Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1809 (TS)

S. Yadamma v. Shivarathri Sailu

2025-12-12

SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

body2025
JUDGMENT : SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO, J. Since both the appeals are arising out of the same award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge at Nizamabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’), they are taken up together, heard analogously and disposed of by a common order. 2. The appeal in MACMA No.55 of 2022 is filed by the claimants assailing the Award, dt.29.10.2021 in MVOP.No.281 of 2017 for enhancement and to award just and fair compensation. The appeal in MACMA No.118 of 2022 is filed by the Insurance Company to set aside the award. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal. Brief facts of the Case : 4. The claimants, who are wife and father of the deceased-S.Yadagiri, filed a petition under Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) r/w Rule 455 of the APMV Rules, 1988, claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the death of the deceased in a motor accident that occurred on 26.02.2017. 5. The case of the claimants is that on the fateful day, at about 09.00 hours, while the deceased was proceeding from Donkal Village towards Indalwai driving a tractor bearing No.AP 01 L 0758, upon reaching near Donkal Village Shivar, the deceased lost control over the tractor, as a result, the tractor turned turtle into the adjoining fields and the deceased came under the tractor and succumbed to the injuries on the spot. 6. Basing on the complaint lodged made by the wife of the deceased i.e., 1 st claimant, a case in Cr.No.21/2017 was registered and investigation was conducted by the police. 7. It is the contention of the claimants that prior to the accident, the deceased was hale and healthy, working as a driver and earning Rs.15,000/- p.m., and used to contribute his earnings to the maintenance and welfare of the claimant, and on account of death of the deceased, the claimants lost their earning member and are undergoing financial hardship. The 1 st respondent being the owner and 2 nd respondent being the insurer of the offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. 8. The Insurance Company filed written statement denying the occurrence of the incident, profession and earnings of the deceased. The 1 st respondent being the owner and 2 nd respondent being the insurer of the offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. 8. The Insurance Company filed written statement denying the occurrence of the incident, profession and earnings of the deceased. It was further contended that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the deceased himself and as per the proviso under Section 147 of the MV Act, the policy shall not be required to cover an employee of the insured in respect of bodily injury or death arising out of and in the course of his employment and a special contract covering the risk is required by paying additional premium and in the instant case, there was no such special contract between the owner and the insurance company. It was further contended that as per Section 163A of the Act, the injured/deceased must be a third party for the insurance company to pay compensation, and as the deceased is the father of the owner of the vehicle, he is not a third party, as such, the claim under Section 163A is not maintainable. Furthermore, since the deceased himself was negligent, on that ground also the claim petition is not maintainable. 9. The Tribunal basing on the pleadings of both parties, framed the following issues: 1) Whether the Yadagiri @ Yadaiah died in a road accident, due to involvement of the Tractor bearing No.AP 01 L 0758? 2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation as prayed for? 3) To what relief? 10. The Tribunal upon due consideration of the evidence of PW1 and Ex.A1 to A4 adduced on behalf of the claimants, and RW1 and Ex.B1 adduced on behalf of the Insurance Company, held that the accident occurred arising out of the use of the insured vehicle and as the policy was in force and the insurance company has collected additional amounts of Rs.3,822/- towards third party insurance claim, Rs.50/- towards drivers clause and Rs.100/- towards Personal Accident (PA) coverage for the owner-cum-driver, by placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramkhiladi and Another v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. , (2020) 2 SCC 550 , held that the claimants are entitled to the compensation as contemplated under the insurance policy contract and accordingly, awarded an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization against the respondents No.1 & 2, as jointly and severally liable. 11. Heard Sri Kuldeep Jadhav, learned Counsel for the claimants and Sri B.Yuv Raj, learned Standing Counsel for Insurance Company. 12. Learned counsel for the claimants contended that the Tribunal erred in restricting the compensation to the limits of the insurance policy and failed to consider the income and age of the deceased. He further contended that as the deceased was working as driver and earning Rs.15,000/- per month, the Tribunal ought to have granted the compensation as claimed by applying the structured formula under Section 163A of the Act, and accordingly, prayed to allow the appeal by enhancing the compensation. 13. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company contended that as the deceased was the father of the owner of the vehicle, there will not be any relationship of employee and employer, and therefore, the deceased stepped into the shoes of the owner and cannot be treated as a third party. As such the claim under Section 163A of the Act was not maintainable. It was further contended that the accident occurred due to self negligence of the deceased, and in such circumstances, no compensation was payable and the Tribunal ought to have dismissed the claim petition. 14. I have given earnest consideration to the submissions made on either side and perused the material on record. 15. The facts not in dispute are that the deceased was aged about 50 years, the accident arose out of the use of the insured vehicle and the claimants are the legal representatives of the deceased. It is also not in disputed that the 1 st respondent is the owner of the offending vehicle and son of the deceased, and the 2 nd respondent is the insurer of the said vehicle. 16. The issues that arise for consideration in MACMA.No.118 of 2022 are maintainability of the claim petition under Section 163-A of the Act, the effect of the deceased stepping into the shoes of the owner, and the alleged negligence on part of the deceased and absence of a valid driving licence. 16. The issues that arise for consideration in MACMA.No.118 of 2022 are maintainability of the claim petition under Section 163-A of the Act, the effect of the deceased stepping into the shoes of the owner, and the alleged negligence on part of the deceased and absence of a valid driving licence. Insofar as MACMA.No.55 of 2022, the only issue for consideration is the adequacy of compensation. 17. The main grievance of Insurance Company is that Section 163-A of the Act is founded on ‘fault liability’ principle and as the deceased himself was the tortfeasor and stepped into the shoes of the owner, the claimants are not entitled to compensation. 18. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Sinitha and Others ,  (2012) 2 Supreme Court Cases 356 held that the claimants are not required to plead or prove negligence and it is open to the insurer or the owner to plead and establish negligence in order to defeat such a claim. The relevant portion of the said judgment is extracted hereunder: “39. It has already been concluded hereinabove that in a claim raised under Section 163-A of the Act, the claimants have neither to plead nor to establish negligence. We have also held that negligence (as also, “wrongful act” and “default”) can be established by the owner or the insurance company (as the case may be) to defeat a claim under Section 163-A of the Act. It was therefore imperative for the petitioner Insurance Company to have pleaded negligence, and to have established the same through cogent evidence. This procedure would have afforded an opportunity to the claimants to repudiate the same. Has the petitioner discharged this onus?” 19. Subsequently, in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sunil Kumar , Civil Appeal No. 9694 of 2013, dt.24.11.2017 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that in proceedings under Section 163-A, the insurer cannot raise the defence of negligence on the part of the deceased, as such a defence would defeat the very object of the provision, which is to grant expeditious and final compensation on a structured formula basis. The relevant portion of the said judgment is hereby extracted for better understanding of the said binding precedent as under: “8. The relevant portion of the said judgment is hereby extracted for better understanding of the said binding precedent as under: “8. From the above discussion, it is clear that grant of compensation under Section 163-A of the Act on the basis of the structured formula is in the nature of a final award and the adjudication thereunder is required to be made without any requirement of any proof of negligence of the driver/owner of the vehicle(s) involved in the accident. This is made explicit by Section 163-A(2). Though the aforesaid section of the Act does not specifically exclude a possible defence of the insurer based on the negligence of the claimant as contemplated by Section 140(4), to permit such defence to be introduced by the insurer and/or to understand the provisions of Section 163-A of the Act to be contemplating any such situation would go contrary to the very legislative object behind introduction of Section 163-A of the Act, namely, final compensation within a limited time- frame on the basis of the structured formula to overcome situations where the claims of compensation on the basis of fault liability were taking an unduly long time. In fact, to understand Section 163-A of the Act to permit the insurer to raise the defence of negligence would be to bring a proceeding under Section 163-A of the Act on a par with the proceeding under Section 166 of the Act which would not only be self-contradictory but also defeat the very legislative intention. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, we answer the question arising by holding that in a proceeding under Section 163-A of the Act, it is not open for the insurer to raise any defence of negligence on the part of the victim.” 