Partly allowed

K. Sumalatha v. Ch. Sudarshan

Telangana HC13 Aug 2025MACMA/402/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Claimants appealed a motor accident award exonerating the insurer on grounds the owner-driver lacked a valid licence. Court held insurer liable under pay-and-recovery principle, reassessed income with future prospects and consortium for all claimants, enhancing compensation from Rs.7,17,300 to Rs.10,88,700.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs.7,17,300 to Rs.10,88,700 with interest at 7.5%; insurer to pay first and recover from owner; respondents jointly and severally liable.

K. Sumalatha Vs Ch. Sudarshan — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

l3+na1

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE^{OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH^{DAY OF AUGUST} TWO THOUSAND AND^TWENTYFIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE^{TIRUMALA DEVIEADA}

¶7

M.A.C.M.A.N o:,4O2OF²⁰²¹

¶8

Appeal under section 173 of Motor^{Vehicles Act against the order and Decree} made in M.V.O.P.No.1922^{0l 2014 dated18-1 1-2020 0n the file of the court of the} chairman Motor Accident^{claimsTribunal-cum-XXVAdditionalchief Judge, city} Civil Court, Hyderabad.

¶9

Between:

¶10

K. Sumalatha, Wo. Late^{K. Narsimha}

¶11

Smt. K. Yadamma,^{Wo.K. Venkataiah}

¶12

K. Venkataiah, S/o.^{K. Advaiah}

¶13

... Petitioner/Petitioner

¶14

AND

¶15

1 Ch. Sudarshan, S/o.^RamaSwamY

¶16

2 M/s. The Shriram General^{lnsurance Company Limited, Represented by its} Divisional Manager, 3-6-5'17,^{4th Floor, Sai Datta Arcade, StreetNo'6'} Himayathnagar' Hyderabad

¶17

...Respondents/Respondents

¶18

Counsel for the Appellants:^{Sri KasireddyJagathpal Reddy}

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent^{No'2: Sri K' Aiay Kumar}

¶20

The Court delivered^{the following:JUOGMENT}

¶21

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVIEADA

¶22

M.A.C.M.A.NO.402 0F 2021

¶23

JU DG MENT:

¶24

This appeal is filed by the claimants, aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 1g.1 1.2020 in M.V.O.p.No.1 922 of 2014passed by the Chairman, lVlotor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal_cum_XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short "the Tribunat").

¶25

2' For convenience and crarity, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

¶26

The case of the petitioners before the Tribunal is that on 0405.2014 at about 7:10 p.m., the deceased was going as a pillion rider on a motor bike bearing No Ap-10VE_T/R_5729 being driven by one Sudarshan and while proceeding from Keshavaram Village to Yellampet side, the rider of the motor bike has driven it in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed and dashed to the road side rairing when they reached near Sangeeth Function Hall on the outskirts of Keshavaram Vi'age' as a resurt of which the pirion rider fe, down from the motor bike and sustained head injury and died on the spot. The claimants sought a cr \ lmpensation of Rs.12,00,000/_.

¶27

The respondent No.1 remained ex_parte

¶28

(

¶29

ETD,J MACMA No.4O2 2021

¶30

¶31

The respondent No.2 has filed counter denying the averments

¶32

of the petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident, age, avocation and income of the deceased. lt is further contended that the owner-cum-driver of the motor bike was not having valid driving license as on the date of the accident. Thus, their company is not liable to pay any compensation.

¶33

Based on the above pleadings, trial Court has framed the

¶34

following issues for trial:-

¶35

1 Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of Bajaj Pulsar motor cycle bearing N,.AP-1OVE-T/R5729 on 04.05.2014 causing death of K. Narsimha S/o K Venkataiah?

¶36

2 Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, how much and from whom?

¶37

1. To what rclief?"

¶38

To prove their case, petitioners got examined PWs 1 to 3,

¶39

Exs.Al to A5 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, RWs 1

¶40

and 2 were examined and Exs.B1 and 82 were marked.

¶41

Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.7,17,300/- against the owner of the vehicle and has exonerated the lnsurance Company. Aggrieved by the said award, the present appeal is preferred by the claimants

¶42

)

¶43

ETD) MACMA No.402 2021

¶44

¶45

Heard the submissions of Sri Kasi Reddy Jagathpal Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri K. Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶46

Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the lnsurance company has contended before the Tribunar that the driver of the offending vehicre did not have varid driving ricense and that in the absence of any proof, pay and recovery may be ordered making the lnsurance Company liable to pay the compensation to the claimants and then recover from the owner, but the Tribunal has completely exonerated the lnsurance Company .and has fixed the liability only on the owner which is not justified. He relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in National lnsurance Company Vs. swaran singhl . He further argued that the Tribunar faired to consider the income of the deceased as pleaded by them and that the deceased was a labourer and used to earn around Rs.15,0001 per month, but the Tribunal has assessed the income to be Rs.4,000/- per month which is very low. He therefore, prayed to enhance the compensation and also to fix the liability on the lnsurance Company to pay the compensation.

