Telangana High Court
Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company … vs Reddimalla Rajamani And 5 Others on 13 August, 2025
1
HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA
M.A.C.M.A.NO.05 OF 2021
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company aggrieved by
the Order and Decree dated 17.03.2020 in M.V.O.P.No.232 of 2016
passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Spl.
Judge for Trial of Cases Under SCs/STs (POA) Act-cum-V 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 petitioners before the tribunal is that on
26.09.2015 at about 6:30 a.m., the petitioner was going in a Bolero
Max Vehicle bearing No.AP-22X-1653 towards Pembi village from
Itkiyal and when the vehicle reached near Aktonimada Village, the
driver of the said vehicle driven it in a rash and negligent manner at
a high speed and dashed to a motor bike which was coming in the
opposite direction due to which the rider of the motor bike fell down,
and sustained multiple injuries and died on the spot and the said
Bolero Max Vehicle turned turtle due to which the deceased
sustained multiple injuries and died on the spot. The claimants
sought a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-.
ETD,J
MACMA No.05_2021
2
4. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 has filed counter
denying averments of the petition with regard to the occurrence of
the accident, age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is
further contended that as on the date of the accident, the vehicle
was kept at the transport adda and further they have insured the
vehicle with respondent No.3 and thus, they are not liable to pay any
compensation.
5. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 has filed counter
denying the averments of the petition with regard to the occurrence
of the accident, age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is
further contended that the driver of the crime vehicle did not have
valid driving license as on the date of the accident and that they are
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 as alleged by the petitioners on 26.09.2015
at about 6:30 a.m., due to rash, negligent and speed driving of Bolero Max
bearing No.AP-22X-1653 driven by its driver/respondent No.1 and dashed to
the motorcycle in opposite direction and turned turtle while the deceased
namely Reddimalla Rajeshwar was proceeding in the same Bolero Max
bearing No.AP-22X-1653 and due to which the deceased died on the spot or
whether there was any negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle?
2) What was the age, avocation and income of the deceased?
3) Whether the Bolero Max bearing No.AP-22X-1653 was stood insured with
respondent No.3, insurance company? If so, whether it covers the risk of
deceased? And if so, was there any violation of policy conditions by the
respondent No.2 as alleged by the respondent No.3?
ETD,J
MACMA No.05_2021
3
4) Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation? If so, what is the
quantum and against whom?
5) To what relief?”
7. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PWs 1 and 2
and got marked Exs.A1 to A6. On behalf of the respondents, RW1
and 2 were examined and Ex.B1, Ex.X1 and X2 were marked.
8. Based on the evidence on record, the tribunal has awarded a
compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. 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. No representation on behalf of the respondents.
10. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the
driver of the crime vehicle was charged under Section 181 of the
Motor Vehicles Act as he was not possessing valid driving license
and inspite of issuance of notice by the Insurance Company also he
has not produced his driving license. Their company also got
examined RW2 who is the RTA and his evidence reveals that their
office has not issued driving license to the accused driver. He
therefore, argued that the driver of the crime vehicle did not possess
valid driving license as on the date of accident and thus, prayed to
exonerate their company from the liability.
ETD,J
MACMA No.05_2021
4
11. Based on the above rival contentions, this Court frames the
following points for determination:
1. Whether the driver of crime vehicle has not possessed a valid
driving license as on the date of the accident. If so, whether the
insurance company is liable to pay compensation?
2. Whether the order and decree of the trial Court need any
interference?
3. To what relief?
12. POINT NO.1:-
a) The charge sheet is filed against the accused-driver i.e.,
Gurrapu Shekar who was driving Bolero Max Pick Up bearing
No.AP-22X-1653 for the offence under Section 181 of the Motor
Vehicles Act apart from Section 304-A, 337 of Indian Penal Code.
b) The recitals of the charge sheet show that the accused did not
produce any driving license. The respondent have also got examined
RW2.
c) RW2 is the Junior Assistant in the RTA Office, his evidence
reveals that on verification done by their office with regard to the
driving license of one Gurrapu Shekar S/o Rajanna, they found that
their office has not issued any driving license to the said person.
Ex.X2 is the Verification Report filed through him which reveals the
said fact. Nothing is elicited in his cross examination to dislodge his
evidence.
ETD,J
MACMA No.05_2021
5
d) Therefore, the insurance company could prove that the driver
of the crime vehicle did not possess valid driving license as on the
date of the accident. The contention of appellant counsel is that
when the driver of the crime vehicle did not possess valid driving
license the insurance company shall not be liable to pay any
compensation.
e) In National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Swaran Singh
and Others 1, it is held that even in case of absence, fake or invalid
license or disqualification of the driver for driving, the Insurance
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 Insurance Company could able to
establish breach of terms of policy on the part of the owner of the
offending vehicle.
f) In the decision of the Apex Court in United India Insurance
Company Limited vs. S. Iyyapan 2, it was held that even though the
insurer has taken the defense that there is a breach of conditions of
the policy excluding the Insurance Company from the liability that the
driver is not duly licensed in driving the crime vehicle which met with
1
2004 (2) ALD (SC) 36
2
(2013 (7) SCC 62)
ETD,J
MACMA No.05_2021
6
the accident, third party has a statutory right to recover
compensation from the insurer and it was for the insurer to proceed
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.
g) In Shammaanna and Another Vs. Divisional Manager,
Oriental Insurance Company 3, 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.
h) In the latest judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court dated 1.7.2019,
rendered in Parminder Singh vs. New India Assurance Company
Limited & Others 4, 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 Insurance Company to pay the
compensation to the victim and then recover the same from the
owner of the offending vehicle.
i) In view of the above held discussion and in light of the above
cited decisions, it is held that the Insurance Company shall pay the
3
(2018) 3 TAC 677
4
(2019) 7 SCC 217
ETD,J
MACMA No.05_2021
7
compensation and then recover the same from the owner of the
vehicle.
Point No.1 is answered accordingly.
13. POINT NO.2:
In view of the finding arrived at Point No.1, the order and
decree needs to be modified with regard to the aspect of liability, the
appellant-Insurance Company shall pay compensation to the
petitioner and then recover from the insured.
Point No.2 is answered accordingly.
14. POINT NO.3:
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:13.08.2025
ds