APHC010284712025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 602/2025 Between: 1. RAMAVATH LALKA NAIK, S/ORAMU NAIK, AGE 31 YEARS, LAMBADA, CLEANER OF LORRY BEARING NO.AP02W4679, RESIDENT OF WADDIKINDI THANDA VILLAGE, MUDUGUBBA MANDAL ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT AND 1. NUSAM JANARDHAN REDDY, S/O N.YENGALA REDDY, AGE 43 YEARS, RESIDING AT D.NO.3-85F, THAPOVANAM, DADITHOTA VILLAGE, TADIMARRI MANDAL, ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT (DRIVER-CUM-OWNER OF THE LORRY BEARING NO.AP02W4679). 2. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, 1ST FLOOR, 11/155A BSN ESTATES, HOSPITAL ROAD, ANANTAPURAMU TOWN AND DISTRICT. INSURER OF THE LORRY BEARING NO.AP02W4679 AND POLICY NO.61070031140100003512. ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, aggrieved by the order passed in M.V.Q.P.No.297 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VII Addl. District Judge, Anantapuramu, dated 22.02.2022, 2 CGR, J. M.A.C.M.A.No.602 of 2025 Counsel for the Appellant: 1. ARUN SHOWRI G Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. 2. T S RAYALU The Court made the following: 3 CGR, J. M.A.C.M.A.No.602 of 2025 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN M.A.C.M.A.No.602 of 2025 JUDGMENT: Present appeal is preferred by the appellant/claimant, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, “the M.V. Act”), assailing order, dated 22.02.2022, passed in M.V.O.P. No.297 of 2016 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Judge, Family Court- cum-VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu (“for short, “the Tribunal”), by which, Tribunal returned the claim petition to approach the competent authority under the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, the W.C. Act”). 2. For the sake of convenience, parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. Brief facts relating to the present appeal in a nutshell are as follows: (a) Claimant is the appellant and it is a case of injuries. Claimant preferred present claim under Section 166 of the M.V.Act claiming compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him on account of alleged road accident. It is stated that appellant while working as Cleaner of lorry bearing Registration No.AP 02 W 4679, owned and driven by 1st respondent, dashed another lorry from behind while proceeding with load from Nagpur to Hyderabad, at the outskirts of 4 CGR, J. M.A.C.M.A.No.602 of 2025 Devlanaik Thanda village on NH.44 Road, resulting both driver and claimant sustained injuries. It is stated that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending lorry. Claimant was stated to have been shifted to Hospital for treatment and he has incurred various amounts towards treatment. Even the incident was also reported to Police and Crime No.47 of 2015 was registered for the offence punishable under Section 337 of IPC against driver of the lorry. Claiming that he was earning about Rs.10,000/- per month and considering nature of injuries sustained, claim has been laid. (b) 1st respondent, owner-cum-driver of offending lorry, remained ex parte. 2nd respondent Insurer filed written statement inter alia denying the manner in which accident has occurred, that the driver of lorry did not possess valid and effective driving licence, which violated conditions of policy, disputed the injuries, income and also the compensation claimed. (c) Based on the aforesaid pleadings available on record, the Tribunal has framed following issues: “1. Whether R.1 drove the lorry bearing No.AP-02-W-4679 in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident? 2. Whether the policy does not cover the risk of cleaner of the lorry? 3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so, how much and from whom? 4. To what relief?” (d) To substantiate the claim of the claimant, he himself was examined as PW.1 and examined the doctors, who treated him, as PW.2 and PW.3 and got marked Exs.A1 to A14. None were examined on behalf 5 CGR, J. M.A.C.M.A.No.602 of 2025 of the respondents, however, Ex.B.1 insurance policy was marked on their behalf. (e) The Tribunal first proceeded to decide the second issue rather than dealing with the first issue. While considering the second issue, Tribunal laying emphasis on Sections 147 and 165 of the M.V. Act, has come to conclusion that the claimant did not qualify to be a ‘third party’ as defined thereunder and therefore, claim was not entertainable under the provisions of the M.V. Act, rather he ought to have invoked the provisions of the W.C. Act, accordingly, claim came to be rejected on jurisdictional ground. Assailing the same, the appellant/claimant preferred the present appeal. 4. Heard Sri Arun Showri. G, learned counsel for the Appellant and Sri T.S. Rayalu, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/Insurer. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has mainly contended that the definition of third party as provided under Section 145(i) of the M. V. Act came to be amended, by Amendment Act 32 of 2019, by including even Cleaner also within its fold, therefore, Tribunal has committed grievous error in overlooking aforesaid aspect. Further, he has placed reliance on judgment of co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt.Dabburi Siva Parvathi @ Venkata Siva 6 CGR, J. M.A.C.M.A.No.602 of 2025 Parvathi 1 , to buttress his contention that the Amendment made to aforesaid provision is clarificatory in nature, therefore, would apply even to the accidents that occurred prior to 2019 as well. Further, he contended that Section 167 of the M.V. Act envisages a clear-cut option for preferring claims for compensation dehors the provisions contained under the W.C. Act, inasmuch as, the appellant in present case has opted to invoke the jurisdiction of the Tribunal under the provisions of the M.V. Act, the same ought not to have been rejected on jurisdictional ground. In support of the said submission, reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Dyamavva2. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/ Insurer, on the other hand contended that the appeal has been preferred much belatedly after almost 1120 days and even opposed the application filed for condoning the delay. Since substantial delay is attributable to the claimant, even if the matter is being considered to be remanded back, the Insurer cannot be fastened with the claim of interest for aforesaid period of delay. With regard to the other two legal submissions, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/Insurer, though opposed the same, really has not disputed the ratio laid down in the aforesaid judgments. He further contended that though there exists an option to the claimant to initiate claims either before 1 2024 SCC OnLine AP 3864 = (Judgment, dt.06.08.2024, in C.M.A.No.565 of 2024) (APHC) 2 (2013) 9 SCC 406 7 CGR, J. M.A.C.M.A.No.602 of 2025 the Tribunal constituted under the M.V. Act or before the competent authority under the W.C. Act, inasmuch as, limitation of two years envisaged under the latter Act expired, the claimant had resorted to lay claim before the Tribunal, the same is rather a device resorted to by way of election, but not an option exercised, therefore, the Tribunal has rightly rejected the claim on jurisdictional aspect, therefore, the impugned order does not call for any interference. 