APCH060011222019
THE CHAIRMAN, MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL -CUM-
X ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, TIRUPATI.
PRESENT: T. RAMA CHANDRUDU
CHAIRMAN, MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL-CUM- X ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,
TIRUPATI.
Thursday, the Thirtieth (30th) day of April, 2026
M.V.O.P.No.31 of 2020
Between:-
1. B.Prameela, W/o. Late B.Subramanayam, aged 46 years, house wife, Aadhaar No.655458414016
2. B.Mallikarjuna, S/o. Late B.Subramanayam, 26 years, Student, Aadhaar No.687406162193.
3. B.Chandana, D/o. Late B.Subramanayam, 22 years, Student, Aadhaar No.216623360661
4. B.Venkatasubbaiah @ Narayana (died),
5. B.Jayamma, W/o. B.Venkatasubbaiah @ Narayana, aged about 69 years, Aadhaar No.243968332021
All are residing at D.No.3-53, Sathyanarayana Puram, Rajiv Nagar, Tirupati. …Petitioners
And:-
1. Bandaru Chalapathy, S/o. B.Krishna, Hindu, 34 years, residing at Jandrapeta, Jandrapalli village, Sadum Mandal, Chittoor District. (Driver of tractor bearing Reg.No.AP-03-D-1946 and Trailer bearing Reg.No.AP-03-D-1947).
2. D.Damodhar Reddy, S/o. Venkata Reddy, Hindu, aged 54 years, residing at Jandrapeta, Jandrapalli village, Sadum Mandal, Chittoor District. (Owner of tractor bearing Reg.No.AP-03-D-1946 and Trailer bearing Reg.No.AP-03-D-1947).
3. M/S.United India Insurance Company Limited, rep., by its Divisional Manager, holding Divisional Office at Sridevi Complex, Tilak Road, Tirupati.…Respondents
This petition is coming on 21.04.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri D.Ramakrishna, Advocate for petitioners, and of Sri G.Lakshmikanth, Advocate for 2nd respondent, and of Sri G.Gajendra, Advocate for 3rd respondent and of the 1st respondent remained exparte and upon perusing the material available on record and upon hearing arguments of both sides and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court made the following:-
:: A W A R D ::
1.This is a petition filed by the petitioners, under section 166 (1) (c) of
M.V.Act, claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- against the respondents, for the death of B.Subramanyam (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’) in a road accident that occurred on 26.11.2006 at about 12:15 p.m, on Boyakonda –
Chowdepalli road, near Sri Ranabheri Gangamma temple, Chowdepalli
Mandal
2.The 1st petitioner is the wife, the petitioners 2 and 3 are the children and the petitioners 4 and 5 are the parents of the deceased B.Subramanyam.
3.The brief averments mentioned in the petition are as follows:-
(a) On 26.11.2006 at about 12:15 the deceased and some others boarded the tractor bearing Reg.No.AP-03-D-1946 and Trailer bearing
Reg.No.AP-03-D-1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‘offending vehicle’) with the consent of the 2nd respondent i.e., the owner of the said tractor and trailer and after having darshan of Sri Boyakonda Gangamma temple and on their return when they came near to Sri Ranaberi Gangamma temple, the 1st respondent being the driver of the offending vehicle drove the same in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and unable to control over the same, as a result of which, the offending vehicle went on extreme left side of the road margin and fell on the road side ditch, which is having more than 10 feet depth, as a result of which, all are sustained multiple injuries and
B.Subramanyam died on the spot. The accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by the 1st respondent.
(b) Based on the complaint, Chowdepalli police registered a case in
Crime No.57 of 2006 for the offences punishable under Sec.304A, 337 and 338 IPC and under Sec.3 r/w 181 of Motor Vehicles Act and under Sec.5 r/w 180 of Motor Vehicles Act against the 1st respondent and he was convicted under section 255(2) Cr.P.C., by the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First
Class, Punganur on 18.01.2019.
(c) Prior to the accident, the deceased was aged 45 years and was quite hale and healthy and was working as Lab Assistant Technician in
Vidyanikethan Engineering College, Rangampeta and drawing monthly salary of Rs.10,000/- and also doing real estate business and earning Rs.1,00,000/- per annum, which he contributed towards the maintenance of petitioners. Due to the sudden death of the deceased, the entire hopes and aspirations of the petitioners were blasted.
