement to that effect.

lg. In view of the above^judgment and as^{per circular} instructions issued by Transport^{Commissioner,the Respondent} No. 1/owner of the subject Tractor^{and Trailerwho possess driving} license to drive LMV is also entitled^{to drivethc subject Lorry.}

Moreover, the^{policy conditions regarding drivernot holding} valid and effective driving license at the^{time of accident cannotbe} considered as fundamental breach that^{had contributedto the} causc of accident to discharge^{the appellant/ Insurance Company} from its liability. In such circumstances,^{as stated supra, mere} absence, fake or invalid driving^{license or disqualificationof the} driver for driving at the relevant time are^{not inthemselves} defenses available to the insurer^{against either the insurcd or the} third parties.

2. Hence, the contention of the learned^{counselfor appellant/} Insurance Company that as the^{driver of crime Lorry is having} driving license only to drive Light Motor^{Vehicle and not the subject}

M6P,] MAC| a t. )975 al2!:1

Lorry and therelbre, thc [nsurance Company is not liable to pay compensation, is unsustainable.

As far as quantum of compensation in the impugned judgment is concerned, the learned Tribunal, considering the incomc of the dcceased @l Rs.5,O00/- per month, deducted 173.4 amount lowards personal expenses of [he -deceased, applied relevant multiplier and cerlculatcd compensation which ultimately arrived at Rs.6,70,OOO/-.

So far as liability is concerned, the learned Tribunal applied the principle of Pay and recove rJ. directing the Insurance Company to deposil the compcnsation amount in the first instancr: and later rccover the serme lrom owner of the crime Lorry. This Court do not find any reason to interferc with thc said hnding which is in proper perspective. Hencc, the Appeal is devoid of merits and substance and is Iiable 1o be dismissed.

1S 24. [n the rcsult, the Appeal filed by Insurance Company dismissed without costs

Misccllancous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed

Sd/- N. SRIHARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY//

To

t_ \i SECTION OFFICER J'

F

The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-lV Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court) at Siddipet (With Records) 2. One CC to SRl. SWATI GUDA Advocate TOPUCI 3. One CC to SRI PALLE SRIHAR|NATH, Advocate[OpUC] 4. Two CD Copies

PR

-?*!f,a::-=: i:--?.-a-?F=-"': 1.: t:

; i i I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I

HIGH COURT DATED: 1010212025

f i l,: -...-.
'1.1. :
,j
.$
ii.
JUDGMENT s*
(.'
MACMA.N o.2975 ot 201 *..<br>w
s<

DISMISSING THE APPEAL

WITHOUT COSTS

?,{)

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 2975 OF 2014

Between:

The Manager, United lndia lnsurance Co. Ltd, Regional Office, TP HUB, 2nd Floor, Posennet Bhavan, Church Bullding Tilak Road, Ramkoti, Hyderabad500001.(Policy No. 051403/3'1 110102100004018, Validity from 29.10.20'10 to 28.10.2011)

..APPELLANT/RESPONDENT No.2

AND

Mohammad Reshma Begum, W/o Late Althaf Hussain, aged 28 years, Occ: Household

Mohammed Arshiya, D/o Late Althaf Hussain, aged 8 years, Minor

Mohammed Bismilla Bee, W/o Late Hussain, aged 55 years, Occ: Household Respondent No.2 is minor under guardianship of The mother i.e., Respondent No. 1 being a natural mother. R/o Lacvhapet village of Dubba Mandal, Medak District.

Ramesh D., S/o Laxmaiah, aged: Major, H.No 1-96, Saraswathi Nagar, Dubba Village and Mandal, Medak District. (Owner of Ashok Leyland lorry bearing No. AP-23-U-1 196)

...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS/RESPT.NO.1

Appeal filed under Section^'173 of Motor vehicles Act., against the Judgment and decree, made in O OP.No.72 ot 2011, dated.^'10.04.2014 on the file of the chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- lV Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court) at Siddipet.

This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Court below and the material papers in the MVOP and upon hearing the arguments of SRl. SWATI GUDA, Advocate for the appellant and of SRI PALLE SRIHARINATH, Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 to 3 and None Appeared for the Respondent No.4.

This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1 . That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by lnsurance Company be and hereby is dismissed;

That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal.

To

//TRUE COPY//

sd/- N. sRtHAR| ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ,\r \r| -------- CTION OFFICER

I The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-lV Additional District )2 Judge (Fast Track Court) at Siddipet. Two CD Copies PR

HIGH GOURT DATED: 1010212025

{ijr -.
t-r?
<br>",1
=$
il
I
4:: <br>!i i
(1'-) * a

DECREE MACMA.N 0.2975 ot 201

DISMlSSING THE APPEAL

WITHOUT COSTS

()
,

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Judgment and decree dated 10.04.2014 in O.P.No.72 of 2011, partly allowing the claim petition: compensation of Rs.6,70,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum payable jointly and severally by Respondent Nos.1 & 2, adopting the pay-and-recovery principle (insurer to deposit first, later recover from owner).¶25
Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Siddipet · 10.04.2014
Prior proceeding
Claimants filed a claim petition under Section 166 MV Act 1988, Rules 475/18 A.P. Motor Vehicle Rules 1989 and Section 140 M.V. Act claiming Rs.7,50,000/- with interest @18% p.a. for the death of Late Mohammad Althaf Hussain in a motor vehicle accident stated to have occurred on 27.01.2011.¶27
Prior proceeding
On 27.01.2011 at about 9.30 P.M. the deceased, along with another driver Ramulu, started from Dubbak on the Ashok Leyland lorry (printed as No.AP-24U-1166) to dump wood at Hyderabad.¶28
Prior proceeding
On the return journey on 28.01.2011 with the empty lorry near Habshipur X Road, the driver drove rashly and negligently at high speed and applied a sudden brake; the deceased fell from the cabin, the rear wheels ran over him and he died on the spot.¶32
Prior proceeding
On complaint, the SHO, Dubbak Police Station registered Crime No.9 of 2011 under Section 304-A IPC and filed a charge sheet against the driver of the lorry.¶33
Prior proceeding
Respondent No.1, owner of the crime lorry, remained ex parte.¶35
Prior proceeding
Respondent No.2/Insurance Company filed a counter denying material allegations and contending the deceased was a gratuitous passenger, so it was not liable and the claim against it should be dismissed.¶40
Prior proceeding
The Tribunal framed three issues: (1) whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime lorry; (2) whether the claimants are entitled to compensation, to what extent and from whom; (3) to what relief.¶41
Prior proceeding
Trial conduct: PWs 1 & 2 examined and TWs.A1 to A46 marked for petitioners; RWs 1 & 2 examined and Exs.B1 to B3/B83 marked for the Insurance Company.¶46