APHC010585382022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 444/2022 Between: 1. GANTA NARAYANAMMA, W/O SATYANARAYANA. AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, 2. GANTA SATYANARAYANA, S/O BRAHMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF PENUMANTRA VILLAGE AND MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT(S) AND 1. SHAIK HAZARATH, S/O RAHAMTHULLA, OWNER CUM DRIVER, RESIDING AT PURINI VILLAGE, ALLUR MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 2. SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, REP BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, NELLORE. 3. M/S ADANI KRISHNAPATNAM PORT LTD, (FORMERLY M/S KRISHNAPATNAM PORT COMPANY LIMITED) REPRESENTED BY ITS OFFICER HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT AND AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY) D BALA CHANDRA, MUTHUKURU VILLAGE AND MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC before the High CourtAggrieved by the order and decreetal order to the extent appealed in M.V.O.,P, No. 234 of 2015 Dt 16.03.2022 on the file of the Court of V Addl. Motor Accidents Claims 2 VS,J MACMA No.444 of 2022 tribunal, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District the Appellant prefers Memorandum of Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal IA NO: 1 OF 2022 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 pleased to condone the delay of 117 days in filing the appeal in the interests of justice and pass Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. SIVAPRASAD REDDY VENATI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. V SURENDRA REDDY 2. GUDI SRINIVASU 3. The Court made the following: 3 VS,J MACMA No.444 of 2022 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the appellants/claimant, aggrieved by the dismissal of their claim petition vide order and decree dated 16.03.2022 passed in M.V.O.P.No.234 of 2015 on the file of the V Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nellore, on account of the death of the deceased, Ganta Tulasi Durgarao, in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 13.10.2010. 02. For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 03. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows: a) On 13.10.2010 at about 7:00 p.m., the deceased, along with others working in NAM Engineering Company, boarded a TATA Mini Lorry bearing No. AP 26 U 2041 at their workplace, i.e., the garage of the said company at O-Point, Krishnapatnam Port, and proceeded towards Muthukur via the Port bypass road. The 1st respondent, being the owner-cum-driver of the said mini lorry, drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and, upon reaching Chalivendra Cross Road at about 7:30 p.m., dashed against a tipper which was stationed in front of it. As a result, the deceased and others sustained grievous injuries, and the deceased died on the spot. Two other workers, i.e., Suresh Behra and another, also died in the said accident. Subsequently, Krishnapatnam Port Company Limited was taken over by the Government of 4 VS,J MACMA No.444 of 2022 India and renamed as M/s Adani Krishnapatnam Port Limited, represented by its Human Resources Department. b) It is the contention of the claimants that the deceased was aged about 23 years at the time of the accident and was working as a Mechanic in JAM Engineering and Logistics, a transport company of Krishnapatnam Port. The vehicle bearing No. AP 26 U 2041 was engaged for company use. The deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month and was maintaining the family consisting of the claimants, who are his parents. The deceased was unmarried. Due to his sudden death, the claimants lost both an earning member and a beloved family member. They claimed compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- from the respondents. 04. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.1 remained ex parte. 05. Respondent No.2 filed a counter denying the allegations in the petition and contended that the lorry bearing No. AP 26 U 2041 is a goods carriage vehicle intended solely for transportation of goods. At the time of the accident, it was carrying unauthorized passengers. It was further contended that the policy did not cover such use, no premium was paid to cover passengers, and Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act does not extend coverage to unauthorized passengers. It was also contended that there was negligence on the part of the driver of the tipper vehicle. Hence, prays to dismiss the petition with costs. 5 VS,J MACMA No.444 of 2022 06. Respondent No.3 filed a counter stating that the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Joint Commissioner of Labour, Guntur, had already awarded compensation of Rs.7,17,460/- on 29.03.2011 in favour of the claimants and directed the 3rd respondent to deposit the same. Accordingly, the said amount was deposited vide Demand Draft No.542767 dated 28.04.2014. Therefore, respondent No.3 contended that no further liability subsists. 07. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: “1. Whether the accident occurred on 13.10.2010 at about 19.30 hours at Chalivendra cross road, Krishnapatnam port road, Muthukur mandal, SPSR Nellore district was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of mini lorry bearing registration No.AP 26 V 2041? 2. Whether the claimants are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and against which respondents? 3. To what relief?” 