(d) The 1st respondent being the driver, the 2nd respondent being the owner and the 3rd respondent being the insurer of tractor bearing Reg.No.AP- 03-D-1946 and Trailer bearing Reg.No.AP-03-D-1947 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- as claimed by the petitioners.
4.The 1st respondent remained exparte.
5.The 2nd respondent filed his counter by denying all the allegations mentioned in the petition and put the petitioners to strict proof of those allegations. The 2nd respondent pleaded that he insured his offending vehicle with the 3rd respondent, who has to indemnify with all the risks. The compensation and the interest claimed by the petitioners are highly excessive and exorbitant. Hence, prays to dismiss the petition.
6. The 3rd respondent filed its counter by denying all the allegations mentioned in the petition and put the petitioners to strict proof of those allegations. The 3rd respondent pleaded that there is no rash and negligence on the part of the 1st respondent in driving the offending vehicle, that due to up and downs of the road the deceased himself fell down. The 1st respondent has no driving licence to drive the offending vehicle, as such, the 2nd respondent violated the terms and conditions of the policy. The offending vehicle was insured under former and package insurance for agriculture purpose, but it was used for carrying the passengers total 21 in number to Boyakonda
Gangamma temple on hire, and therefore, the 2nd respondent violated the terms and conditions of the policy. The deceased was travelling as un- authorized passenger in the offending vehicle at the time of accident, and this respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners. The compensation and the interest claimed by the petitioners are highly excessive and exorbitant. Hence, prays to dismiss the petition.
7.Basing on the above pleadings the following issues have been settled for trial:-
1. Whether the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of tractor -cum- trailer bearing Reg.No.AP-03-D-1946 and AP-03-D-1947 and caused the death of B.Subramanyam or not?
3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?
4. To what relief?
8.During the course of trial, on behalf of the petitioners, Pw.1 was examined and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.8. On behalf of the 3rd respondent
RWs.1 and 2 examined and got marked Exs.B.1 to B.3.
9.Heard both sides. Learned counsel for petitioners filed written arguments and relied on the following decisions in support of his contention.
1. The decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Pappu and others Vs. Vinod Kumar Lamba and another, reported in 2018 ACJ 690.
2. The decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in New India Assurance Co.,Ltd., Vs. Kamla and others, reported in 2001 ACJ 843
3. The decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Sanobanu Nazirbhai Mirza and others Vs. Ahmedabad Municipal Transport Service, reported in 2013 ACJ 2744.
4. The decision of Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Hemendrasinh Mansinh Jadav Vs. Sanjaybhai Govindbhai Dabhi and others, reported in 2019 ACJ 600.
I have carefully perused the oral and documentary evidence relied upon by both parties, written arguments and decisions submitted by the learned counsel for petitioners, apart from giving my careful consideration to the rival contentions of both parties.
10.PW.1 is the 1st petitioner. RW.1 is the Assistant Manager of 3rd respondent and RW.2 is the Senior Assistant of R.T.O., Office, Tirupati. To avoid repetition and burdening the order, their detailed evidence is not extracted, however, their relevant evidence would be discussed and considered.
11.Issue No.1:-
It is the case of the petitioners that on 26.11.2006 at about 12:15 the deceased and some others boarded the tractor bearing Reg.No.AP-03-D-1946 and Trailer bearing Reg.No.AP-03-D-1947 with the consent of the 2nd respondent i.e., the owner of the said tractor and trailer and after having darshan of Sri Boyakonda Gangamma temple and on their return when they reached near to Sri Ranaberi Gangamma temple, the 1st respondent being the driver of the offending vehicle drove the same in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and unable to control over the same, due to which, the offending vehicle went on extreme left side of the road margin and fell on the road side ditch, as a result of which, all the inmates of offending vehicle are sustained multiple injuries and B.Subramanyam died on the spot. The accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by the 1st respondent.
