Telangana High Court
Ifficotokio General Insurance Co. Ltd vs Bellapu Krishna , Krishna Gurnule And 2 … on 27 June, 2025
1
HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA
M.A.C.M.A.NO.357 OF 2021
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company aggrieved by
the Order and Decree dated 22.01.2021 in M.V.O.P.No.257 of 2017
passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-
Spl.Sessions Judge for Fast tracking for Cases Relating to
Atrocities Against Women-cum-VI Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Adilabad (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 petitioner before the Tribunal is that on
06.09.2016 at 12:35 p.m., the petitioner and his uncle boarded
Max Pickup Vehicle bearing No.MH-31-CQ-5077 carrying Jowar
bags of 100 Kgs for going to Pathoda-B Village and at about 12:35
p.m., as the said vehicle reached near the bridge leading from
Mandvi to Sarkhani, the driver of the vehicle has driven it in a rash
and negligent manner at a high speed and dashed to the bridge, as
a result of which, the vehicle turned turtle. In the said accident,
the petitioner sustained injuries and was shifted to Public Health
Centre, Mandvi and from there to Rajeev Gandhi Institute of
Medical Sciences, Adilabad and from there to LRA Hospital,
ETD,J
MACMA No.357_2021
2
Yetothmal, wherein the petitioner underwent treatment from
07.09.2016 to 16.09.2016. He incurred an expenditure of
Rs.5,00,000/- and that he was hale and healthy prior to accident,
aged about 18 years and earning Rs.5,000/- per month out of
agriculture. Thus, he filed a petition claiming a compensation of
Rs.5,00,000/-.
4. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained ex-parte.
5. The respondent No.3 filed counter affidavit denying the
averments of the petition with regard to the age, avocation and
income of the injured petitioner and they further contended that
the petitioner was an un-authorized passenger on the offending
vehicle and that he was not supposed to travel in that auto along
with the goods and that the driver was not possessing valid driving
license as on the date of the accident and therefore, their 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 occurred on 06.09.2016 at about 12:35 p.m., near bridge
on the road leading from Mandvi to Sarkhani, was due to rash and negligent
driving of the offending vehicle i.e., Max Pickup bearing No.MH-31-CQ-5077?
2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and
from whom?
3) To what relief?
ETD,J
MACMA No.357_2021
3
7. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PW1 and
got marked Exs.A1 to A13. On behalf of the respondents, RW1 was
examined and Ex.B1 to B3 were marked.
8. Based on the evidence on record, the trial Court has awarded
a compensation of Rs.2,36,752/-. Aggrieved by the said award, the
present appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company.
9. Heard the submission of Sri K. Ajay Kumar, learned counsel
for the appellant.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the
order and decree passed by the learned Tribunal is contrary to law
and weight of evidence and that as per Ex.B2, three persons
including driver were permitted to travel in the Max Pickup Vehicle
bearing No.MH-31-CQ-5077, but whereas at the time of accident,
more than eight persons were travelling as un-authorized
passengers and it clearly violated the terms and conditions of the
Policy. He further argued that the driver did not possess a valid
driving license as on the date of the accident and also that the
crime vehicle is Goods Vehicle and the driver was not having valid
license to drive LMV Transport Vehicle. He further argued with
regard to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal saying that it
is excessive. He therefore prayed to set aside the order and decree
of the Tribunal.
ETD,J
MACMA No.357_2021
4
11. Based on the above rival contentions, this Court frames the
following points for determination:
1. Whether the petitioner was travelling as an un-authorized
passenger? If so, whether the Insurance Company is liable to pay
compensation?
2. Whether the auto driver was not holding a valid license as on the
date of the accident?
3. Whether the compensation granted by the Tribunal is just and
reasonable?
4. Whether the order and decree of the trial Court need any
interference?
5. To what relief?
12. POINT NO.1:-
a) A perusal of Ex.B2/Registration Certificate reveals that it is a
Light Motor Vehicle Max Pickup BS2 and seating capacity is shown
to be “3” including the driver.
b) It is contended by the appellant counsel that at the time of
accident, there were more than eight persons in the said auto.
c) A perusal of Ex.A2/charge sheet reveals that the petitioner
along with his uncle and other passengers got into the said vehicle
which goes to show that there were other passengers also in the
said vehicle and that they also sustained injuries. Since the seating
capacity of the crime vehicle is shown to be only “3” including
driver and the crime record reveals that there were several other
passengers travelling in the auto at the time of the accident, the
petitioner is held to be un-authorized passenger.
ETD,J
MACMA No.357_2021
5
d) In Shivaraj Vs. Rajendra 1; it was held that, the driver of
the tractor driven it in a rash and negligent manner, as a result of
which the tractor dashed a big mud stone, the tractor turned
turtle, and the appellant suffered grievous injuries. The Tribunal
held that the appellant was travelling as a person to do the loading
in the tractor and not as a gratuitous passenger. Thus, the
Tribunal held that the compensation awarded to the appellant is
payable jointly by the owner and insurer of the vehicle.
e) In the appeal, the High Court has held that, appellant was
travelling as a passenger which is in breach of the policy condition
and thus, has absolved the Insurance Company from its liability.
f) When the matter reached the Supreme Court, the Supreme
Court has held that the High Court ought to have directed the
Insurance Company to pay the compensation to the
claimant/appellant with a liberty to recover the same from the
tractor owner, since a consistent view has been taken in this
regard by it in National Insurance Company Limited Vs.
