THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI IN TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1180 OF 2005 Appeal filed under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988, against the Order and Decree dated 08.02.2005 in M.V.O.P. No.388 of 2000 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - District Judge, Tirupathi. Chairman-cum- IV Additional Between: Insurance Company Limited, Rep. by its Branch Manager, Branch Office, Proddutur, Kadapa Dist. (2"'" Respondent in the OP) M/s United India ...Appellant/Respondent No.2 AND 1. Tappeta Somannagari Subbamma, W/o T.S.Yarava Reddy, Aged 45 R/o Tapettavaripalle Village, Ontimitta Mandal, Kadapa District. years, (1®* Petitioner in O.P) D/o T.S.Yarava Reddy, Aged 29 years, R/o Tapettavaripalle Village, Ontimitta Mandal, Kadapa District. 2. T.S.Anasuyamma, (1®‘ Petitioner in O.P) 3. B.Bali Reddy, S/o Gunti Reddy, Hindu, “Owner of Jeep PY- 01-F/5098 D.No. 5/1877, Proddutur, Kadapa District. (R1 in the O.P) 4. M.D.Abdul Khader, S/o Karim Saheb, Muslim, Owner of Jeep PY- 01- 'R/5098, D.No.24/288, Powerhouse Road, Proddutur, Kadapa District. ^ (1®* Petitioner in O.P) r 'f;. 1. (Respondent No.4 Dismissed for Default vide Court Order dated 3/1/12) ...Respondents/Appelants Counsel for the Appellant: SMT. S PRANATHI Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI I NAVEEN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI T DEVA DEEPAK ANIRUDH YADAV Counsel for other Respondents: None Appeared The Court made the following Judgment: <«K' APHC010187042005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] TUESDAY .THE FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1180/2005 Between: 1.M/S UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, PRODDATUR, REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, BRANCH MANAGER, M/S UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED BRANCH OFFICE, ...APPELLANT AND 1.TAPPETA SOMANNAGARI SUBBAMMA AND 3 OTHERS, W/0 T.S.YARAVA REDDY R/0 TAPETTAVARIPALLE VILLAGE, ONTIMITTA MANDAL, CUDDAPAH DISTRICT. 2.T S ANASUYAMMA, D/0 T.S.YARAVA REDDY R/0 TAPETTAVARIPALLE VILLAGE, ONTIMITTA MANDAL, CUDDAPAH DISTRICT. 3.B BALI REDDY. S/0 GUNTI REDDY, HINDU OWNER OF JEEP PY- 01-F/5098, D.NO. 5/1877, PRODDUTUR CUDDAPAH DISTRICT. 4.M D ABDUL KHADER, S/0 KARIM SAHEB, MUSDLIM OWNER OF JEEP PY- 01-F/5098, D.NO.24/288, POWERHOUSE ROAD. PRODDUTUR, ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Appellant: 1.S PRANATHI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.1 NAVEEN KUMAR ^ . BSfe,■ M.A.C.M.A.No.1180 of 2005 2 2.THOKA DEVA DEEPAK ANIRUDH YADAV The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the order and decree dated 08.02.2005 in M.V.O.P.No.388 of 2000 on the file of Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed claim petition seeking compensation on account of the death of T.S.Yarava Reddy in a motor vehicle accident in the early hours of 11.06.2000 while travelling in Jeep bearing No.PY 01 F 5098 near Anjaneyapuram village while going to attend a marriage function, as the driver of the jeep lost control resulting in the jeep rolling over. A case in crime No.96 of 2000 was registered under Sections 337, 338, 279 and 304 A of I PC and Sections 134 (a) and (b) r/w Section 177 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 of Renigunta police station was registered. The petitioners contended that the deceased was doing agriculture and also business, earning Rs.5000/- per month. He was aged about 58 years. The 1®‘ petitioner is his wife. 2 petitioner is his daughter. The petition was opposed by the 2^^ respondent /Insurance Company by filing a written statement denying the claim on many grounds, particularly that the jeep was insured for private purpose but it was used for commercial purpose by collecting fare from the deceased and others to travel from Tappetavarepalle to Tirumala for the marriage function. On behalf of the claimants, the 1®* petitioner was examined as PW1 and Ex.AI (copy of FIR), Ex.A2 (copy of inquest report) and Ex.A3 (copy of PM certificate) were marked and one of the inmates of the jeep was examined as PW2. The 2'^^ respondent filed copy of policy of insurance and the same was marked as Ex.BI, but no witness was examined. 2. nd 3. 4. 3 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1180 of 2005 The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.2,47,000/- payable with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization with joint and several liability of the respondents 2 and 3. The petition against the respondent No.1 was dismissed. Costs of the petition were awarded. Aggrieved by the award, this appeal was filed by the Insurance Company/respondent No.2 mainly contending that the appellant has no liability to pay compensation as the vehicle was insured for private use only, but it was used for commercial purpose; and further that the Tribunal awarded exorbitant amount of compensation with high rate of interest and that the amount of Rs.55,000/- towards loss of earnings was erroneously awarded, whereas it should not exceed Rs.9,500/- as per schedule-ll and that the monthly income of the deceased was erroneously assessed at Rs.3,000/- though the deceased was an agricultural coolie and his occupation is seasonal. 5. 6. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2/claimants. In so far as the liability is concerned, it is argued by the learned counsel for the claimants that if at all there is any violation of terms of policy for not using for the purpose insured, the insurance company cannot disown its liability and that it must be directed to first pay and then recover the amount. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the appellant affirms the ground raised by the insurance company. The Tribunal gave finding that the insured vehicle was used for commercial purpose. This Court does not see any reason to interfere with the finding. Therefore, since the vehicle was insured admittedly for private purpose, its use for commercial purpose amounts to breach of condition. Due to mere breach of condition, the insurance company cannot be completely 7. 8. 9. 10. BSB, J '’'^1111 M.A.C.M.A.No.llSOof 2005 absolved of the liability, and can be directed to first pay the amount of' compensation to the claimants and then recover the same from the insured. The Tribunal, though referred to the contention, failed to examine it legally and merely because premium for inmates was paid, the insurance company made liable. As such, award needs to be modified to the extent of making the insurance was company jointly and severally liable by directing it to first pay the amount of compensation to the claimant and then recover the same from the insured by enforcing the award without filing a separate suit. In so far as quantum of compensation is concerned, this Court does not see any reason to interfere with the award. However, so far as rate of interest is concerned, the settled principle is that the rate prevailing in nationalized banks as per the directions of RBI shall be followed by the Tribunal. During the relevant period in the year 2000, the rate of interest @ 9% could be reasonable. As such, the rate of interest also does not need any interference. Accordingly, appeal is partly allowed by modifying the joint and several liability of the appellant to first pay the amount of compensation to the claimant and then recover the same from the insured by enforcing the award without filing a separate suit. There shall be no order as to costs. 11. 12 As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this company application shall stand closed. Sd/- P VINOD KUMAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - Chairman-cum- IV Additional District Judge, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. One CC to Smt. S Pranathi, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Sri I Naveen Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Sri T Deva Deepak Anirudh Yadav, Advocate [OPUC] The Section Officer, V.R Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. Three CD Copies 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. SAM vna HIGH COURT DATED:04/03/2025 JUDGMENT + DECREE MACMA.No.1180 of 2005 PARTLY ALLOWING THE M.A.C.M.A WITHOUT COSTS ^ . IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHl MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1180 OF 2005 Between: M/s United India Insurance Company Limited, Rep. by its Branch Manager, Branch Office, Proddutur, Kadapa Dist. (2"'^ Respondent in the OP) ...Appellant/Respondent No.2 AND 1. Tappeta Somannagari Subbamma, W/o T.S.Yarava Reddy, Aged 45 years, R/o Tapettavaripalle Village, Ontimitta Mandal, Kadapa District. (1®* Petitioner in O.P) 2. T.S.Anasuyamma, D/o T.S.Yarava Reddy, Aged 29 years, R/o Tapettavaripalle Village, Ontimitta Mandal, Kadapa District. (1®* Petitioner in O.P) 3. B.Bali Reddy, S/o Gunti Reddy, Hindu, “Owner of Jeep PY- 01-F/5098, D.No. 5/1877, Proddutur, Kadapa District. (R1 in the O.P) 4. M.D.Abdul Khader, S/o Karim Saheb, Muslim, Owner of Jeep PY- 01- F/5098, D.No.24/288, Powerhouse Road, Proddutur, Kadapa District. (1®' Petitioner in O.P) (Respondent No.4 Dismissed for Default vide Court Order dated 3/1/12) ...Respondents/Appelants ' Appeal filed under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988, Order and Decree dated 08.02.2005 in M.V.O.P. No.388 of 2000 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal District Judge, Tirupathi. against the on the file - Chairman-cum- IV Additional Appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the Memorandum of Appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the lower Court and the material evidence on record and upon hearing the arguments of Smt. S Pranathi, Advocate for the Appellant and Sri I Naveen Kumar for the Respondents No.1, and Sri T Deva Deepak Anirudh Yadav for the Respondents No.2, and appeared for other respondents. none This Court doth order and decree as follows: 1. That the Appeal be and is hereby Allowed in Part; That the joint and several liability of the appellant to first pay the amount of compensation to the claimant be and is hereby modified and then recover the same from the insured by enforcing the award without filing a separate suit; That there shall be no order as to costs. 2. 3. Sd/- P VINOD KUMAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To. 1. The Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal — Chairman-cum- IV Additional District Judge, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. Three CD Copies 2. SAM vna c, * HIGH COURT DATED:04/03/2025 DECREE MACMA.No.1180 of 2005 PARTLY ALLOWING THE M.A.C.M.A WITHOUT COSTS