12.In support of the version of the petitioners, the 1st petitioner, who is wife of the deceased is examined as PW.1. PW.1 filed her chief-affidavit in lieu of her chief-examination. She reiterated the contention of petition in her chief- affidavit. Exs.A.1 to A.8 are marked through her. Ex.A.1 is the certified copy of
F.I.R., in Crime No.57 of 2006 of Chowdepalli police station; Ex.A.2 certified copy of charge sheet in C.C.No.86 of 2007 on the file of Additional Judicial
Magistrate of First Class, Punganur; Ex.A.3 is the certified copy of inquest
report of deceased; Ex.A.4 is the certified copy of postmortem report of deceased; Ex.A.5 is the certified copy of form-54; Ex.A.6 is certified copy of rough sketch of the scene of accident; Ex.A.7 is the certified copy of
M.V.Inspector’s report. Ex.A.8 is the certified copy of Calender and Judgment in C.C.No.86 of 2017 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First class,
Punganur. During her cross-examination, PW.1 admitted that she is the eye witness to the alleged accident and she is also travelling in the said tractor.
She further deposed that the alleged accident took place on 26.11.2006 and
Subramanyam died on the spot. She denied the suggestion that the 3rd respondent is not liable to pay any compensation as they are un-authorised passengers. She further denied the suggestion that 3rd respondent is not liable to pay compensation as the driver of the Tractor is not valid driving licence by the time of accident.
13. Except putting suggestions, nothing was elicited from the cross- examination of P.W.1 in support of the case of the 3rd respondent.
14.To rebut the oral evidence adduced by the petitioners before this
Tribunal with regard to the manner of accident, the 3rd respondent examined
Rws.1 and 2. Admittedly, Rws.1 and 2 are not eye witnesses to the accident.
15.Further, as per the evidence of RW.1, he was not an eyewitness to the incident. To rebut the evidence adduced by the petitioners, the 1st respondent i.e., the driver of the offending vehicle was the most competent person to testify regarding the manner of the accident. The 1st respondent did not enter into witness box. However, no steps were taken by the respondents 2 and 3 to examine him. The failure of the 1st respondent to enter the witness box, coupled with the omission on the part of the respondents 2 and 3 to produce him as a witness, weakens their case and leaves the testimony of PW.1 unrebutted. In such circumstances, a mere denial of the facts in the counters is insufficient to defeat the petitioners’ claim for compensation.
16.Admittedly, it is not in dispute that F.I.R, was registered by Chowdepalle
Police, as a case in crime No.57 of 2006 against 1st respondent i.e., the driver of the offending vehicle basing on the report given by one Sreenivasulu, as per
Ex.A.1. As seen from Ex.A.3 certified copy of inquest report of the deceased, it clearly goes to show that the deceased died due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by 1st respondent. The Doctor, who conducted postmortem examination, issued Ex.A.4 certificate stating that the cause of death is due to haemorrhage and shock due to head injury and multiple injuries. As per
Ex.A.2 attested copy of charge sheet, it reveals that on 26.11.2006 at about 12:15 on Boyakonda – Chowdepalli road near Sri Ranabheri Gangamma temple, the 1st respondent being the driver of offending vehicle having allowed 21 devotees in the trailer of tractor and after performing their vow to Goddess
Boyakonda Gangamma while returning from Boyakonda Gangamma temple to Sodam in a down gradient, he drove the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner without due care and caution and lost control over the offending vehicle, as such, the offending vehicle went on extreme left side of the road margin and fell on the road side ditch, which is having more than 10 feet depth, as a result of which, 7 occupants of trailer of the tractor including the deceased herein died on spot and two persons died on the way to the hospital and the remaining inmates of trailer of the tractor sustained injuries.
After completion of the investigation, Inspector of Police, Punganur filed the charge sheet against the 1st respondent, the driver of the offending vehicle alleging that the driver of the said offending vehicle was responsible for the accident. On perusal of Ex.A.5, it reveals that the Motor Vehicles Inspector,
Tirupati inspected the offending vehicle and opined that the accident occurred not due to any mechanical defect of the vehicle.
