Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 12859
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
TIRUMALA DEVI EADA, J
The National Insurance Company Limited. – Appellant
Versus
Mohammad Fayaz – Respondent
M.A.C.M.A.NO.631 OF 2021
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri Nandhan Sharma, Sri G. Raj Kumar
For the Respondents: Sri Akkam Eshwar
Insurance companies are liable to compensate third-party claims even if the driver lacked a valid license at the time of the accident.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 3 and 181 - Appeal by the Insurance Company against the Tribunal's order awarding Rs. 6,10,577/- as compensation for accident injuries. The Tribunal found that the Insurance Company is liable despite the driver being a minor without a valid license. (Paras 6, 10, 14)
(B) Compensation - Criteria for assessment - Tribunal awarded compensation considering evidence of injuries and treatment costs, determining that the amount was just and reasonable under the circumstances. (Paras 8, 13)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner claimed compensation for injuries sustained in an accident involving a minor driver, asserting the driver lacked a valid license. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 6,10,577/- for injuries and treatment.
Findings of Court:
The Insurance Company is liable to pay the awarded compensation despite the minor driving without a license.
Issues: The main issues were whether the compensation awarded was reasonable and if the Insurance Company can be exempted from liability due to the driver being unlicensed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Insurance Company remains liable to compensate, even if the driver was unlicensed, due to established statutory obligations to third parties.
Result: Appeal partly allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court's examination of the case and legal principles. (Para 1) |
| 2. case facts surrounding the vehicle accident. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 8) |
| 3. arguments presented by both sides regarding liability. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 4. court's examination of compensation fairness and liability. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. final ruling on appeal outcomes and compensation adjustments. (Para 15 , 16) |
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company, aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 04.02.2020 in M.V.O.P.No.393 of 2016 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- XXVII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad (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 was that on 06.04.2016 at about 11:30 p.m., petitioner was proceeding on motor bike bearing No.TS-05-EC-3540 as a pillion rider along with his friend from Panjagutta towards Lakdikapool and when they reached Khairatabad ‘X’ road, suddenly one Car bearing No.AP-09- CE-4649 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came at a high speed, dashed to the petitioners vehicle and as a result, the petitioner fell down and received fracture injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Omni Hospital, Kukatpally and later on he was shifted to NIMS Hospital and was discharged on 20.04.2016 and he was re-admitted on 30.04.2016. Thus he incurred a sum of Rs.80,000/- towards medical expenses. He sought a compensation of Rs.2,50,000/-.
4. The Respondent No.1 and 2 remained ex-parte.
5. The respondent No.3 filed counter denying the averments of the petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident, the age, avocation and income of the petitioner. It is further contended that the driver of the crime vehicle did not possess valid driving license as on the date of the accident and thus, their company is not liable to pay any compensation.
6. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues for trial:
1) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by R1?
2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation. If so, from whom to what extent?
3) To what relief?
7. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PW1 to PW3 and got marked Ex.A1 to A10. On behalf of the respondents, RW1 was examined and Ex.B1 was marked.
8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.6,10,577 with interest @ 7.5% per annum. Aggrieved by the said award, the present appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company.
9. Heard the submissions of Sri Nandhan Sharma, learned counsel representing on behalf of Sri G. Raj Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Akkam Eshwar, learned counsel for the respondents.
10. Learned counsel for appellant has submitted that the order of the Tribunal is contrary to law and that the Tribunal has granted excessive amounts without any basis. He further argued that the driver of the car was a minor and faced proceedings before the Juvenile Court and that the said fact was not considered by the Tribunal. Since the minor did not hold valid driving license, the Insurance Company ought to have been exonerated from its liability. He further argued that the Tribunal has granted huge amounts under various heads which is not proper. He therefore, prayed to exonerate the Insurance Company from the liability of paying compensation.
11. The learned respondent counsel on the other hand has submitted that the Insurance Company has not adduced any evidence to prove that the driver did not possess valid driving license as on the date of accident. In the absence of the same, the Tribunal has rightly granted the compensation and fixed the liability on Insurance Company. He therefore prayed to uphold the order and decreed passed by the Tribunal.
12. Based on the above rival submissions, this Court frames the following points for determinatio
