APHC010254972019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] MONDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 817/2019 Between: 1. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,, REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, BRANCH OFFICE, STATION ROAD, KADAPA ...APPELLANT AND 1. PAIDIKALVA MARIYAMMA, W/O. NARAYANA, SC, HOUSEWIFE, AGED 42 YEARS, R/O. 6/89, SC COLONY, GANGIREDDIPALLI VILLAGE, VEERAPUNAYUNIPALLI MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT. 2. PAIDIKALVA NARAYANA, S/O. LAKSHMI NARAYANA, SC, COOLI, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O. 6/89, SC COLONY, GANGIREDDIPALLI VILLAGE, VEERAPUNAYUNIPALLI MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT 3. SMT N NAGA SULOCHANA, W/O. CHINA OBAIAH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, TRACTOR OWNER BEARING NO AP 04 AV 6395, R/O. GANGIREDDIPALLI VILLAGE, VEERAPUNAYUNIPALLI MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT. 4. S VENKATA NARAYANA, S/O. NARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, DRIVER OF ACCIDENT VEHICLE(TRACTOR) 2 VS,J MACMA_817_2019 R/O. ULAVAPALLI VILLAGE, KONDURU, PENDLIMARRI MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT (SECOND RESPONDENT). ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be pleased topleased to set aside the order passed in M.V.O.P.No.231 of 2017 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - First Additional. District Judge, Kadapa dated 18th day of February, 2019, and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2019 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 66 days in filing the M.A.C.M.A. against the Judgment in M.V.O.P.No.231 of 2017 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - First Additional. District Judge, Kadapa dated 18th day of =ebruary, 2019 and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2019 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 grant stay of operation of the decree and Judgment in M.V.O P.No.231 of 2017 on The file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - First Additional. District Judge, Kadapa dated 18th day of February, 2019, pending disposal of the main M.A.C.M A., and pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. RAMA MOHAN RAO KOTHA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. KANCHAM GURU RAJA The Court made the following: 3 VS,J MACMA_817_2019 JUDGMENT: The Insurance Company filed the present appeal aggrieved by the impugned award dated 18.02.2019 passed in M.V.O.P.No.231 of 2017 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Kadapa whereby the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.13,27,000/- towards total compensation to the claimants as against the claim of Rs.7,00,000/- for the death of the deceased Paidikalva Reddaiah. 2) For the sake of convenience, both the parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the claim application. 3) The claimants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- for the death of the deceased Paidikalva Reddaiah, (herein after referred to as “deceased”) who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 22.02.2017. Petitioner No.1 is the mother of the deceased. Petitioner No.2 is the father of the deceased. 4) The brief averments of the claim petition are as follows: On 22.02.2017 morning while the deceased and his father were standing at bus stop of Gangireddypalli at about 11.00 a.m., one Tractor bearing No.AP 04 AV 6395 and Trailer AP 04 AV 6396 came from Yerraguntla side and stopped near them, the driver requested the deceased to come for cooli work for unloading iron rods. Then the deceased agreed for the request of the tractor driver and boarded the tractor and sat on the back side of the driver seat and left from there. One N.Ayyavaraiah followed the tractor on his motorcycle. While the tractor was going to Thatimakulapalli village 4 VS,J MACMA_817_2019 by carrying iron slab rods to deliver them to one Palem Ramachandra Reddy from Gangireddipalli village via Tangedupalli and Kothuru village and on the way, between Kadirepalli village and U.Rajupalem village at about 12.30 pm., the driver of the tractor drove it in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and lost control over the tractor, due to which, the tractor was turned turtle. As a result of which, the deceased fell down under the trolley and sustained severe bleeding injuries on his head, consequently the deceased dead on the spot. The accident was occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor i.e. respondent No.2 only. Respondent No.1 is the owner, respondent No.2 is the driver and respondent No.3 is the insurer of the offending vehicle. 5) Respondent No.1 – owner of the vehicle filed a counter denying the claim of the claimants and contended that there is no rash and negligent driving of driver of offending vehicle i.e. Tractor. Respondent No.2 driver of the crime vehicle is holding valid driving license, and respondent No.1 has not violated any terms and conditions of the policy, and requested to dismiss the petition. 6) Respondent No.2 – driver of the vehicle filed counter admitting that the deceased came to coolly work for unloading iron rods at Thatimakulapalli village. Respondent No.2 got loaded the iron rods for construction of slab of a building in a tractor bearing No.AP 04 AV 6395 and trailer AP 04 AV 6396 to unload at Thatimakulapalli village on 22.02.2017. The accident was not occurred due to his fault. Respondent No.2 has not violated any 5 VS,J MACMA_817_2019 terms and conditions of the policy, and requested to dismiss the petition. 7) Respondent No.3 – insurance company filed its counter contending that on the date of accident i.e. 22.02.2017 the deceased was aged about 15 years and travelled in the tractor by standing behind the driver seat as a passenger. As per the policy, no person should travel in the tractor except the driver of the said tractor. On the date of accident, the said tractor was used for carrying of passengers as a mode of transportation and it is a clear violation of the terms and conditions of the policy and also permit and registration certificate. As per the criminal case records, the deceased boarded the tractor as a mid way passenger and travelled in the tractor as an unauthorized passenger. Therefore, respondent No.3 is not liable to indemnify the liability of respondent No.1. The driver of the tractor and trailer had no valid driving license as on the date of accident. The compensation claimed by the petitioners is highly excessive, and requested to dismiss the petition. 8) Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: (1) Whether the deceased Paidikalava Reddaiah died due to the injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 22.2.2017 due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor and trailer bearing No.AP 04 AV 6395? (2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so to what amount and from whom? (3) To what relief? 