17. As can be seen from the above material on record, it was clearly mentioned in the First Information Report given by one M.Sreenivasulu alleging that on the date of the accident, the driver of the offending vehicle drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. After completion of investigation, the police filed charge sheet against the respondents 1 and 2. Further, the 1st respondent found guilty for the offence punishable under Sec.304A, 337 and 338 IPC; Sections 134(a) and (b) of
M.V.Act., Sec.3 r/w 181 of Motor Vehicles Act as per Ex.A.8. It goes to show that the 1st respondent i.e., the driver of the offending vehicle was responsible for the accident. Ex.A.1 FIR and Ex.A.2 charge sheet coupled with the evidence of P.W.1 clearly shows that the driver of the offending vehicle i.e., 1st respondent was responsible for the accident. Moreover, the 1st respondent is the fit person to speak about the manner of accident. But the 1st respondent did not enter into witness box and the respondents 2 and 3 did not evince any interest to examine the 1st respondent to speak about the manner accident.
The respondents 1 and 2 failed to prove that police filed false case against 1st respondent to help the family members of the deceased. Further, as per the averments of the petition and evidence of PW.1, the 1st respondent drove the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, without taking due care and caution and caused the accident, due to which the deceased sustained injuries and died on the spot. Therefore, the said contention of the learned counsel for 3rd respondent that that there is no negligence on the part of 1st respondent, can not be believable. Further, this tribunal is relying on the decision of
Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Seeram Kanaka Rathnam and
others Vs. Sangana Subba Reddy and others in M.A.C.M.A.No.307 of
2015, wherein, the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh relied on the
Judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in (1) Dulcina Fernandes and others Vs.
Joaquim Xavier Cruz and another, reported in 2013 (10) SCC 946, (2)
Bimla Devi and others Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road Transport
Corporation, reported in 2009 (13) SCC 530, (3) United India Insurance
Company Limited Vs. Shila Datta, reported in 2011 (10) SCC 509 and (4)
Mathew Alexander Vs. Mohammed Shafi and another, AIR 2023 (SC)
3349, wherein, it is held that “The Tribunal has to follow holistic view of evidence and direct proof of an accident caused by a particular vehicle need not be established by the claimants, and the claimants have to establish their case on touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and the standard proof of beyond reasonable doubt cannot be applied while considering the petition seeking compensation on account of death or injury in road traffic accident.”
In view of the above discussions and in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the above decision, it can be held that the 1st respondent i.e., the driver of the offending vehicle was responsible for the accident.
18.In view of my above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent act of 1st respondent i.e., the driver of the offending vehicle and the deceased died due to injuries sustained in the said accident. This issue answered accordingly in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
19.Issue No.3:-
The petitioners claimed an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- in total under the head “Special damages and General Damages”.
20.With regard to the age of the deceased is concerned, as per the petition averments, the age of the deceased is 45 years by the date of the above said accident. On perusal of Ex.A.4 certified copy of postmortem certificate of the deceased and Ex.A.3 certified copy of Inquest report of the deceased, the age of the deceased was mentioned as 45 years. Therefore, considering the above material available on record, the age of the deceased is treated as 45 years, as on the date of the above said accident.
21.With regard to the income of the deceased is concerned, it is the case of the petitioners that the deceased was working as Lab Assistant Technician in
Vidyanikethan Engineering College, Rangampeta and drawing monthly salary of Rs.10,000/- and also doing real estate business and earning Rs.1,00,000/- per annum, which he contributed towards the maintenance of petitioners.
22.In support of their contention, the petitioners havenot adduce any oral or documentary evidence to substantiate their claim that the deceased was working as Lab Assistant Technician in Vidyanikethan Engineering College,
Rangampeta and drawing monthly salary of Rs.10,000/- and also doing real estate business and earning Rs.1,00,000/- per annum. No salary certificate, appointment order, attendance record, or wage slip has been placed on record to support this assertion. In the absence of such material evidence, the claim regarding the deceased’s occupation and earnings remains unverified. It is a settled principle that when a specific claim of income is made, it must be supported by reliable documentary evidence. Mere assertions, without supporting records, are insufficient to determine the actual earnings of the deceased. Therefore, this Court is constrained to disregard the unsubstantiated claim and proceed on a notional basis for determining the income of the deceased. Hence, the deceased cannot be considered a Lab
Assistant Technician. The deceased is also not a skilled worker. Admittedly, the accident was occurred on 26.11.2006. Taking into consideration the age of the deceased and the prevailing wage rates in the year 2006, this Tribunal fixes the income of the deceased at Rs.7,000/- per month, which amounts to
Rs.84,000/- per annum. This is assessed on the basis that a labourer does not have work on all days of the month and may not be able to work continuously due to health issues or other reasons. With regard to future-prospects, deceased would not come under the category of salaried person, or, self- employed person, or, a person having fixed salary, as such, the petitioners are not entitled for any compensation under the head future-prospects.
