\ APHC010132342006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1794 OF 2006 Between: New India Assurance Co Ltd, rep., by its Branch Manager, Proddatur Cudapah District (R-2 in O.P) ...Appellant/R-2 AND 1. Aluru Sanjeevarayudu, S/o. Hussain, aged about 51 years, Yerraguntia Village and Mandal, Cuddapah District. PIN-516 309 2. Aluru Dasthagiramma, W/o. Sanjeevarayudu, aged about 45 years, Yerraguntia Village and Mandal, Cuddapah District. PIN-516 309 (Petitioners in O.P) 3. M Dasthagiri, father’s name not known, aged Major, Owner of tractor bearing No.AP 04-T-0575 & Trailer AP No.04-T-0576, Yerraguntia Village and Mandal, Cuddapah District. PIN-516 309 - R1 in O.P ...Respondents/ Respondents Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, against the order and decree dated 27.08.2001 passed in O.P No. 108 of 1997 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- II Additional District Judge, Cuddapah. 1 This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the judgment and Decree of the Trial Court and material papers in the Suit and upon hearing arguments of Sri Naresh Byrapaneni, Advocate for the Appellant and Sri K Rathanga Pani Reddy, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 &2 This Court doth Order and decree as follows: That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby i: allowed; That the appellant be and hereby is not liable to pay any compensation; That as the appellant deposited half of the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and the claimants were permitted to withdraw the same, without furnishing any security, it can recover the deposited amount from the insured without filing any separate suit, but by filing proceedings in execution; That the respondents/claimants be and hereby are still entitled to recover the balance half of the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from the owner of the tractor. That there be no order as to costs in this appeal. 1. IS 2. 3. 4. 5. Sd/- K SRINIVASA RAJU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// // ^ SECTION OFFICER To. 1. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- II Additional District Judge Cuddapah, YSR Kadapa District 2. Two CD Copies / A HIGH COURT BSB, J DATED: 11/07/2025 DECREE MACMA NO. 1794 OF 2006 ^ 12 SEP 2025 Jgj Sectioftxvy ALLOWING THE MACMA % APHC010132342006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI ii, THURSDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPFAi Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles and decree dated 27.08.2001 passed in O.P No. 108 of 1997 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- II Additional District Judge. Cuddapah. NO: 1794 OF 2nnR Act, against the order Between: New India Assurance Co Ltd Cudapah District (R-2 in O.P) rep., by its Branch Manager. Proddatur. ...Appellant/R-2 AND 1. Aluru Sanjeevarayudu, S/o. Hussain aged about 51 years, Yerraguntia Village and Mandal, Cuddapah District. PIN-516 309 2. Aluru Dasthagiramma, W/o. Sanjeevarayudu Yerraguntia Village and Mandal, aged about 45 years, Cuddapah District. PIN-516 309 (Petitioners in O.P) 3. M Dasthagiri, father’s name not known, aged Major, Owner of tractor NO.04-T-0576, Yerraguntia Village and Mandal, Cuddapah District. PiN-516 309 - R1 in O.P bearing No.AP 04-T-0575 & Trailer AP ...Respondents/ Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Naresh Byrapaneni Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 : Sri K Rathanga Pani Reddy The Court made the following order: APHC010132342006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AIVIARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) 0^40 [3311] Thursday, the Seventeenth day of July, Two Thousand and Twenty Five Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No: 1794 of 2006 Between: New India Assurance Co. Ltd. ...appellant and Aluru Sanjeevarayudu and others Counsel for the appellant: I.Naresh Byrapaneni Counsel for the respondents: I.K. Rathanga Pani Reddy The Court made the following: ...respondents 2 MAGMA. No. 1794 Of 2006 JUDGMENT: This appeal was filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award dated 27.08.2001 in M.V.O.P.No.108 of 1997 on the file of Motor Accidents claims Tribunal -cum- II Additional District Judge, Kadapa, awarding compensation of Rs.74,000/- with proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 9 % p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation payable by both the respondents No.1 and 2 with joint and several liability. 