IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO MACMA.Nos.34, 35, 38, 39 & 42 of 2022 Dt. 16.03.2026 MACMA.No.34 of 2022 Between:

M/s HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co. Ltd.

…. Appellant and Lingam Shetty and another …Respondents

COMMON JUDGMENT:

1. Though the present appeals have been filed by the appellant–Insurance Company challenging the separate orders passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-XIV Additional Chief Judge (FTC), City Civil Court, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”), as all the claim petitions arise out of the same incident involving the same vehicle, they are taken up together for analogous hearing and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. The brief facts of the cases in all the claim petitions is that, on the fateful day i.e., 16.03.2012 at about 2.30 hours, the injured/deceased(in all claim petitions), while travelling in Tavera bearing No.AP 22 AF 0629 along with others, met with an accident as the driver of the vehicle lost control and dashed road side culvert, as a result, the inmates of the said vehicle sustained grievous injuries, and that due to the injuries sustained, two inmates(MACMA.No.34 and 35 of 2022) were succumbed to injuries.

3. The Police, Peddavoora of Nalgonda registered a case in Cr.No.25/2012 under Sections 337 and 304-A of IPC and conducted investigation into the matter.

4. The claimants (in all claim petitions) contended that as on the date of incident, the injured/deceased were hale, healthy and were earning by doing their respective avocations, and that on account of the injuries/untimely death, the claimants in all the claim petitions suffered mental agony and thus claimed compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-(MACMA.No.34 of 2022 in MVOP.No.2420/2012), Rs.8,00,000/-( MACMA.No.35 of 2022 in MVOP.No.2421/2012), Rs.1,00,000/- (MACMA.No.38 of 2022 in MVOP.No. 2054/2012), Rs.1,50,000/-( MACMA.No.39 of 2022 in MVOP.No.2052/2012), and Rs.3,00,000/-( MACMA.No.42 of 2022 in MVOP.No.2053/2012) respectively. It is further contended that respondent No.1 being the owner of the offending vehicle and respondent No.2 being the insurer (in all claim petitions), are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimants.

5. The respondent No.1 filed counter before the Tribunal in all the claim petitions, in similar lines, admitting that he is the owner of the offending vehicle, and that it was involved in the accident that took place on 16.03.2012, due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle, which dashed roadside culvert on the fateful day at 2.30 hours and at the time of accident, the insurance policy was in force and the vehicle was having valid permit and it was road worthy and there was no violation of policy terms and conditions.

6. The respondent No.2 filed counter in all the claim petitions, on similar lines, denying the averments in the claim petitions and contending that the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation as the owner of the vehicle violated the policy rules and conditions. In the additional counters filed, the 2nd respondent submitted that the criminal records reveal that the crime vehicle was given for hire at the time of accident, where as the Tavera car was registered as a private vehicle, which is to be used for personal use and thus, there is violation of conditions of limitation as to use of the vehicle other than hire or reward, and thus, the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation.

7. The Tribunal, except for the change of the injured/deceased, has framed similar issues in all the MVOPs. Hence, the issues as framed in MVOP.No.2420/2012 (MACMA.No.34 of 2022) are extracted hereunder:

“1) Whether the death of the deceased K.Padma was due to rash and negligence driving of Tavera Vehicle bearing No.AP 22 AF 0629?

2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation, if so, at what quantum and what is the liability of the respo