APHC010850652016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3548] MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1048/2016 Between: 1. SADHU LAKSHAMMA & 3 OTHERS, W/O. LATE KONDIAH, R/O. POLINENIPALEM VILLAGE, V.V.PALEM MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 2. SADHU MAHENDRA,, S/O. LATE KONDAIAH, R/O. POLINENIPALEM VILLAGE, V.V.PALEMMANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 3. SADHU HARIKRISHNA,, S/O.LATE KONDIAH, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, R/O. POLINENIPALEM VILLAGE, V.V.PALEM MANDAL, PETITIONER NO.3 DECLARED AS MAJOR AND 1ST PETITIONER MOTHER DISCHARGED OF THEIR GUARDIAN VIDE COURT ORDER DATE.13.02.2024 IN IA.NO.1/2024 4. SADHU KONDAMMA,, W/O. LATE RAMAIAH, R/O. POLINENIPALEM VILLAGE, V.V.PALEM MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT(S) AND 1. JAGADABI RAMESH 2 OTHERS, S/O. MALAKONDAIAH, DRIVER OF THE TRACTOR AND TRAILOR NO. AP 26 R 2868 & 2869 R/O. METLAVARIPALEM VILLAGE, KODANDA RAMA PURAM, P.C.PALLI MANDAL, DLF AP 022760622007. 2. PATCHA TIRUPATHAIAH, S/O. PERAIAH, R/O. VELIGANDLA VILLAGE, KONDAPURAM MANDAL, NELLORE DISTRICT. 3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, BIRUDDURAJU TOWERS, TRUNK ROAD, ONGOLE, 2 GTK, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1048 of 2016 PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC before the High Court, aggrieved by the award in M.V.O.P No.410 of 2009, dated 28-10-2010 on the file of the Court of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ongole-Cum-I Additional District Judge, Ongole to the extent of not awarding compensation against the 3rd Respondent IA NO: 1 OF 2011(MACMAMP 1867 OF 2011 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 51 days in preferring the appeal IA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased prayed that this Hon‟ble Court may be to declare the Petitioner.No.3 as major and discharge his mother as guardian in MACMA.No.1048/2016 in the interest justice, and pass Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. K KOUTILYA 2. Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. SRINIVASA RAO VUTLA 2. . The Court made the following: 3 GTK, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1048 of 2016 JUDGMENT: Heard, Sri K.Koutilya, learned counsel for the claimants and Sri Srinivasa Rao Vutla, learned counsel for respondent No.3. None appeared for respondent Nos.1 and 2. 1. Embittered with the Award, dated 28.10.2010, in M.V.O.P.No.410 of 2009 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Ongole (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”), the present appeal is preferred by the claimants on the settled principles that the Award is totally in contravention to the principles laid down by the Constitution Bench in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi1. 2. The parties are arrayed as arrayed in the M.V.O.P. before the Tribunal. 3. The petition was filed by the claimants/appellants/petitioners under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the death of Sadhu Kondaiah, who died in the motor vehicle accident. The 1st petitioner is the wife, petitioners 2 and 3 are the sons and the 4th petitioner is the mother of the deceased. The facts are not denied regarding the age of the deceased as 45 at the time of accident and was working as a coolie in a tractor and trailer and earning Rs.5,000/- per month. On 06.07.2009 in the evening, the deceased, his wife and other coolies, went to Botlaguduru village to load paddy husk in the tractor and trailer and while coming to the village after loading the husk, the driver of the vehicle drove the tractor and trailer in a rash and negligent manner which resulted in the falling of the deceased from the tractor and died instantaneously. The tire of the trailer ran over his head, which caused the accident. A crime was registered, Crime No.91 of 2009 of Pamuru Police Station under Section 304-A of IPC 1 2017 (16) SCC 680 4 GTK, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1048 of 2016 against the 1st respondent, who is the driver and the compensation was claimed against the respondents 1 to 3. 4. After receipt of the notice, respondents 1 and 2 remained ex parte, while 3rd respondent represented through counsel, filed written statement denying the allegations including age, income, avocation etc., and the claimants were put to strict proof regarding the driving license of the driver and the insurance policy. The 3rd respondent, in the counter, categorically admits that the tractor was insured for agricultural purpose and at the time of accident, the vehicle was being used for public purpose and further contends that the very policy conditions are violated. The aspect of the tractor being insured for agricultural purpose is widely amplified. It is further contended that the deceased is categorized as authorized passenger and the deceased is covered under the policy. 5. Basing on the pleadings contained in the M.V.O.P. and the counter, the Tribunal framed the following issues: i. Whether the death of the deceased Sadhu Kondaiah, S/o. Late Ramaiah is occurred on 06.07.2009 at about 08:00 p.m. due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor and trailer bearing No.AP26R2868 & 2869 by its driver? ii. Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim any compensation? and if so, to what amount and against whom? iii. To what relief? 6. To prove their case, the 1st claimant examined herself as PW1 and one Mannem Nageswara Rao, eye-witness as PW2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A5. On behalf of 3rd respondent, Smt.A.Sussela Devi, Administrative Officer, was examined as RW1 and Exs.B1 and B2 were marked. 