02. The claimants are the parents of Aluru Sanjeevarayudu (in short ‘the deceased’). On 15.08.1996, while the deceased, along with Y.Kanaka Raju and Narayana, was returning from Proddatur to Yerraguntia in tractor-trailor bearing No. AP 04 T 0575 as they were engaged for fetching fertilisers, the driver of the tractor drove in rash and negligent manner to overtake bullock cart ahead of it and caused the accident. Due to the sudden jerk, the deceased sitting on the tractor fell down and the trailer ran over him resulting in grievous injuries. The deceased succumbed to the injuries at the Government hospital. The respondent No.1 who is the owner of the tractor remained ex-parte. Insurer of the tractor / 2'^'^ respondent contested the claim. 03. On behalf of the petitioners, P.W.I(A.Sanjeevarayudu) and P.W.2 (C.Narayana) were examined and Ex.A.1 to A.3 (Ex.A.1, photostat copy of F.I.R. in Cr.No.73 of 1996 of Yerraguntia police station, Ex.A.2, photostat copy of charge sheet and Ex.A.3, photostat copy of driving licence) were marked. On behalf of respondents, R.W.1 (Y.Ramakrishna Rao) and R.W.2 (Shaik Chand Basha) were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.5 (Ex.B.1, copy of insurance policy along with terms and conditions, Ex.B.2, Letter dated 24.03.2001, addressed to 3 MAGMA.No. 1794 of 2006 additional licence of authority, Ex.B.3, endorsement on the back of Ex.B.2, Ex.B.4, copy of letter addressed to Additional Licensing Authority Cuddapah, dated 24.03.2001 with regard to seating capacity. Ex.B.5, copy of ‘B’ extract in respect of tractor bearing No.AP 04 T 0575) were marked. The Tribunal awarded amount of compensation as aforesaid after hearing both parties, inspite of the contest made by the 2"^ respondent disowning its liability on the ground that there was violation in the condition of policy of driver as the tractor had no valid driving licence and further that the deceased sat beside the driver on the tractor which had seating capacity of only 1 i.e., driver. Aggrieved by the award this appeal was filed by the respondent No.2 / insurance company on the same ground as was mainly raised before the Tribunal noted above. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that it is pertinent to quote Rule 252 of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, in this case, which reads as follows; 04. 05. “252. Carrying of persons in goods vehicle carriage (1) No person shall be carried in the cab of a goods vehicle beyond the number for which there is seating accommodation at the rate of 284 nukuneters measure along the seat, excluding the space reserved for the driver for each person and not more than Seven persons in all shall be carried in any goods vehicle. (2) No persons shall be carried in a goods vehicle upon the goods or otherwise in such a manner that such person is in danger of falling from the vehicle and in no case shall any person be carried in a goods vehicles, in such a manner that 4 MACMA.No.1794 of 2006 any part of his person when he is in sitting position is at a height exceeding 3 meters from the surface which the vehicle rests. (3) No person other than a person connected to the conveyance of goods shall travel in a goods vehicle. (4) Notwithstanding the provision of sub-rule (1) the Regional Transport Authority or the State Transport Authority, may subject to such conditions as it thinks fit allow a large number of persons to be carried in a goods vehicles; (5) Nothing in this rule shall be deemed to authorize the carriage of any person for hire or reward on any goods vehicle, unless there is in force in respect of the vehicle a permit authorizing the use of the vehicle for such purpose, and save in accordance with the provisions of such permit.” According to the above Rule, persons shall not be carried more than the prescribed capacity and it is not just violation of terms of policy, but, if a person is allowed to travel in a goods vehicle beyond the permitted seating capacity, the insurance company is not at all liable and therefore, it cannot be fastened with liability of paying the compensation to the claimants and recovering the same from the owner as was held by this High Court in case of Vachala Vs. V.R. Kumar\ wherein the decision at paragraphs No.4 and 5 reads as follows; “4. Ex. B.2, true extract of the ‘B’ register relating to the offending vehicle, shows that it originally was a open (hackney) carriage (Auto Rickshaw Cab) having seating capacity of ‘Four in all and by ^ 2004 (5) ALD 30 SUUi I 5 MACMA.No.1794 of 2006 the proceedings in R. No. 7713/A5/93 dated 20.4.1993, the following alterations were made with effect from 20.4.1993. ‘(1) Class of Vehicle - L.M.V. goods vehicle; (2) Seating Capacity - one; (3) D.L.W : 330 Kgs; and (4) R.L.W. - F.A.W.-300 Kgs and R.A.W-600 Kgs.’ Therefore, it is clear that the seating capacity of the offending vehicle is only one/'.e., the driver alone can travel in the vehicle. The offending vehicle being a light motor goods vehicle with seating capacity for one i.e., driver, question of anybody else either it be the owner of the goods, or his authorized representative, being allowed to travel therein cannot arise in view of Rule 252(5) A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, made in pursuance of the power given under the Act. When carrying of passengers in the offending vehicle is not allowed by the Act, question of insurer covering the risk of owner of the goods or an authorized representative of the owner of the goods travelling along with the goods in the offending vehicle does not arise. 5. The next contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that carrying of passenger in the offending vehicle at best amounts to the driver committing a breach of the terms and conditions of the policy and, so, the insurer has to pay the compensation to the appellants and recover the amount so paid from the owner, cannot be accepted because carrying of passengers in the offending vehicle is contrary to the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder and since the policy issued by second respondent does not even cover the risk of passenger in the offending vehicle. If the insurer covers the risk of some persons and lays down some 6 MACMA.No.1794 of 2006 conditions for its being made liable in respect of those persons, and if the insured violates some of those conditions, then there may be some force in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants. When the insurer did not undertake to cover the risk of passengers in the offending vehicle, question of its being made liable in respect of the risk of such passenger does not arise.” Since half of the amount was already paid to the claimant as per the interim order of stay passed by this Court in the appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the same amount may be permitted to be recovered from the owner of the insured vehicle. It was also submitted by him that the claimants may recover the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal from the owner of the tractor irrespective of the liability against the insurer. Therefore, he requested to allow the appeal accordingly. The learned counsel for the respondents / claimants submitted that the insurance company had not lead evidence to prove the seating capacity as is now claimed and moreover permitting the passenger to travel in a goods vehicle is a violation of terms of policy and therefore, the insurance company can be directed to first pay the compensation amount to the claimants and recover such amount from the insured. As the deceased was travelling on the mud-guard of a tractor and after he fell down from the tractor, there is no dispute over the facts about how he died. Ex.B5 was marked through the witness and insurance company was also examined. The document under Ex.B5 was not disputed about its contents and therefore, it is not to be said that Ex.BS was not proved. Therefore, it is established by the company that the seating capacity of the tractor is ‘1’ i.e.. 06. 07. / 08. was ran over insurance driver alone. Thus, the policy does not cover the risk of any other person who travels on it. In the light of the above said decision of this High Court, it cannot be treated as mere violation of terms of policy and it shall be regarded as policy does not cover the risk of the deceased. However, since the appellant deposited half of the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and the claimants 09. were permitted to withdraw the same, without furnishing any security, the appellant since not liable to pay any compensation as decided in the above case, it can recover the amount from the insured without filing any separate suit, but by filing proceedings in execution. The respondents / claimants are still entitled to recover the balance half of the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from the owner of the tractor. 10. With the above directions, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. The Registry is directed to prepare decree accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- K SRINIVASA RAJU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ^ //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- II Additional District Judge, Cuddapah, YSR Kadapa District (with records if any) 2. One CC to Sri. Naresh Byrapaneni Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri. K Rathanga Pani Reddy Advocate [OPUC] 4. The Section Officer, VR Section, Amaravathi 5. Two CD Copies High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Stu NM m HIGH COURT DATED:11/07/2025 JUDGMENT + DECREE MACMA NO. 1794 OF 2006 ALLOWING THE MACMA