¶47

'zoe<(.tlscc I and 2004 AC.r

¶48

(

¶49

ETD,J MACMA No.4O2 2021

¶50

¶51

Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has submitted that, there were three^{persons going} on the motor bike at the time of accident and that it was overloaded. He further^argued that the deceased was a^pillion rider and the driver of the^motorbike did not have valid driving license. Thus, the owner-cum-driver^{of the} motor bike has violated the terms and conditions of the^policyand therefore, the company is not liable to^pay any^{compensation.He} further argued that PW2 is examined to be an eye^{witness, but in his} cross examination PW2 has admitted^{that he is not an eye witness.} Therefore, the accident is not^proved in this case.^{He further} submitted that they^got examined RW2/the^{owner-cum-driverof the} vehicle, his evidence reveals that he did not^{have valid driving} license as on the date of the accident, he^{had only learnerslicense,} but the same is not^produced. Therefore,^{he submittedthat their} company is not liable to^pay compensation.

¶52

ln view of the above rival contentions,^{the pointsthat arise for}

¶53

consideration in this Appeal are^{as follows:-}

¶54

1 Whether the ider of the molor bike beaing^{No. AP-IoVE-T/R-} 5729 was not having valid diving^{/icnese as on the date ot} accident. lf so, whether the lnsurance^{Company is liable to pay} compensation?

¶55

\ \ 2 Whether the compensation awarded^by the^{Tribunal rS} lust^and reasonable?

¶56

3 Whether the Order and^{Decreeof the Tibunal needany} interference ?

¶57

4 To what relief ?

¶58

ErD;J lvlACMA No.402 2021

¶59

¶60

Point No.1

¶61

a) The contention of the appellants counsel is that the rider of the motor bike did not possess valid driving license as on the date of the accident. ln suppo( of their case, lhey got examined RWs 1 and 2.

¶62

b) RWl is the Legal Officer of Shriram General lnsurance Company and he had deposed in his chief examination that the owner has violated the terms and conditions of the policy by going on triple riding and also that without any valid driving license, he drove the vehicle. ln his cross examination, he admitted that the policy was in force and that it is a package policy. Through him Ex.B2 was filed which is the notice issued on the owner of the vehicle on 10.07.2018 Thus, the Company has discharged his burden by examining RW1 and also filing Ex 82 showing that they have served notice on the owner of the vehicle.

¶63

c) They have also examined RW2, who is the owner of the vehicle. His evidence reveals that he did not possess driving license. He has also stated that the^police filed charge sheel against him. ln his cross examination he admitted that the accident occurred due to his negligence and that he has obtained bail in the criminal case, however, he denied his joint liability to pay the compensation to the clqimants. He stated that just 15 days prior to the accident, he was issu\ed a learners license. Thus, it is elicited from the evidence on

¶64

ErD,I MACMA No-402 2021

¶65

¶66

(

¶67

record that the owner-cum driver of the motor bike did not possess a valid driving license as on the date of the accident. Though he stated that he has learners license, he has not produced the copy of the same. Therefore, it is herd that the driver-cum-owner does not have a valid driving license.

¶68

d) ln National lnsurance Company Limited Vs. Swaran Singh and Others2, it is held that even in case of absence, fake or invalid license or disquarification of the driver for driving, the rnsurance Company is liable to satisfy the award in favour of third party at the first instance and later recover the award amount from the owner of offending vehicle, even when the lnsurance Company could able to establish breach of terms of poricy on the part of the owner of the offending vehicle.

¶69

e) ln the decision of the Apex court in united rndia rnsurance Company Limited vs. S. tyyapaa,, it was held that even though the insurer has taken the defense that there is a breach of conditions of the policy excluding the lnsurance company from the liability that the driver is not duly licensed in driving rhe crime vehicle which met with the accident, third party has a statutory right to recover compensation from the insurer and it was for the insurer to proceed

¶70

'^{zooa(z) alo (sc)} :e

¶71

t lzors 121 scc oz1

¶72

ETD,] MACMA No.402 2021

¶73

¶74

against the insured for recovery of the amount^paid to the third^party, in case, there was any breach of conditions of the insurance policy.

¶75

0 ln Shammaanna and Another Vs. Divisional Manager, Oriental lnsurance Company^o, the Apex Court has held that the doctrine of pay and recovery has to be made applicable, when the driver does not possess a valid driving license to cover the third party risk.