5 GTK, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1048 of 2016 7. While answering issue No.1, the Tribunal extensively considered the pleadings and the evidence adduced on both the sides, including Exs.A1 to A5 marked by the claimants, to support the stance that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving and the same was fortified in the cross-examination of RW1, who categorically stated that she has no knowledge as to how the accident took place. It is a settled principle that, when the FIR and the charge sheet are left unchallenged, the same cannot be disputed and the same has to be accepted. The said principle is followed in The United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Deepak Goel and others2, wherein, at paragraph 21, it was observed as follows: “21. Nonetheless, in a case, where FIR is lodged, chargesheet is filed and specially in a case where driver after causing the accident had fled away from the spot, then the documents mentioned above are sufficient to establish the fact that the driver of the offending vehicle was negligent in causing the accident particularly when there was no defence available from his side before the learned Tribunal. Thus, the claimants have prove negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle.” 8. The charge sheet will be filed after a complete investigation by the competent authority and the same engrafts that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving and taking this into consideration, the issue No.1 was answered in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents. It is pertinent to note that respondents 1 and 2 remained ex parte. 9. While dealing with issue No.2, the Tribunal, while considering the liability of respondents 1 and 2, has drawn the conclusion that they are liable to pay the compensation. In respect of 3rd respondent, the Tribunal examined Ex.B1, Insurance Policy and its applicability. The policy was in force as on the date of the accident, which is not denied and the 3rd respondent claimed exemption in paying the compensation for the violation of terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy, which are as follows: “Ex.B1 insurance policy is a farmers package policy i.e. agricultural policy and R3 is liable to pay compensation only when the 2 2014 SCC OnLine Del 362 6 GTK, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1048 of 2016 tractor and trailer was used for agricultural purpose. The counsel of R3 contended that at the time of the accident, the tractor and trailer was being used for transporting paddy husk i.e. public purpose and thus there is violation of policy conditions.” 10. As seen from the above argument or stance of the 3rd respondent that at the time of accident, the tractor and trailer are used for transporting paddy i.e., public purpose and that there is violation of conditions. It is not disputed that the tractor and trailer was carrying husk at the time of transportation and simply because, the deceased and his wife travelling in the tractor and trailer does not mean or construe that the vehicle is used for public purpose and not for agricultural purpose. 11. From the entire record placed before this Court, there is no iota of evidence to substantiate the claim of the 3rd respondent – Insurance Company that the tractor and trailer was used for public purpose and mere submission in the counter cannot impeach the contention of the petitioners for compensation. The Insurance Company did not examine or elicit any contra evidence regarding the said aspect of tractor and trailer being used for public purpose by examining the owner or the driver of the tractor and trailer and unless there is impeachable evidence, this Court is not convinced to the accept the said argument. 12. While considering the issue as to whether the vehicle was used for public purpose or for transporting husk as agricultural purpose, the Tribunal has went against the claimants reasoning that neither the claimants nor the owner of the tractor could not prove that the transportation of paddy husk in the vehicle was for any agricultural purpose and thus concluded that the tractor and trailer was not being used for agricultural purpose and is for commercial purpose and therefore concluded that there is violation of terms and conditions of Ex.B1, insurance policy. 13. Regarding this aspect, this Court finds that the statement of the claimants in the very petition is that the deceased and his wife, along with other coolies, went to Botlaguduru village to load paddy husk in the tractor and 7 GTK, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1048 of 2016 trailer, and after loading the same, while coming to the village, the said accident occurred, which necessarily be construed that the tractor and trailer was used for agricultural purpose. When there is a statement made by the claimants in the petition, it is at the first instance, the burden lies on part of the respondents to substantiate the argument that the vehicle was in fact used for agricultural purpose. As earlier stated supra, there is no evidence adduced either by 3rd respondent in oppugnation to the said claim and in such circumstances, it is not justified on part of the Tribunal to hold that the tractor and trailer was not used for agricultural purpose, when admittedly the tractor and trailer was carrying husk, which is an agricultural produce. This aspect was silent in the Award of the Tribunal and hence, the finding to that effect is set aside. 14. Now, coming to the coverage of the policy to an authorized person, the main contention forwarded on behalf of 3rd respondent is that the deceased being a coolie in the vehicle was classified as an authorized passenger and not an unauthorized passenger and in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court only for unauthorized/gratuitous passengers, „pay and recover‟ principle can be adopted. In the present case, the Insurance Company itself admitted that the deceased is an authorized passenger, and in unequivocal terms, the 3rd respondent clearly admitted that the policy is covered to the said authorized passenger, and in view of the said admission, the question of „pay and recover‟ principle does not arise. With regard to the 2nd limb, this Court has answered at paragraph No.9 of this judgment. Therefore, the Tribunal‟s observation regarding non-liability of the Insurance Company is erroneous and contrary to the law. 15. Regarding the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal has taken the earning of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- per month i.e., Rs.36,000/- per annum and the deceased being aged about 45 years, the multiplier „15‟ is taken and the compensation payable is Rs.5,40,000/- (Rs.36,000/- x 15). But the Tribunal has mistakenly taken the same as Rs.5,04,000/-. Out of which, 8 GTK, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1048 of 2016 1/3rd has to be deducted towards personal expenses, which comes to Rs.1,80,000/- (Rs.5,40,000 x 1/3), and the contribution towards family is Rs.3,60,000/- (Rs.5,40,000 – Rs.1,80,000). The Tribunal awarded Rs.5,000/- to the 1st petitioner, being the wife of the deceased towards loss of consortium, Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses, and Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate. Therefore, the total compensation will be Rs.3,69,500/- (Rs.3,60,000 + 5,000 + 2,000 + 2,500). 