08. On behalf of the appellants/claimants, P.W.1 to P.W.3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, R.W.s 1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B1 to B6 were marked. 09. After hearing both parties and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the Tribunal failed to appreciate that Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act covers risk to persons 6 VS,J MACMA No.444 of 2022 including authorized representatives. It was further contended that there is no proof that the claimants had received compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act and that the Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim. 11. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 supported the impugned award and sought dismissal of the appeal. 12. Now the point for consideration is: “Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference? POINT: 13. On a perusal of the impugned award, it is observed that the 1st claimant was examined as P.W.1. She is not an eyewitness to the accident, but deposed about the manner of the accident. She stated that on 13.10.2010 at about 7.00 p.m., the deceased, while working in JAM Engineering and Logistics, boarded a TATA Mini Lorry bearing No. AP 26 U 2041 at their workplace i.e., the garage of the said company at O-Point, Krishnapatnam Port, and proceeded towards Muthukur on the Port bypass road. At Chalivendra Cross Road at about 7.30 p.m., the 1st respondent, who was the owner-cum-driver of the mini lorry, drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against a tipper which was stationed in front of it. As a result, the deceased died on the spot and others sustained grievous injuries. In support of her case, Exs.A1 to A4 were marked. P.W.2, who claimed to be an eyewitness to the accident, did not clearly state how he witnessed the accident. To prove the salary particulars of the deceased, P.W.3 was 7 VS,J MACMA No.444 of 2022 examined and Exs.A5 and A6 were marked. He categorically stated that compensation was paid to the deceased’s family as per rules. 14. On behalf of the respondents, R.W.1, an Officer from the Human Resources Department, was examined. He deposed that the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Joint Commissioner of Labour, Guntur awarded compensation of Rs.7,17,460/- against the 3rd respondent on 29.03.2011 and directed deposit of the said amount. Accordingly, the 3rd respondent deposited the said amount through Demand Draft No.542767 dated 28.04.2014 drawn on State Bank of India, Krishnapatnam Port Branch and also addressed a letter dated 28.04.2014 to the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Joint Commissioner of Labour, Guntur. Exs.B1 to B3 were marked. R.W.2, Legal Executive in the 2nd respondent’s office, marked the insurance policy as Ex.B4 covering the period from 12.11.2009 to 11.11.2010. R.W.3, Senior Assistant, RTO Office, Nellore, marked Exs.B5 and B6. 15. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and R.Ws.1 to 3 and the documents marked as Exs.A1 to A6 and Exs.B1 to B6, held that the claimants had already received compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. In view of Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Tribunal held that the claimants cannot pursue both remedies and that they are entitled to claim compensation only under one of the enactments. Since the claimants had already received compensation under the Workmen’s 8 VS,J MACMA No.444 of 2022 Compensation Act, the Tribunal held that they are not entitled to any further compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. 16. It is an admitted fact that as per Ex.B2, an award was passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Joint Commissioner of Labour, Guntur on 29.03.2011 granting compensation of Rs.7,17,460/-, and directing the 3rd respondent to deposit the same within 30 days. Accordingly, the 3rd respondent deposited the amount of Rs.7,17,460/- through Demand Draft No.542767 dated 28.04.2014 drawn on State Bank of India, Krishnapatnam Port Branch and addressed a letter dated 28.04.2014 to the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Joint Commissioner of Labour, Guntur confirming the deposit. 17. However, the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act was filed on 18.05.2015, i.e., after a lapse of one year from the receipt of compensation. On perusal of the claim petition, it is also evident that the claimants failed to disclose the fact that they had already received compensation of Rs.7,17,460/- under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, which amounts to suppression of material facts. 18. Though learned counsel for the appellants contended that there is no bar for filing a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act when no steps were initiated by the claimants under the Workmen’s Compensation Act and the award was passed suo motu pursuant to the employer’s application, in the present case, the accident occurred on 13.10.2010, the award was 9 VS,J MACMA No.444 of 2022 passed on 29.03.2011, the amount was deposited on 28.04.2014, and thereafter the claim petition was filed on 18.05.2015, suppressing receipt of compensation. It is the respondents who brought this fact to the notice of the Tribunal, though the claimants ultimately admitted the receipt of compensation during cross-examination. 19. In view of the above facts and circumstances, this Court finds no merit in the appeal. 20. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V. SUJATHA Date: 07.04.2026 KGR