23.Since the annual income of the deceased is not exceeding
Rs.2,50,000/- and he did not come under the purview of income tax assessee.
In this case, the deceased is having 5 dependents i.e., the petitioners herein only, at the time of accident and hence, as per Sarla Verma’s case, the deductions towards personal and living expenses of the deceased should be 1/4 th. Therefore, the amount that would be spent to the petitioners by the deceased had he been alive is (Rs.84,000/- - 21,000/-) Rs.63,000/- per annum. Therefore, the net-annual income that would be spent for the petitioners by the deceased had he been alive is Rs.63,000/-. Here, as already observed, the age of the deceased as on the date of accident was “45”. As per the “Sarla Verma’s case, appropriate multiplier for the age group between the age group of 41 to 45 years is “14”. Therefore, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.63,000/- X 14 = Rs.8,82,000/-. Hence, awarding the same.
24.As per the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in, National
Insurance Company Limited, Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, reported in
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 25590 OF 2014, dated 31.10.2017,
theirLordships observed that the reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be
Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively. Here, the deceased was the husband of 1st petitioner. Therefore, the 1st petitioner is entitled consortium. In the judgment of National Insurance Company Limited case, stated supra, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the amounts fixed by it, to be enhanced every three years at 10%. Further, it is also held that the enhancement of 10% compensation should also applicable once in every three years from the date of Judgment. In that view of the matter, the date of the
Judgment was on 31.10.2017 and six years was elapsed, as such, this tribunal is considering the further increase of 20% compensation for the conventional heads, as per the above decision. Hence, basing on the above observation of the Hon’ble Apex Court, this Tribunal is inclined to award a sum of Rs.48,400/- towards loss of consortium to the 1st petitioner/wife and the petitioners are also entitled for a sum of Rs.18,150/- towards loss of estate and Rs.18,150/- towards funeral expenses. The petitioners are entitled for Rs.10,000/- towards loss of love and affection, which is just and proper. The petitioners are awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards transportation charges.
25. Thus, in all, the petitioners are entitled to the following amounts:-
Head Compensation (Rs.) Loss of dependencyRs.8,82,000-00
Loss of consortium48,400-00
Loss of estate18,150-00
Funeral expenses18,150-00
Loss of love and affection10,000-00
Transportation charges 5,000-00
Total:-Rs.9,81,700 -00
26.Compensation payable to the petitioners should be just compensation, it should be neither more nor less. An amount of Rs.9,81,700-00 payable to the petitioners in this case is just compensation.
27.The finding of this tribunal is that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by the 1st respondent.
28.The contention of the 3rd respondent argued that Ex.B.1 policy covers only to third parties to the accident, the 1st respondent has no driving licence to drive the offending vehicle, the offending vehicle was insured under former and package insurance for agriculture purpose, but it was used for carrying the passengers total 21 in number to Boyakonda Gangamma temple on hire, and therefore, the 2nd respondent violated the terms and conditions of the policy and he was convicted for the offence punishable under section 5 r/w 181 of
M.V.Act as per Ex.A.8.
29.In support of his contention, the 3rd respondent examined its Assistant
Manager as RW.1. RW.1 filed his chief-affidavit in lieu of his chief-affidavit by reiterating the averments mentioned in the written statement of 3rd respondent.
During his cross-examination, RW.1 deposed that Ex.B.3 insurance policy was in force by the date of accident, but he denied the denied the suggestion that the 1st respondent had no driving licence to drive the offending vehicle.
30.The 3rd respondent also examined one P.C.Amara Vani, Senior
Assistant of R.T.O office, Tirupati, who deposed that B.Chalapathi, son of
B.krishna i.e., the 1st respondent herein has no driving licence.
31.On a combined reading of the evidence of RWs.1 and 2 along with
Ex.A.8, Exs.B.1 and B.2, it is evident that the 1st respondent did not possess a valid driving licence to drive the offending vehicle at the relevant time. This fact clearly establishes a fundamental violation of statutory requirements. Further, a perusal of Ex.B.3, read in conjunction with the testimony of RW.1, indicates that the insurance policy was indeed in force on the date of the accident.