7. Perused the record and considered the rival submissions of both the learned counsel. 8. In order to appreciate the submissions made by learned counsel for the claimant, it is necessary to look into Sections 145(i) and 167 of the M.V. Act, which read as under: “S.145. Definitions.—In this Chapter,— (i) “third party” includes the Government, the driver and any other co-worker on a transport vehicle.” *** “S.167. Option regarding claims for compensation in certain cases.—Notwithstanding anything contained in the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923), where the death of, or bodily injury to, any person gives rise to a claim for compensation under this Act and also under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, the person entitled to compensation may without prejudice to the provisions of Chapter X claim such compensation under either of those Acts but not under both.” 9. Dealing with the aspect as to whether the Cleaner falls within the definition of ‘third party’, for an accident which has occurred prior to the 8 CGR, J. M.A.C.M.A.No.602 of 2025 Amendment being brought in, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Smt.Dabburi Siva Parvathi’s case1 held as under: “11. The definition of third party prior to amendment was not elaborate and this led to controversy whether the cleaners and others come within the definition of third party for the purpose of claiming compensation under the Act. The amendment to section 145(i) is clarificatory in nature and apparently to redress the controversy, and is therefore applicable for accidents that happened prior to the 2019 amendment also.” 10. Even this Court is of the opinion that the definition being clarificatory in nature, the same would cover the accidents, which occurred prior to the Amendment being brought in. As the Act being beneficial in nature, one should lean in favour of doing justice to the deceased or injured persons, ultimately to be benefited by the scheme of the Act. 11. With respect to the selection of claim to be instituted either before the Tribunal or before the competent authority under the W.C. Act, this issue is no more res integra and in fact the Hon’ble Apex Court in Dyamavva’s case2 has dealt with such aspect and held that the claimants have been provided with option to choose either to institute the case before the Tribunal or before the competent authority under the W.C. Act. It is relevant to refer paras.16 and 17 of the aforesaid judgment, which read as under: “16. The issue to be determined by us is, whether the acceptance of the aforesaid compensation would amount to the claimants having exercised their option to seek compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. 9 CGR, J. M.A.C.M.A.No.602 of 2025 17. The procedure under Section 8 aforesaid (as noticed above) is initiated at the behest of the employer “suo motu”, and as such, in our view cannot be considered as an exercise of option by the dependants/claimants to seek compensation under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. The position would have been otherwise if the dependants had raised a claim for compensation under Section 10 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. In the said eventuality, certainly compensation would be paid to the dependants at the instance (and option) of the claimants. In other words, if the claimants had moved an application under Section 10 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, they would have been deemed to have exercised their option to seek compensation under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act. Suffice it to state that no such application was ever filed by the respondent claimants herein under Section 10 aforesaid. In the above view of the matter, it can be stated that the respondent claimants having never exercised their option to seek compensation under Section 10 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, could not be deemed to be precluded from seeking compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.” 12. In the facts of the present case, the incident has occurred on 27.03.2015 and the claimant underwent the treatment for the injuries suffered, immediately thereafter he preferred the claim under Section 166 of the M.V. Act in the year 2016 itself. In order to establish his claim, much pains were taken to examine three witnesses and also got marked Exs.A1 to A14 and for respondents Ex.B1 insurance policy was marked. The Tribunal had nearly taken six years to complete the trial, and ultimately, by impugned order, has rejected the claim on jurisdictional ground. The Tribunal failed to notice Section 167 of the M.V. Act, which clearly envisaged and provided an option to the claimant to initiate claims either before the Tribunal or before the competent authority under the W.C. Act. In this case, the claimant has merely chosen to approach the Tribunal and 10 CGR, J. M.A.C.M.A.No.602 of 2025 never made any attempt to initiate proceedings before the competent authority under the W.C. Act. In view of the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court referred supra, considering the fact that only one option has been exercised by claimant, the Tribunal was not right in rejecting the claim by holding that it did not possess jurisdiction to decide the same. As held by this Court in Smt.Dabburi Siva Parvathi’s case1 and concurred herein, even the appellant/cleaner is entitled to claim compensation under the provisions of the M.V. Act. 13. Coming to the last contention of the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent Insurer that claimant has belatedly instituted the claim under the provisions of the M.V. Act only to save limitation, which got expired under the provisions of W.C. Act, this Court is not impressed with the said submission for the reason that immediately after the incident occurred on 27.03.2015, claim came to be instituted in the year 2016, which is well within time. It is made clear that since delay in preferring the present Appeal has been condoned on condition that the appellant to forego the claim for internet for the delayed period, the Tribunal, while passing final orders, has to keep the same in mind. 14. Accordingly, the Appeal has to succeed and the impugned order is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal to decide the issues framed already by considering the evidence on record. The 11 CGR, J. M.A.C.M.A.No.602 of 2025 Tribunal is directed to complete the aforesaid exercise after giving fair opportunity to both parties and pass orders within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. No order as to costs. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN Date:08.09.2025 cs