APHC010340522017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1009 of 2017 Bench Sr.No:-38 [3584] The New India Assurance Company Ltd, Guntur ...Appellant Vs. Devandha Bhulakshmi Guntur Dist 5 Others and Others ...Respondent(s) ********** CORAM :THE CHIEF JUSTICE LISA GILL SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 11th August 2026 Present: Advocate for Appellant: AMANCHARLA SATISH BABU Advocate for Respondent: SIVA PRASAD KATAKAMSETTY COMMON JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Challa Gunaranjan) Present appeal is preferred under Section 173 of M.V.Act assailing the judgment and decree dated 16.12.2016 in M.V.O.P. No.271 of 2015 passed by learned II Additional District Judge, Guntur. 2. For convenience sake, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal. 2 HCJ & CGR, J MACMA No.1009 of 2017 3. (a) While deceased was going on cycle on left side road margin, the Trolley Auto bearing Registration No.AP 07TA 3418, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, hit the cycle. As a result, the deceased suffered severe injuries. He was shifted to Government Hospital for treatment and thereafter to private hospital and after undergoing the treatment for two days, he succumbed on 18.04.2013. The incident was reported to police and the same was registered as Crime No.19 of 2013 for offences under Sections 337 and 304-A of IPC. (b) The deceased was working as teacher in Z.P. High School and was aged about 50 years. He was drawing salary of about ₹35,979/- as on the date of accident. Therefore, wife and three children of deceased preferred claim seeking compensation of ₹48,50,000/-. (c) 1st and 3rd respondent, owner and driver of Trolley Auto remained ex parte. The 2nd respondent - Insurer of Trolley Auto filed written statement denying the occurrence of accident and that the driver of offending Trolley Auto was responsible for accident. Further, it was also pleaded that the accident occurred due to the fault of deceased himself as he violated traffic rules and contributed 3 HCJ & CGR, J MACMA No.1009 of 2017 1 (2013) 7 SCC 62 = 2013 AIR SC 2262 to the negligence in occurrence of the accident. Apart from that, the avocation, age and earnings of deceased were also disputed. (d) It was further pleaded that the driver of Trolley Auto did not possess valid and effective driving licence, therefore, no liability can be fastened on it. (e) The Tribunal, after appreciating evidence on record, held that the driver of Trolley Auto was negligent and responsible in causing the accident. With regard to the plea that the driver of Trolley Auto did not possess valid and effective driving licence, the Tribunal, upon appreciation of evidence, held that he was merely having license to drive light motor vehicle (Non-Transport), auto rickshaw (Non-Transport) and MCWG (non-transport), which do not qualify to be transport vehicle. However, considering the fact that the policy issued by insurer was very much in force, following the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in S.Iyyapan v. M/s.United India Insurance Company Limited and others1, even if there was breach of conditions of insurance policy, the liability came to be fastened on insurer by applying pay and recovery principle. 4 HCJ & CGR, J MACMA No.1009 of 2017 (f) Insofar as the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal, after considering the avocation, age, earnings, multiplier and other aspects, awarded compensation of ₹38,45,835/- to be paid along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. 4. Heard Sri Amancharla Satish Babu, learned counsel appearing for insurer and Sri Siva Prasad Katakamsetty, learned counsel appearing for claimants. 5. Learned counsel for insurer mainly contended that the Tribunal fell in error in applying the principles of pay and recovery, having rendered finding in its favour that the driver of offending Trolley Auto did not possess valid and effective driving licence. Except for the said submission, no other arguments are advanced qua the quantum of compensation. 6. Learned counsel appearing for claimants supported the impugned Award and further contended that the Tribunal has merely followed the settled principle of law, therefore, no interference is called for in the present appeal. 7. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made by both parties and perused the record. 5 HCJ & CGR, J MACMA No.1009 of 2017 8. The Tribunal, considering the issue with regard to the driver of offending Trolley Auto possessing valid and effective driving license, has rendered following finding: “20. The evidence of R.W.2 is that they verified the records and found that the driver has a licence to drive LMV Non- Transport, Auto rickshaw, MCWG Non - Transport. His further evidence is that the crime vehicle is light motor vehicle. Ex.X3 discloses that the Non-Transport driving licence was issued on 12-3-2007 and it is valid upto 11-3-2027. The 2nd respondent submits that a licence to drive a transport vehicle will be effective for a period of three years whereas in the case any other vehicle it can be issued or renewed for a period of 20 years from the date of issuance or renewal. The fact that licence was granted for a period of 20 years, thus clearly shows that the driver of the vehicle was not granted a valid driving licence for driving a transport vehicle. 21. In the present case, though 2nd respondent proved that the driver at relevant time was not having valid and effective driving licence, insurance company cannot completely be exonerated from its liability on account of the policy which is in force. Even otherwise, it is settled by Hon'ble Apex Court in S.Iyyapan Vs. M/s.United India Insurance Company [2013 AIR SC 2262] {Civil Appeal No. 4834 of 2013 arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.5091 of 2009, dt.1st July, 2013.} when a valid insurance policy was issued for a motor vehicle covering the risk of 3rd party 6 HCJ & CGR, J MACMA No.1009 of 2017 2 (2017) 4 SCC 796 3 2026 ACJ 447 = 2026 (2) Apex Court Judgments (SC) 571 and even if the owner of the motor vehicle commit breach in the conditions of the insurance policy the insurer is statutorily liable to satisfy the claim of the 3rd party and to recover from the owner of the motor vehicle and by following the said dictum of Apex Court, I feel though the driver of crime vehicle had not having valid and effective driving licence on the relevant date, still in view of the ratio laid down by Apex Court in Iyyapan's case stated supra, insurance company is liable to pay compensation awarded to the petitioners and was given liberty to recover the same from the 1st respondent.” 9. The Tribunal indeed having found that the driver of offending vehicle did not possess valid and effective driving licence, nevertheless, directed the insurer to pay the compensation and later recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle. In arriving at the said finding and conclusion, the Tribunal relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in S.Iyyapan’s case1. 10. The above said principle has been reiterated by Hon’ble Apex Court even in later judgments in Manuara Khatun v. Rajesh Kumar Singh2 and Kaminiben v. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited3. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the appeal and accordingly, the same stands dismissed. No costs. 7 HCJ & CGR, J MACMA No.1009 of 2017 As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending in this case, if any, shall stand closed. LISA GILL, CJ CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J SS