However, the nature of Ex.B.3 reveals that it was issued as a farmer’s package policy, which carries specific limitations regarding usage of the insured vehicle. It is an admitted fact that at the time of the accident, as many
as 21 passengers were travelling in the vehicle. On perusal of Ex.A.8, the 1st
respondent was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 5 r/w.
Section 181 of the M.V. Act, as evidenced by Ex.A.8. Thus, it clearly shows that the 2nd respondent allowed the 1st respondent to drive the offending vehicle despite not possessing a valid driving licence. The record further discloses that the 2nd respondent had utilized the vehicle for transporting devotees to have darshan of Gaddess Boyakonda Gangamma. Such use of the vehicle clearly falls outside the scope of coverage under the farmer’s package policy. Moreover, the act of carrying passengers for such a purpose amounts to a commercial or unauthorized use of the vehicle. This deviation from the intended use constitutes a clear breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Consequently, the liability cannot be fastened on the insurer in view of such violation. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that the 2nd respondent has violated the policy conditions. In this connection, this court wants to rely on the decision in Singh Ram Vs. Nirmala and others, reported in AIR 2018 Supreme Court 1290 (Three Judge Bench), wherein it was held that “In Swaran Singh (supra), this Court held that the holder of a driving licence has a period of thirty days on its expiry, to renew it:
“Thus, a person whose licence is ordinarily renewed in terms of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules framed thereunder, despite the fact that during the interregnum period, namely, when the accident took place and the date of expiry of the licence, he did not have a valid licence, he could during the prescribed period apply for renewal thereof and could obtain the same automatically without undergoing any further test or without having been declared unqualified therefor. Proviso appended to Section 14 in unequivocal terms states that the licence remains valid for a period of thirty days from the day of its expiry.
Section 15 of the Act does not empower the authorities to reject an application for renewal only on the ground that there is a break in validity or tenure of the driving licence has lapsed, as in the meantime the provisions for disqualification of the driver contained in Sections 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24 will not be attracted, would indisputably confer a right upon the person to get his driving licence renewed. In that view of the matter, he cannot be said to be delicensed and the same shall remain valid for a period of thirty days after its expiry.” The following conclusion has been recorded in summation in the judgment::
“(iii) The breach of policy condition e.g. disqualification of the driver or invalid driving licence of the driver, as contained in sub-section (2)(a)(ii) of Section 149, has to be proved to have been committed by the insured for avoiding liability by the insurer. Mere absence, fake or invalid driving licence or disqualification of the driver for driving at the relevant time, are not in themselves defences available to the insurer against either the insured or the third parties. To avoid its liability towards the insured, the insurer has to prove that the insured was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the condition of the policy regarding use of vehicles by a duly licensed driver or one who was not disqualified to drive at the relevant time.
(iv) Insurance companies, however, with a view to avoid their liability must not only establish the available defence(s) raised in the said proceedings but must also establish “breach” on the part of the owner of the vehicle; the burden of proof where for would be on them.
(v) The court cannot lay down any criteria as to how the said burden would be discharged, inasmuch as the same would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case.
(vi) Even where the insurer is able to prove breach on the part of the insured concerning the policy condition regarding holding of a valid licence by the driver or his qualification to drive during the relevant period, the insurer would not be allowed to avoid its liability towards the insured unless the said breach or breaches on the condition of driving licence is/are so fundamental as are found to have contributed to the cause of the accident. The
Tribunals in interpreting the policy conditions would apply “the rule of main purpose” and the concept of “fundamental breach” to allow defences available to the insurer under
Section 149(2) of the Act.
(vii) The question, as to whether the owner has taken reasonable care to find out as to whether the driving licence produced by the driver (a fake one or otherwise), does not fulfill the requirements of law or not will have to be determined in each case”.
In the present case it is necessary to note, as observed by the
Tribunal, that the owner did not depose in evidence and stayed away from the witness box. He produced a licence which was found to be fake. Another licence which he sought to produce had already expired before the accident and was not renewed within the prescribed period. It was renewed well after two years had expired. The appellant as owner had evidently failed to take reasonable care (proposition (vii) of Swaran Singh) since he could not have been unmindful of facts which were within his knowledge.