¶76

S)^{ln the latest judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court dated1.7.2019,} rendered in Parminder Singh vs. New lndia Assurance Company Limited & Otherss, it is held that if no driving license is possessed by the driver of the offending vehicle, the principle of^'pay and recovery' can be ordered to direct the lnsurance Company to pay the compensation to the victim and then recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle.

¶77

h) ln view of the above held discussion and in light of the above cited decisions, it is held that the driver of the offending vehicle did not have valid driving license and that the lnsurance Company shall I pay \e compensation and then recover the same from the owner of the vehicle.

¶78

o (20 r 8) r rAC 677 t lzot o1 z scc zrz

¶79

¶80

ETD,J MACMA No.4O2-2O21

¶81

Point No.1 is answered accordingly

¶82

Point No.2'.-

¶83

a) The case of the petitioner is that the deceased used to work as a labourer and used to earn Rs. 15,000/- per month. No proof can be expected in this regard.

¶84

b) ln Ramachandrappa Vs. Manager, Royat Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited, the Apex Court has held that in the absence of any proof of income with regard to a labourer, Rs.4,500/- per month can be safely taken as the income. Therefore, on a reasonable hypothesis the income of the deceased is assessed as Rs.4,500/- per month.

¶85

c) As per the dicta laid down in National lnsurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & OthersT, 4oyo of the income needs to be added towards future prospects. As the deceased is aged 25 years, adding 40% towards future prospects would give Rs.6,300/_ per month, which comes to Rs.6,3004 x 12 = Rs.75,600/- per annum

¶86

¶87

(201 r) t2 scc 236

¶88

I ArR 2017 SCC 5157

¶89

ETD,., MACMA No.402 2021

¶90

¶91

d) The number of claimants herein are three and therefore, 1/3d deduction needs to be made to his income towards personal expenses and this would come up to Rs.50,400/- (Rs.75,600/_ (_) Rs.25,200/-)

¶92

e) The multiplier should be chosen with regard to the age of the deceased, as per column No.4 of the table given in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporations. post Mortem Examination ReporUEx.A3 discloses the age of the deceased as^,25, years. The deceased being aged 25 years, the appropriate multiplier to be applied is '18'. Therefore, the loss of dependency is calculated as Rs.9,07,2001 (50,400 x 1B)

¶93

f) With regard to the amount to be awarded under the head^,loss of consortium', in the light of pranay Seth/s case, Rs.15000/_ towards loss of estate and Rs.1 5,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.40,0001 towards loss of consortium have to be awarded and the said amounts should be enhanced by lO% every three years.

¶94

S)^{ln Magma} General lnsurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and ofherse, the Apex Court has elaborately discussed the principres raid down in pranay sefh/s case and has further held that not onry the spouse but the parents and chirdren of

¶95

'2009⁽⁶⁾ scc t2l

¶96

"(2otri) t8 scc Bo

¶97

ETD,I MACMA No.402 2021

¶98

¶99

the deceased are also entitled to loss of conso(ium. Therefore, in the present case, the claimants would get Rs.48,400/- each towards loss of consortium, hence, the compensation amount under this head would be Rs.'l ,45,2001- instead of Rs.40,000/-. With regard to amounts to be granted under the heads of funeral expenses Rs. I 8, 1 50/- and loss of estate Rs. 1 8,1 50/- would be just and proper.

¶100

h) Thus, in all the claimants would be entifled to the following

¶101

amounts:-

¶102

st. No.	Nameof the heads	Awarded bythis Court Rs-
1	Loss ofdependency	9,07,200t-
2	Lossof consortium (48,400x3)	1,45,2001-
3	Lossof Estate	18,150/-
4	Funeral Expenses	18,150/-
	Total	10,88,700/-

¶103

i Therefore, the compensation to which the petitioner is entitled is calculated as Rs.10,88,700/- while the Tribunal has granted Rs.7,17,3001 Thus, it is held that the petitioner is entifled for enhancement of compensation.

¶104

Hence, point No.2 is answered accordingly.

¶105

POINT NO.3:-

¶106

It is held that the order and decree of the Tribunal need to be modified with regard to the quantum of compensation. This Court has enhanced the compensation to Rs.10,88,700/- from that of I Rs.,17,300/- i.e., awarded by the Tribunal.