6 VS,J MACMA_817_2019 9) During the course of enquiry, on behalf of the claimants, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.8 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B.1 and B.2 and Exs.X.1 and X.2 were marked. 10) Taking into consideration the said oral and documentary evidence, while answering issue No.1 the Tribunal held that the deceased died due to the injuries sustained by the deceased in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 22.02.2017 due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor and trailer bearing No.AP 04 AV 6395. 11) Issue No.2 also answered in favour of the petitioners and held that respondent Nos.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation amount to the petitioners and awarded Rs.13,27,000/- under different heads towards compensation. 12) Learned standing counsel for the appellant – insurance company contended that the deceased has travelled in the tractor as unauthorized passenger and there is no provision to carry other persons except driver on a tractor. As per the evidence of P.Ws2. and 3, the deceased was standing near the engine of the tractor and is not covered by the insurance policy. There is no mention in the FIR that the deceased was taken by respondent No.2 for cooli work. It is further contended that as the deceased has travelled in the tractor on the date of accident as unauthorized passenger, the claimants are not entitled for any compensation, and requested to set aside the award passed by the Tribunal below. 7 VS,J MACMA_817_2019 13) The learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 - claimants contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper, which needs no interference, and requested to dismiss the appeal filed by the insurance company. 14) Having heard the submissions made by the learned counsel representing both parties and on perusal of the material available on record, the point that arises for consideration is as follows “Whether the appellant – insurance company is liable to pay compensation of Rs.13,27,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal? 15) I have carefully analyzed the entire evidence on record. P.W.1 – mother of the deceased reiterated the contentions urged in the petition. P.Ws.2 and 3 deposed that on 22.02.2017 morning while the tractor was going to Thatimakulapalli village by carrying iron slab rods to deliver them to one Palem Rama Chandra Reddy from Gangireddypalli village via Tangudupalli and Kothuru villages and on the way while the tractor was proceeding between Kadirepalli village and U.Rajupalem village at about 12.30 p.m., the driver of the tractor drove it in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and lost control on the tractor as a result of which, the tractor turned turtle on the road and caused the accident. Due to the accident, the deceased fell down under the trolley, sustained severe bleeding injuries on his head and died on the spot. Therefore, it can be said that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of tractor i.e. respondent No.2. 16) To prove that the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation, the branch manager of respondent No.3 insurance company was examined as R.W.1, who deposed that respondent 8 VS,J MACMA_817_2019 No.1 obtained policy bearing No.551006311610000462 valid from 23.05.2016 to 22.05.2017 under the type of Motor Miscellaneous and special type of vehicle package policy subject to terms and conditions of the policy. On the date of accident the driver of the tractor and trailer has no driving license to drive the said tractor and trailer. R.W.1 further deposed that the deceased boy travelled in the tractor by standing behind the tractor driver seat as passenger. The said tractor was used for carrying of passengers as a mode of transportation and it is a clear violation of the terms and conditions of the policy, therefore, insurance company is not liable to indemnify the liability of respondent No.1. 17) At this juncture, it is pertinent to quote Rule 252 of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, in this case, which reads as follows: “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 any part of his person when he is in sitting 9 VS,J MACMA_817_2019 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.” 18) 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. Kumar1, wherein the decision at paragraphs No.4 and 5 reads as follows: 1 2004 (5) ALD 30 10 VS,J MACMA_817_2019 “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 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 i.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 11 VS,J MACMA_817_2019 some persons and lays down some 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.” 19) Learned standing counsel for the appellant – Insurance Company has brought to the notice of this Court that in a similar case-MACMA No.1794 of 2006, where the driver of the tractor drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and due to sudden jerk, the deceased therein, who was sitting on the tractor fell down and the trailer ran over him resulting in grievous injuries and later, succumbed to the injuries at the Government Hospital, this Court directed the claimants to recover the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from the owner of the tractor, and requested this Court to pass similar order in this case also. 20) The operative portion of the order passed in MACMA No.1794 of 2006 is as follows: “However, since 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, 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.” 12 VS,J MACMA_817_2019 21) In the present case, since half of the amount was already deposited by the appellant – insurance company 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. 22) Permitting the passenger to travel in a goods vehicle is a violation of terms of policy, therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 23) As per the material on record, the deceased boy travelled in the tractor by standing behind the driver seat as passenger. However, by marking Ex.B.1 – copy of insurance policy, the insurance company established that the seating capacity of the tractor is „1‟ i.e., 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. 24) As a similar issue has already been decided by this Court vide order dated 17.07.2025 in M.A.C.M.A.No.1794 of 2006, the present appeal can be allowed under similar lines. 25) However, since the appellant deposited half of the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, and as the appellant is not liable to pay any compensation as decided in the above case, it can 13 VS,J MACMA_817_2019 recover the amount from the insured without filing any separate suit, but by filing execution proceedings. 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 bearing No.AP 04 AV 6395. 26) With the above directions, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. 27) Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed ________________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA 01.09.2025 Ksp