In the circumstances, the direction by the Tribunal, confirmed by the High Court, to pay and recover cannot be faulted.”
In view of the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Pappu and
others Vs. Vinod Kumar Lamba and another, reported in 2018 ACJ 690;
and in New India Assurance Co.,Ltd., Vs. Kamla and others, reported in 2001 ACJ 843, relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners, and in view of ratio laid down in Singh Ram’s case, referred above, this tribunal is inclined to direct the 3rd respondent to satisfy the decree at first and then recover the amount from the owner and driver of offending vehicle.
32.I have gone through the decision Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in
Sanobanu Nazirbhai Mirza and others Vs. Ahmedabad Municipal
Transport Service, reported in 2013 ACJ 2744 and the decision of decision of Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Hemendrasinh Mansinh
Jadav Vs. Sanjaybhai Govindbhai Dabhi and others, reported in 2019
ACJ 600. There cannot be any dispute with regard to the above said legal proposition laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and Hon’ble
High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad. But the above said decisions are not applicable to the facts of the case on hand, as the facts and circumstances of the said decisions are different with the present case facts, and as such, the said decisions are no way helpful to the case of the petitioners.
33.Admittedly, the 4th petitioner has died. In view of the death of the 4th petitioner, the apportionment of compensation shall be made among petitioners 1 to 3 and 5 only. Accordingly, they are entitled to the total compensation ofRs.9,81,700-00. This issue is answered accordingly.
34.Issue No.3:-
In the result, the petition is allowed in part awarding compensation of
Rs.9,81,700/- (Rupees nine lakhs, eighty one thousands and seven
hundred only) along with interest payable at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the deposit with proportionate costs to the petitioners. The rest of the claim of petitioners is hereby dismissed. The 3rd respondent /insurance company is directed to pay the compensation to the petitioners in first and later recover the same from the respondents 1 and 2 by filing an execution petition and without filing any independent suit. The 3rd respondent is directed to deposit the amount within two months from the date of this award. On such deposit, the 1st petitioner is entitled to a sum of Rs.3,81,700/- along with accrued interest thereon and total costs. The petitioners 2, 3 and 5 are entitled to a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- each along with accrued interest thereon.
The Petitioners 1 to 3 are permitted to withdraw 50% of their respective shares of the compensation amount along with the interest accrued thereon. The remaining 50% shall be kept in fixed deposits in their respective names in any nationalized bank for a period of two years. Upon expiry of the said period, they shall be entitled to withdraw the deposited amount along with the accrued interest thereon. The 5th petitioner is permitted to withdraw her entire share of compensation along with interest therein, due to her old age. Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/-.
Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-I, corrected and
pronounced by me in open-Court, this the 30th day of April, 2026.
Sd/-T. RAMA CHANDRUDU
CHAIRMAN, MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL-CUM- X ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,
TIRUPATI.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PETITIONERS:
PW.1 : B.Prameela.
FOR RESPONDENTS:
RW.1: R.Divakar Reddy, RW.2: P.C.Amara vani.
EXHIBITS MA RKED
FOR PETITIONERS
Ex.A.1Certified copy of F.I.R., in Crime No.57 of 2006 of Chowdepalli police station;
Ex.A.2Certified copy of charge sheet in C.C.No.86 of 2007 on the file of
Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Punganur;
Ex.A.3Certified copy of inquest report of deceased;
Ex.A.4Certified copy of postmortem report of deceased;
Ex.A.5Certified copy of form-54;
Ex.A.6Certified copy of rough sketch of the scene of accident;
Ex.A.7Certified copy of M.V.Inspector’s report.
Ex.A.8Certified copy of Calender and Judgment in C.C.No.86 of 2017 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First class, Punganur.
FOR 3 rd RESPONDENT : -
Ex.B.1 Authorization letter, dated 05.03.2026
Ex.B.2 Search details of the driving licence of B.Chalapathi (1st respondent)
Ex.B.3 Attested copy of the policy No.151281/47/06/96/0000138, commencing from 18.04.2006 to 17.04.2007.
Sd/-T. RAMA CHANDRUDU
CHAIRMAN, MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL-CUM- X ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,
TIRUPATI.
Fair copy of Award in M.V.O.P.No. 31 of 2020
Dated 30.04.2026