¶107

4..-

¶108

ETD;J MACMA No.402 2021

¶109

¶110

POTNT NO.4:

¶111

ln the result, the appeal is parfly allowed, modifying the Order and Decree dated^'1 8 11.2020 in M.V.O.p.No j922 of 2014 passed by the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, enhancing the compensation from Rs.7,17,300/- to Rs.10,g9,700/_, and the enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till realization. However, the interest for the period of delay, if any, is forfeited. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 are held jointly and severally liable to pay compensation, it is directed that the lnsurance Company shall pay the compensation in the first instance and then recover from the owner of the vehicle. No costs.

¶112

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

¶113

stand closed

¶114

sd/. JAWAHAR REDDY S^q STANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

1 The Chairman Motor Accident^{Claims TribunALtum-XXVAdditionalChief} Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

¶119

2 One CC to Sri Kasireddy Jagathpal^{Reddy,Advocate} [OPUC] 3 One CC to Sri K Ajay Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies AS iLawlt

HIGH COURT

DATED:1310812025

JUDGMENT

1 t{ E STAr €
o
LI
2 5 tIfl 20ffi ,6
;
i.| '-+

¶124

MACMA.N o.402 of 2021

¶125

PARTLY ALLOWED

¶126

G "6"tr5*

¶127

[^3/1441

¶128

IN THE HIGH^{COURTFORTHE STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶129

WEDNESDAY,^{THE THIRTEENTHDAY OF AUGUST} TWO THOUSAND^{ANDTWENTYFIVE}

¶130

PRESENT

¶131

THE HON'BLE^{SMTJUSTICETIRUMALA DEVI EADA}

¶132

M.A.C.M.A. No:40^{2oF 2021}

¶133

Between:

¶134

l. k. Sumalatha, Wo Late K. Narsimha

¶135

Smt. K. Yadamma,^{Wo. K. Venkataiah}

¶136

K. Venkataiah'^{S/o. K Advaiah}

¶137

...Petitioner/Petitioner

¶138

AND

¶139

1 Ch. Sudarshan,^{S/o.RamaSwamY} 2 frrfl, if," Shriram^{General inrrt"n."Company Limited, Represented by its} Oiri.ionrf^{Manager'3-6-517, 4th Floor,Sai ' Datta Arcade' Street No'6'} Himayathnagar' Hyderabad'

¶140

...Respondents/Respondents Appeal under^{Section173 of MotorVehicles Act against the order and Decree} madeinM.V.o.P'No.1922of2014dated18-,t1-2020onthefileoftheCourtofthe ChairmanMotorAccidentClaimsTribunal-cum-XXVAdditionalChiefJudge'City Civil Court,^HYderabad.

¶141

This appeal^{comingon for hearingand upon perusingthe grounds of} appeal, the^{judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the materralpapers in} the case and^{upon hearing the argumentof sri KasireddyJagathpalReddy'} AdvocatefortheAppellantsandSriK'AjayKumar'AdvocatefortheRespondent No.2.

¶142

This Court^{doth Order and Decree as follows:}

¶143

That the^{MACMA be and herebyis allowed, modifyingthe order and decree} dated 18-1^{1-2020 in M V O P No 1922 ot 2014 passed by the Chairman'} MotorVehicleAccidentClaimsTrtbunal-cum.XXVAdditionalChiefJudge,City Civil Court,^{Hyderabad, enhancing the compensationfrom Rs 7'17'3001to} Rs.'10,88,700/-andtheenhancedamountofcompensationshallcarryinterest @^{7 .5% perannum from the claim petition trll the realization;}

¶144

Thatthe^{interest for the period of delay'if any' is forfeited;}

¶145

That the respondent^{Nos.1and 2 are held} iointly^{and severally liable to pay} compensation;

¶146

That the lnsurance Company be^{and hereby shall pay the compensationin} the first instance and then recover^{fromthe owner of the vehicle;}

¶147

That save as aforesaid. the decree of the^{Tribunal shall stands confirmed in} all other respects; and

¶148

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

¶149

Sd/- M. JAWAHAR REDD\ ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPYII

TION OFFICER

To,

1 The Chairman lt/lotor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum\xv Roaitionat Crrief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

¶154

Two CD Copies

AS/kanr

HIGH COURT

DATED:1310812025

DECREE

MACMA.N o.402 ot 2021

¶161

PARTLY ALLOWED

¶162

'^tS 5{-

K. Sumalatha v. Ch. Sudarshan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Sumalatha v. Ch. Sudarshan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohammed Salman Mohammed Vs The State of Telangana

Mohammod Sirajuddin@Siraj Shareef Vs State of Telengana

Smt M. Jayarani Vs The State of Telangana

M/s. The T.S.R.T.C. Vs Kethavath Hunny and Another

Gadhagoni Chakradhar Goud Vs The State of Telangana

Sappidi Madhava Reddy Vs The State of Telangana