Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 510 (TS)

M. Manjula v. LIMS Hospital India P Ltd.

2025-04-30

TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

body2025
JUDGMENT : TIRUMALA DEVI EADA, J. This appeal is filed by the claimants, aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 10.09.2021 in M.V.O.P.No.2615 of 2014 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad (for short “the Tribunal”). 2. For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. The case of the claim petitioners before the Tribunal is that the deceased-M. Venkataiah along with his friend started from Polepally to return to Hyderabad on 04.07.2014 in a car bearing No.AP-09-CA-9067 and on the way at about 9:00 p.m., when they reached near India Petrol Bunk on the outskirts of Kondurg Village, the car met with an accident as it went and hit against the tamarind tree and fell down in the dig, due to which Venkataiah and his friend sustained grievous injuries and Venkataiah died on the spot. Therefore, the petitioners claimed a compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-. 4. The respondent No.1 remained ex-parte. 5. The respondent No.2 filed counter affidavit denying the averments of the petition and that the petition has been filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act and that the Section does not cover the risk of own fault committed by the owner-cum-driver of the vehicle involved in the accident and that as per the claim petition itself, the deceased was driving the car and dashed against the road side tamarind tree, due to his own negligence. Therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation. 6. Based on the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal has framed the following issues for trial: 1) Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the car bearing No.AP-09-CA-9067 causing death of deceased-M.Venkataiah? 2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation. If so, to what extent and from whom? 3) To what relief? 9. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A4. On behalf of the respondents, RW1 got examined and Ex.B1 and B2 were marked. 10. Based on the evidence on record, the trial Court has awarded a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/. Aggrieved by the said award, the present appeal is preferred by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation. 11. On behalf of the respondents, RW1 got examined and Ex.B1 and B2 were marked. 10. Based on the evidence on record, the trial Court has awarded a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/. Aggrieved by the said award, the present appeal is preferred by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation. 11. Heard the submission of Sri T. Vishwarupa Chary, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri A. Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel for No.2. 12. Learned counsel for appellants argued that the Tribunal failed to follow the guidelines laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court for awarding just compensation, and that though the deceased was not the owner as on the date of the accident, the Tribunal has held the deceased to be the owner of the car and has limited the award amount to Rs.2,00,000/- stating that Personal Accident Coverage is limited under the Policy to that extent in case of the owner-cum-driver. He further argued that the agriculture income of the deceased ought to have been taken as Rs.1,20,000/- per annum and that by following the guidelines under the National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others, AIR 2017 SCC 5157 , the compensation ought to have been awarded. 13. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has submitted that the deceased has purchased car one month prior to the accident, but failed to transfer the R.C into his name and the said fact is elicited through the evidence of PW1 and therefore, the Tribunal has rightly held that the deceased is the owner-cum- driver of the car, and that under the said Policy, the risk of the owner-cum-driver is limited to an extent of Rs.2,00,000/- and therefore, prayed to uphold the orders passed by the Tribunal. 14. Based on the above rival contentions, this Court frames the following points for determination: 1. Whether the deceased was the owner-cum-driver of the vehicle as on the date of the accident? 2. Whether the claimants are entitled to enhancement of compensation? 3. Whether the order and decree of the trial Court need any interference? 4. To what relief? 15. POINT NO.1:- a) It is the contention of the appellants that the deceased is not the owner of the car as on the date of the accident. 2. Whether the claimants are entitled to enhancement of compensation? 3. Whether the order and decree of the trial Court need any interference? 4. To what relief? 