APHC010118342006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] MONDAY,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1482/2006 Between: 1. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD REP. BY DM, ANANTAPUR, REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER ANANTAPUR PRESENTLY REP. BY ITS RETIONAL MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, S.D. ROAD, SECUNDERABAD ...APPELLANT AND 1. BOYA GIDDAMMA 3 OTHERS, W/O LATE HANMANTHU HOUSEWIFE R/O TARAPURAM VILLAGE, PEDDAKADUBUR MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT 2. BOYA NAGAPPA, S/O NARASIMHAPPA R/O TARAPURAM VILLAGE, PEDDAKADUBUR MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT 3. BOYA ALLAMMA, W/O NAGAPPA HOUSEWIFE R/O TARAPURAM VILLAGE, PEDDAKADUBUR MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT 4. M/S SREE GIDDA ANJANEYA SWAMY YOUTH GROUP, REP. BY .V.R. KOUSHIK AGE: MAJOR TARAPURAM VILLAGE, PEDDAKADUBUR MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC before the High Court Counsel for the Appellant: 1. SHAKE ABDUL AZEEM 2 Counsel for the Respondent(S): The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: 1. The present appeal arises out of the award dated 28.02.20061 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Adoni2, in M.V.O.P.No.137 of 20053. 2. The appellant is the insurer of the Tractor bearing No.AP 21V 79944. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein, who are wife and parents of one Boya Hanumanthu5,are the claimants before the Tribunal. The respondent No.4 is the owner of the crime vehicle.For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as they arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. The case of the claimants, as set out in the claim petition before the Tribunal, is as follows: a. On 20.01.2005, at about 4:30 p.m., while the deceased was travelling in the offending vehicle from Cheeraladoddi Village of 1hereinafter called as „Impugned award‟ 2 hereinafter called as „the Tribunal‟ 3 hereinafter called as „Claim petition‟ 4 hereinafter called as „crime vehicle‟ 5hereinafter called as „deceased‟ 3 Yemmiganur Mandal to Tarapuram Village along with a load of paddy grass, the driver of the said vehicle drove it in a rash and negligent manner. As a result, the trolley attached to the vehicle turned turtle, causing the deceased to sustain grievous injuries. Immediately thereafter, he was shifted to the Government Area Hospital, Adoni, and subsequently to the Government Hospital, Kurnool, where he succumbed to the injuries on 23.01.2005. The claimants, being the legal representatives of the deceased, filed the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- against Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Hence, the claim petition. 4. Respondent No.2/Insurance Company filed its written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition. It was contended that all the legal heirs of the deceased had not been impleaded as parties to the proceedings; that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence as on the date of the accident; and that the accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the deceased, who was travelling on top of the heap of paddy grass loaded in the trolley. On the aforesaid grounds, Respondent No.2 prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 4 5. During the enquiry before the Tribunal, on behalf of the claimants, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.3 were marked. On behalf of Respondent No.2, an official of the Insurance Company was examined as R.W.1 and Ex.B.1 i.e., Insurance Policy was marked. 6. Upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. The Tribunal further found that Ex.B.1 policy issued in respect of the offending vehicle was valid and in force as on the date of the accident. Accordingly, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation to the claimants, together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until the date of realization, payable by Respondent Nos.1 and 2, for the death of the deceased in the accident. Aggrieved by the said award, the insurer of the offending vehicle has preferred the present appeal seeking dismissal of the claim petition. 7. Heard SriShake Abdul Azeem, learned counsel for appellant/insurer.None appeared for respondents. Respondent No.4, who is owner of the crime vehicle, despite receipt of notice, did not choose to appear before this Court. 5 8. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurer contends that there is no policy issued to cover the risk of persons travelling in trailer, but the Tribunal awarded compensation by fixing liability jointly and severally, which requires interference of this Court, thereby, prays to consider the present appeal. 9. Now, the point that arises for determination is; “Whether the appellant/insurance company is liable to pay compensation to the claimants under Ex.B.1 policy issued in respect of the crime vehicle? 10. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the deceased succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident in question. Likewise, the involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident and the finding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the said vehicle by its driver have attained finality. It is also pertinent to note that neither the claimants nor the owner of the offending vehicle have preferred any appeal challenging the findings recorded by the Tribunal on the issues of negligence, involvement of the vehicle, or the cause of death. Therefore, the said findings have become conclusive and are no longer open for reconsideration in the present appeal preferred by the insurer. 