16. Sri K.Koutilya, learned counsel for the claimants, would contend that the award of compensation under the following heads is clearly against the pronouncement in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi3, a Constitutional Bench of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court. In respect of loss of consortium, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has awarded Rs.40,000/- to the wife and all the dependents and in the present case, there are three dependents along with wife i.e., Rs.40,000/- x 4 = Rs.1,60,000/-. Coming to funeral expenses, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court awarded Rs.15,000/- and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate. Thus, under these conventional heads, the total comes to Rs.1,90,000/-. 17. Similarly, learned counsel for the claimants relied upon a judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in M.A.C.M.A.No.3601 of 2012, dated 08.01.2026, to substantiate his stance regarding the loss of consortium and other heads considered by this Court. 18. Another judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is M.A.C.M.A.No.286 of 2024 [2025 Supreme (AP) 629], dated 06.08.2025, to fortify his stance regarding the authorized passenger and the liability of the Insurance Company under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act. He would draw the attention of this Court to paragraph No.12, which reads as follows: “12. The aforesaid finding of Tribunal in the opinion of this Court is on mere conjecture as there is no specific evidence 3 (2017) 16 SCC 680 9 GTK, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1048 of 2016 forthcoming on the said aspect. P.W.2 never spoke of any negligence on the part of deceased. The Tribunal presumed that the deceased was negligent as he was sitting on the paddy bags in the trailer. As rightly contended by learned counsel for claimants and as considered by this Court in Tummalapalli Srinu‟s case (supra 2), as the trailer is meant for carrying goods and in that process, the coolies who are supposed to load and unload also incidentally travel on the trailer, they cannot be considered as unauthorized passengers under Section 147 of Motor Vehicles Act. It is apt to refer to Paragraph No.16 of the said judgment, which reads as under: “16. It is settled law that a coolie or laborer who is loading or unloading goods from the tractor-trailer can be considered as an authorized passenger under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. In National Insurance Company Limited v. Prema Devi4, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court observed that “the term „authorized passenger‟ is not limited to only those who are travelling in the vehicle for their own purposes, but also includes those who are travelling in connection with the purpose of the vehicle, such as loading or unloading goods. Thereby, it is crystal clear that the claimant was travelling in the crime vehicle as coolie by the date of accident can be called as authorized passenger. As such, the contention raised by the learned counsel that the claimant was a gratuitous passenger is absolutely no legs to stand.”” 19. Sri K.Koutilya, learned counsel would further submit that the Tribunal has grossly erred in awarding compensation towards loss of care and guidance for minor children, i.e., petitioners 2 and 3, and in not awarding Rs.1,00,000/- as laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Rajesh and others vs. Rajbir Singh and others4. It is contended that, as per the said ratio, petitioners 2 and 3 are entitled to the said amount. 20. This Court finds force in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants/claimants, and without hesitation, is awarding Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of care and guidance for minor children i.e., petitioners 2 and 3 as per Rajesh and others vs. Rajbir Singh and others (supra 4). 21. Now, this Court, while modifying the Award of the Tribunal, which is under challenge to the extent indicated above and the compensation so awarded to the claimants i.e., Rs.6,59,500/- (Rs.3,69,500 + 1,90,000 + 4 (2013) 9 SCC 54 10 GTK, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1048 of 2016 1,00,000) is to be paid by the 3rd respondent – Insurance Company along with the 1st respondent – driver and the 2nd respondent – owner. 22. Liberty is given to the 3rd respondent – Insurance Company to recover the enhanced compensation amount from the 1st respondent – driver and the 2nd respondent – owner. This observation is made since the appellants/claimants stated that till date the driver and the owner have not responded to the Award, dated 28.10.2010, in M.V.O.P.No.410 of 2009 passed by the Tribunal. The claimants shall pay the deficit court fee on the enhanced compensation amount, if any. The enhanced compensation shall be apportioned as directed by the Tribunal. It is made clear that the claimants are not entitled for any interest on the enhanced compensation. 23. In fine, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed, modifying the Award to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. 24. As a sequitur, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA, J Date : 20-04-2026 BMS