15. POINT NO.1:- a) It is the contention of the appellants that the deceased is not the owner of the car as on the date of the accident. While the respondents contend that the deceased has already purchased the car and failed to get it transferred on his name and that they could prove the case through Ex.B1 and B2 and the evidence of RW1. He has also drawn attention of this Court to the deposition of PW1. PW1 has admitted in her evidence that the deceased was in the habit of purchasing and selling of old cars as a part of his business, and that he purchased the said car 2-3 days prior to the accident from the 1 st respondent and the title had not been transferred in the name of her husband. It is elicited through PW1 that her husband used to do business of sale and purchase of cars, and that he purchases the cars and sells the same whenever he gets a good price. b) A copy of Delivery Note, Receipt, Insurance Transfer letter and Form Nos.28, 29 and 30 were confronted to PW1 and on her admission, they were marked under Ex.B1. A perusal of Ex.B1 reveals that it is a delivery note and the letter addressed to transfer the Insurance and the Form No.28, 29 and 30. Ex.B2 is the Policy issued to car bearing No.AP-09-CA-9067. The said Policy is valid as on the date of the accident which is not in dispute. The only dispute is whether the Policy covers the risk of the deceased as on the date of the accident. Admittedly, the Policy is issued in the name of respondent No.1 who is the owner of the car as on the date of the accident. c) In this regard, learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon the judgment in Naveen Kumar Vs. Vijay Kumar and others , [AIR 2018 SCC 983] , wherein the expression of ‘owner’ in Section 2(30) of the Act was explained. c) In this regard, learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon the judgment in Naveen Kumar Vs. Vijay Kumar and others , [AIR 2018 SCC 983] , wherein the expression of ‘owner’ in Section 2(30) of the Act was explained. It is the person in whose name the motor vehicle stands registered, who for the purposes of the act would be treated as the owner; however, in a situation such as the present, where the registered owner has purported to transfer the vehicle, but still continues to be reflected in the records of the Registering Authority as the owner of the vehicle, he would not stand absolved of liability. Thus, the Apex Court has clarified with regard to the Legal Principle stating that once the owner continues to be in that status in the records of Registering Authority, without there being any transfer of the said vehicle into the name of purchaser, then the liability of the owner who is purported to have sold the vehicle, is still under the obligation of meeting the liability. Thus, applying the said facts to the present case, it is held that the owner who is respondent No.1 was still continued to be so in the records of Registering Authority, the vehicle was still not transferred in the name of deceased. Hence, it is held that the deceased was not the owner of the vehicle as on the date of the accident. Though, it is placed on record through the admissions made by PW1, that her husband has purchased the vehicle, till the registration was transferred into the name of the deceased, the deceased cannot be held to be the owner. d) The respondent-Insurance Company tried to prove the ownership of the deceased saying that the respondent No.1 intimated the Company about the sale of the car, and expressed his intention to transfer the policy into the purchasers name but the said transaction was not put into effect as the Insurance Policy still existed in the name of the respondent No.1 herein and also in the records of Registering Authority. Therefore, it is held that the deceased was not the owner as on the date of the accident and that he is a third party to the Policy and would be covered by the Policy. Point No.1 is answered accordingly. 16. Therefore, it is held that the deceased was not the owner as on the date of the accident and that he is a third party to the Policy and would be covered by the Policy. Point No.1 is answered accordingly. 16. Point No.2:- a) This case being filed under Section 163-A since, the accident occurred as the deceased hit against a tamarind tree, the question of negligence would not arise and the compensation would be based on the structured formula basis, the accident pertains to 2014. So as per the structured formula under second schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, Notional Income of the deceased is taken as Rs.40,000/- per annum. b) A perusal of Ex.A3/Post Mortem Examination report, reveals the age of the deceased as ‘38’ years. As per the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, the multiplier applicable for his age is ‘16’. Therefore, the compensation to be awarded is Rs.6,00,000/- out of the said amount 1/3 deduction has to be made towards his personal expenses. Thus the compensation would be arrived at Rs.4,00,000/- (Rs.6,00,000 -2,00,000/-). To the said amount, Rs.2,000/- towards Funeral Expenses, Rs.5,000/- towards Loss of Consortium and Rs.2,500/- towards Loss of Estate are to be awarded. The total compensation amount thus comes up to Rs.4,09,500/-. c) The Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation, while this Court has arrived at Rs.4,09,500/- amount by following the second schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act. Hence, it is held that the claimants are entitled to enhancement of compensation. Point No.2 is answered accordingly. 17. Point No.3:- In view of the findings arrived at point No.1 and 2, the order and decree of the Tribunal are modified by enhancing the compensation from Rs.2,00,000/- to Rs.4,09,500/-. Point No.3 is answered accordingly. 18 . POINT NO.4: In the result, M.A.C.M.A is partly allowed, modifying the Order and Decree dated 10.09.2021 in M.V.O.P.No.2615 of 2014 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad, enhancing the compensation from Rs.2,00,000/- to 4,09,500/-, 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. However, the interest for the period of delay, if any, is forfeited. The respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment after deducting the amount if any already deposited. On such deposit, the appellant is entitled to withdraw the said amount without furnishing any security. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appeal, shall stand closed.