Swaran Singh & Others 2, Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance
Company Limited 3, Rani & Others Vs. National Insurance
1
AIR 2018 SCC 4252
2
(2004) 3 SCC 297
3
(2018) 5 SCC 656
ETD,J
MACMA No.357_2021
6
Company Limited & Others 4 and including Manuara Khatun
& Others Vs. Rajesh Kumar Singh & Others 5.
g) The Apex Court further held that the Insurance Company
can be directed to pay compensation with liberty to recover the
same even in respect of gratuitous passenger or an un-
authorized passenger in a goods vehicle.
h) Thus in view of the above held legal discussion, it is held
that since the injured is an unauthorised passenger, the Insurance
Company is liable to pay compensation and then recover the same
from the insured.
Point No.1 is answered accordingly.
13. Point No.2:-
a) It is further contended by the appellant Counsel that the
driver did not possess a valid driving license as on the date of the
accident, because his contention is that the crime vehicle was the
LMV Transport Vehicle and that the driver did not have a valid
driving license to drive LMV Transport Vehicle.
b) A perusal of Ex.B2 indicates i.e., RC of the crime vehicle, it is
the light motor vehicle, no where it is specified that it is a transport
vehicle and the driving license of the driver reveals that his license
4
(2018) 8 SCC 492
5
(2017) 4 SCC 796
ETD,J
MACMA No.357_2021
7is valid from 07.12.2007 to 06.12.2027 for LMV non-transport.
Thus, the Insurance Company could not prove that the said vehicle
required license to drive transport vehicle. Therefore, it is held that
the driver of the crime vehicle was holding a valid driving license as
on the date of accident.
Point No.2 is answered accordingly.
14. POINT NO.3:-
a) The Tribunal has considered the evidence on record and
awarded Rs.2,36,752/- towards compensation. It is contended by
the appellant counsel that the petitioner sustained only four simple
injuries for which no amount need be added towards future loss of
earnings.
b) The petitioner is said to have sustained injuries under Ex.A3
i.e., Abrasion over lower back just above buttock and contused
lacerated wound over scalp and the Diagnostic reports are filed
under Ex.A5 and the Prescriptions are filed under Exs.A6 to A8.
The petitioner has also filed the medical bills to a tune of
Rs.19,272/- under Ex.A12 and Receipts under Exs.A10 and A11
for an amount of Rs.30,000/- and Rs.12,480/- respectively. By
taking into consideration the bills filed under Exs.A10 to A12, an
amount of Rs.61,752/- is awarded towards medical expenses.
ETD,J
MACMA No.357_2021
8
c) He must have incurred expenditure for transportation, extra
nourishment, attendant charges and incidental expenses in this
case. Therefore, an amount of Rs.20,000/- towards transport,
Rs.20,000/- for attendant charges as they have to stay out of
station during the period of treatment, Rs.10,000/- towards extra
nourishment and another amount of Rs.10,000/- towards
miscellaneous expenditure is granted. Therefore, an amount of
Rs.1,21,752/- (61,752 + 60,000) is awarded under the heads
“medical expenses, transportation, extra-nourishment, attendant
charges and other incidental expenses.
d) A perusal of Ex.A3 shows that the petitioner sustained two
simple injuries i.e., one abrasion over lower back and one contused
lacerated wound over the scalp for which he underwent treatment.
But the record further discloses that the petitioner has also filed
Ex.A5/Diagnostic Reports and also the prescriptions under Exs.A6
to A8 which shows that the petitioner underwent further treatment
at Hirachand Munot Memorial Criticare Hospital, Singhaniya
Nagar, Near Darda Udhyan, Yavatmal and that he was treated as
inpatient. The prescriptions filed under Exs.A6 to A8, and the
Diagnostic Reports filed under Exs.A5 and A9 disclose that the
petitioner had to undergo inpatient treatment at Hirachand Munot
Memorial Criticare Hospital, Singhaniya Nagar, Near Darda
Udhyan, Yavatmal which is far away from his village. The said fact
ETD,J
MACMA No.357_2021
9
of the petitioner undergoing treatment at Yavatmal is not in
dispute. Therefore, the petitioner must have faced acute pain and
suffering during the said period. Therefore an amount of
Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded towards pain and suffering, considering
the age of the petitioner and the treatment underwent by him.
e) Towards loss of earnings the petitioner was stated to have
been doing agriculture and was aged ’18’ years. An amount of
Rs.5,000/- per month is assessed as monthly income on a
reasonable hypothesis. He must have been out of work for atleast
three months. Thus, Rs.15,000/- is awarded towards loss of
earnings for three months.
f) Thus in all the petitioner is entitled to a compensation of
Rs.2,36,752/-. It is held that the compensation granted by the
Tribunal is just and reasonable.
Point No.3 is answered accordingly.
15. POINT NO.4:
a) In view of the findings arrived at Point No.1 and 2, the order
and decree do not need any interference with regard to quantum of
compensation, but with regard to liability, the appellant-Insurance
Company shall pay compensation to the petitioner and then
recover from the insured.
Point No.4 is answered accordingly.
ETD,J
MACMA No.357_2021
10
16. POINT NO.5:
In the result, the appeal is partly allowed modifying the order
and decree of the Tribunal with regard to the liability fastened on
the appellant. It is held that the appellant-Insurance Company
shall pay compensation and then recover the same from the owner
of the vehicle. No costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appeal, shall
stand closed.
__________________________________
JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADADate:27.06.2025
ds