6 11. It is further not in controversy that Ex.B.1 insurance policy issued in respect of the offending vehicle was valid and subsisting as on the date of the accident. The existence and validity of the policy have not been seriously disputed by the appellant–Insurance Company. Admittedly, the deceased was travelling in the offending vehicle as a coolie in connection with the transportation of a load of paddy grass. Thus, his presence in the vehicle was directly connected with the goods being carried therein. 12. A careful examination of Ex.B.1 policy reveals that under the heading “Limits of Liability”, the insurer undertook liability in accordance with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in respect of any one accident and any one claim or series of claims arising out of one event. The policy, therefore, cannot be construed in a narrow or restrictive manner so as to defeat the very purpose for which insurance coverage was extended.Significantly, R.W.1, who was examined on behalf of the appellant–Insurance Company, has not deposed that any other claim petition had been filed or that any liability had already been discharged by the insurer in respect of the same accident. In the absence of any such evidence, there is no material on record to suggest that the insurer's 7 liability under the policy stood exhausted or was otherwise limited by any competing claim. Consequently, the appellant cannot avoid its statutory as well as contractual obligation arising under Ex.B.1 policy. Moreover, the material available on record clearly establishes that the deceased was travelling as a coolie engaged in connection with the transportation of the goods loaded in the vehicle. The policy coverage extends to such risk, and therefore the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the insured and satisfy the award passed by the Tribunal. 13. The contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that only the tractor was insured and that the insurer cannot be made liable for an accident involving the trailer also deserves rejection. It is a matter of common knowledge and practical reality that a trailer is not a self-propelled vehicle and cannot move independently. A trailer can operate only when attached to and is drawn by a tractor or other motor vehicle. Therefore, the tractor and trailer, when used together for transportation purposes, constitute a single operational unit. In such circumstances, a hyper-technical interpretation of the policy conditions cannot be adopted to defeat a legitimate claim for compensation arising 8 out of a motor accident. In Pappu Deo Yadav v. Naresh Kumar6, it was held by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court that courts should not adopt a stereotypical or myopic approach, but instead, view the matter taking into account the realities of life, both in the assessment of the extent of disabilities, and compensation under various heads. Accordingly, contention of the appellant that it bears no liability merely because the trailer was involved in the accident is wholly untenable, devoid of merit, and liable to be rejected. 14. It is also relevant to note that the appellant has not seriously challenged the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal, upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, awarded a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until realization. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the age and status of the deceased, and the evidence available on record, this Court finds that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just, reasonable, and not excessive. No material has been placed before this Court to demonstrate that Tribunal 62020 SCC OnLine SC 752 9 committed any error in assessing the compensation. Consequently, the quantum of compensation awarded does not warrant any interference in the present appeal. 15. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the findings recorded by the Tribunal are based on a proper appreciation of the evidence on record and are in accordance with the settled principles governing motor accident compensation claims. The appellant/Insurance Company has failed to establish either a statutory defence or a contractual exclusion so as to absolve itself of liability under Ex.B.1 policy. Accordingly, the award passed by the Tribunal does not suffer from any illegality, irregularity, or perversity warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. Having regard to the forgoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the order passed by the Tribunal is well reasoned, requires no interference, as such, the appeal preferred by the appellant/insurer is liable for dismissal. Thus, this point is answered accordingly. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. 10 16. In result, the M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, stand closed. ________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 15.06.2026 Krs 11 175 THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA M.A.C.M.A.No.1482 of 2006 ( JUDGMENT ) DATE: 15.06.2026 Krs