20. The issue that remains for consideration, insofar as the claim under Section 163-A of the Act, is whether the deceased can be treated as a third party or whether he had stepped into the shoes of the owner. 21. In the instant case, it is established from the evidence on record, particularly the cross-examination of PW1, that the deceased was driving the tractor belonging to his son, who is the 1 st respondent. 21. In the instant case, it is established from the evidence on record, particularly the cross-examination of PW1, that the deceased was driving the tractor belonging to his son, who is the 1 st respondent. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sinitha ’s case (supra), having regard to the relationship between the deceased and the owner, the deceased must be held to have stepped into the shoes of the owner and thus, cannot be treated as a third party. Consequently, the claim under Section 163-A of the Act is not maintainable. 22. The Tribunal while holding that the claimants are not entitled to the compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-, considered the entitlement of the claimants in terms of Insurance Policy contract placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Ramkhiladi and Another v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. , (2020)2 SCC 550 , wherein it was clarified that the PA coverage under an insurance policy is specifically intended to provide compensation to the owner-driver in the event of death or bodily injury arising out of the use of the insured vehicle. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as under: “9.8 However, at the same time, even as per the contract of insurance, in case of personal accident the owner driver is entitled to a sum of Rs.1 lakh. Therefore, the deceased, as observed hereinabove, who would be in the shoes of the owner shall be entitled to a sum of Rs.1 lakh, even as per the contract of insurance. ……………….” 23. As per Ex.B1 policy, Personal Accident (PA) coverage extends to the owner-driver holding a valid driving license. 24. Insofar as the contention of the Insurance Company that the deceased did not possess any valid driving license as on the date of accident, the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Swaran Singh and others , (2004) 3 SCC 297 makes it clear that mere absence or not holding valid license is not, by itself, sufficient to absolve the insurer of liability unless a fundamental breach of policy conditions is established. Ltd. vs. Swaran Singh and others , (2004) 3 SCC 297 makes it clear that mere absence or not holding valid license is not, by itself, sufficient to absolve the insurer of liability unless a fundamental breach of policy conditions is established. The relevant portion of the judgment is as under: "110.(iii) The breach of policy condition e.g. disqualification of the driver or invalid driving licence of the driver, as contained in sub-section (2)(a)(ii) of Section 149, has to be proved to have been committed by the insured for avoiding liability by the insurer. Mere absence, fake or invalid driving licence or disqualification of the driver for driving at the relevant time, are not in themselves defences available to the insurer against either the insured or the third parties. To avoid its liability towards the insured, the insurer has to prove that the insured was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the condition of the policy regarding use of vehicles by a duly licensed driver or one who was not disqualified to drive at the relevant time." 25. In the instant case, the Insurance Company has failed to discharge its burden of proving any such a fundamental breach. In such circumstances, keeping in view the beneficial and social welfare nature of the Act, the benefit should be given to the victim. Further, Ex.B1 insurance policy was valid and in force on the date of the accident and provides for Personal Accident coverage to the owner-cum-driver and as the deceased stepped into the shoes of the owner, he is entitled to compensation only to the extent of Personal Accident coverage. 26. The Tribunal, therefore, committed no error in granting compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- strictly in terms of the insurance policy contract i.e., to the extent PA is covered relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramkhiladi ’s case(supra) and fixing liability as jointly and severally on the 1st respondent/owner and 2nd respondent/Insurance Company. 27. In view of the above findings, this Court is of the considered view that there are no grounds to interfere with either the quantum of compensation or with the fastening of liability upon the Insurance Company. 28. 27. In view of the above findings, this Court is of the considered view that there are no grounds to interfere with either the quantum of compensation or with the fastening of liability upon the Insurance Company. 28. Accordingly, both MACMA No.55 of 2022 filed by the claimants for enhancement and MACMA No.118 of 2022 filed by the Insurance Company to set aside the award of the Tribunal, are devoid of merits and are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.