APHC010358822012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3365] FRIDAY ,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE DR V R K KRUPA SAGAR MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 3266/2012 Between: United India Insurance Co Ltd ...APPELLANT AND Boya Veeranjaneyulu Anr and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant: 1. YAGNA NARAYANA CHEBRALU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. INENI VENKATA PRASAD The Court made the following: 2 Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.3266 of 2012 THE HON’BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR M.A.C.M.A.No.3266 of 2012 JUDGMENT: The insurance company preferred this Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 questioning the correctness of the award dated 21.10.2008 of the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge (F.T.C.), Anantapur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Claims Tribunal’) in O.P.No.417 of 2006. 2. Heard arguments of Sri Yagna Narayana Chebralu, the learned counsel for appellant-Insurance Company and Sri Ineni Venkata Prasad, the learned counsel for respondent No.1/claimant. 3. The following facts are required to be noticed: Sri Boya Veeranjaneyulu is a hamali by profession. On 23.05.2005 five hamalies including Sri B.Veeranjaneyulu were travelling in a lorry bearing registration No.AAQ-337 and at about 6:00 P.M. near Kamalapadu bus stop on Uravakonda-Guntakal 3 Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.3266 of 2012 road of Anantapur the driver of the lorry lost control of it and as a consequence the lorry turned turtle and father of Sri B.Veeranjaneyulu died on the spot and Sri B.Veeranjaneyulu suffered grievous injury, namely, loss of six lower teeth and eight upper teeth and also suffered simple injuries over his body. As against the driver of the offending lorry, Crime No.25 of 2005 was registered at Vajrakarur Police Station. After due investigation, the investigation officer filed a charge sheet before competent Court alleging that the driver of the offending lorry drove the vehicle rashly or negligently at the material point of time and caused the accident. Sri N.Veeresh is stated to be the owner of the offending lorry. United India Insurance Company Limited is stated to be the insurer of the said vehicle. Sri B.Veeranjaneyulu laid a claim for compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act making the owner and the insurer as parties and the case was registered as O.P.No.417 of 2006 before the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-IV Additional District Judge (F.T.C.), Anantapur. The owner of the vehicle did not choose to appear and contest. The 4 Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.3266 of 2012 insurance company denied the narration of accident and raised various questions and sought dismissal of the claim. 4. The learned Claims Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: 1) Whether the accident occurred on 23.05.2005 at about 6:00 P.M. due to rash and negligent driving of lorry bearing No.AAQ-337 by its driver and turned turtle and caused injuries to the petitioner? 2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and from which respondent? 3) To what relief? 5. There was evidence of PWs.1 to 3 and Exs.A.1 to A.5 and Ex.X.1 and there was also the evidence of RWs.1 and 2 and Exs.B.1 to B.4. 6. After considering the relevant evidence brought on record and the respective contentions raised on both sides, the learned Claims Tribunal held that the accident was out of rash or negligent driving of driver of the offending lorry. It considered the medical evidence and the income and age of the claimant and 5 Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.3266 of 2012 granted a total compensation of Rs.76,000/- under the following heads: For one grievous injury Rs. 12,500-00 For two simple injuries Rs. 3,000-00 For the disability sustained Rs. 20,000-00 For medical expenses, extra nourishment, transportation charges and other expenses Rs. 20,500-00 For pain and suffering Rs. 20,000-00 Total: Rs. 76,000-00 7. Before the Claims Tribunal the insurance company contended that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess valid and effective driving licence. That the injured claimant was a gratuitous passenger at the material point of time. It was on those two submissions contention was raised to absolve the insurance company from any liability. The learned Claims Tribunal, from evidence, recorded that in terms of Ex.B.2, which is a copy of driving licence of Sri K.Bheemesh/the driver, he was authorized to drive the light motor vehicle non-transport vehicle, but he drove the transport vehicle. Having said so, the Claims Tribunal was expected to record whether insurance company 6 Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.3266 of 2012 could be fastened with liability or not. It did not record any finding in that regard. However, referring to the ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in National Insurance Company Limited v. Swaransingh1 it took the view that in such type of cases the insurance company could be directed to pay first and recover later from the owner of the offending vehicle who entrusted driving of the vehicle to such driver, who was not authorized to drive such vehicle. With reference to the question of gratuitous passenger, it recorded that there is an endorsement in Ex.B.1-insurance policy covering a period from 04.08.2004 to 03.08.2005. There was a valid insurance policy and an additional premium was paid in terms of IMT.39 covering a total of seven persons (including the driver and cleaner/conductor employed in loading and unloading). Taking such view it recorded that insurance company was liable to pay compensation. Eventually, it passed the award for Rs.76,000/- in the following terms: “In the result, the petition is allowed in part with proportionate costs awarding compensation of Rs.76,000/- 1 2004 ACJ 1 7 Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.3266 of 2012 (Rupees Seventy Six Thousands) only to the petitioner subject to the deduction of the compensation amount, if any, awarded under no fault liability along with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the filling of the same i.e., 29-9-2006 till the date of realisation against the respondents. The 2nd respondent is directed to deposit the decree amount into court within 3 (three) months from this date and recover the same by way of filing execution petition against the 1st respondent. After the above amount is deposited, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw an amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousands) only and his balance compensation amount is ordered to be kept under fixed deposit in any Nationalised Bank for a period of 2 (two) years. Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.500/-” 8. Aggrieved by it, the insurance company preferred the present appeal. 9. The learned counsel for the insurance company contended that though the driver of the offending vehicle did not have valid and effective driving licence, the learned Claims Tribunal erroneously fastened liability on the insurance company. That the injured claimant/respondent No.1 herein was a gratuitous passenger travelling in a goods vehicle and thus, he was not covered by the insurance policy, but the learned Claims Tribunal 8 Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.3266 of 2012 erroneously granted compensation. It is further argued that the driver of the offending vehicle was not negligent and the claim ought to have been dismissed. 10. Learned counsel for claimant/respondent No.1 argued that the entire material on record was properly appreciated and the Claims Tribunal arrived at accurate factual conclusions and applied correct legal principles and arrived at just compensation and there is no warrant for interference. 11. The point that falls for consideration in this appeal is: “Whether the impugned award is against facts and law requiring interference?” POINT: 12. On the question whether respondent No.1/injured claimant was a gratuitous passenger or not and whether Ex.B.1-insurance policy covers his claim or not, there was an elaborate discussion made by the learned Claims Tribunal from paragraph Nos.14 to 16. It is undisputed that as per Ex.B.1-insurance policy, Rs.1,000/- was paid towards loading on T.P. premium referable to 9 Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.3266 of 2012 IMT.39. It discloses that by virtue of such additional premium, the insurer agreed to indemnify any injuries to driver, cleaner or conductor and such other persons not exceeding seven in number who are employed in loading and unloading the vehicle. From the evidence of PW.1 and other witnesses, the learned Claims Tribunal found that the injured claimant being hamali was travelling for the purposes of loading and unloading the goods that were being transported at the material point of time. Thus, the facts disclosed and the recitals contained in Ex.B.1-insurance policy rightly enabled the learned Claims Tribunal to hold that respondent No.1/injured claimant was not a gratuitous passenger and the insurance policy covers his case. 13. With reference to the question of invalid driving licence possessed by the driver of the offending vehicle, the learned Claims Tribunal focused its attention at paragraph No.12 in its impugned award. As per the evidence on record and Ex.B.2- driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle and the evidence of RW.2/Senior Assistant in the office of Regional Transport Authority, Kurnool, he was entitled to drive light motor 10 Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.3266 of 2012 vehicle of non-transport. The driver was not authorized to drive a transport vehicle. A Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India answered a reference in M/s. Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rambha Devi2 and at paragraph No.131 their Lordships have mentioned the conclusions arrived at by their Lordships in the following manner: (I) A driver holding a license for Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) class, under Section 10(2)(d) for vehicles with a gross Page 124 of 126 vehicle weight under 7,500 kg, is permitted to operate a ‘Transport Vehicle’ without needing additional authorization under Section 10(2)(e) of the MV Act specifically for the ‘Transport Vehicle’ class. For licensing purposes, LMVs and Transport Vehicles are not entirely separate classes. An overlap exists between the two. The special eligibility requirements will however continue to apply for, inter alia, e-carts, e rickshaws, and vehicles carrying hazardous goods. (II) The second part of Section 3(1), which emphasizes the necessity of a specific requirement to drive a ‘Transport Vehicle,’ does not supersede the definition of LMV provided in Section 2(21) of the MV Act. 2 2024 INSC 840 11 Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.3266 of 2012 (III) The additional eligibility criteria specified in the MV Act and MV Rules generally for driving ‘transport vehicles’ would apply only to those intending to operate vehicles with gross vehicle weight exceeding 7,500 kg i.e. ‘medium goods vehicle’, ‘medium passenger vehicle’, ‘heavy goods vehicle’ and ‘heavy passenger vehicle’. (IV) The decision in Mukund Dewangan (2017) is upheld but for reasons as explained by us in this judgment. In the absence of any obtrusive omission, the decision is not per incuriam, even if certain provisions of the MV Act and MV Rules were not considered in the said judgment. 14. Therefore, it is clear that driver who possessed valid driving licence to drive light motor vehicle non-transport is also entitled to drive transport vehicle. In such view of the matter, the conclusions arrived at by the learned Claims Tribunal in directing the insurance company to pay first and recover later from the owner of the offending vehicle is unexceptionable. 15. As to the question whether the accident occurred because of the rash or negligent driving of the offending vehicle or it occurred for other reasons, the argument of the learned counsel for appellant is only based on one stray sentence in Ex.A.1-F.I.R. 12 Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.3266 of 2012 A mention is found there that while the offending vehicle was going on road, a tipper was also going and its angular touched the offending vehicle and thereafter the incident occurred. This aspect of the matter was vividly discussed in paragraph No.7 of the impugned award of the learned Claims Tribunal. This Court on verification of the record finds that the sworn evidence of PW.1 and the unequivocal assertion made by the State in its prosecution contained in Ex.A.3-charge sheet are to the effect that the accident was out of rash or negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and there was no other cause. 16. The valiant contentions raised by the learned counsel for insurance company in this appeal merely re-agitated the questions that were appropriately considered and answered by the learned Claims Tribunal. From the material one could not arrive at any different conclusion than that of the conclusion arrived at by the learned Claims Tribunal. This Court finds no merit in any of the grounds urged in this appeal. Therefore, there is no warrant for interference. The point is answered accordingly. 13 Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.3266 of 2012 17. In the result, this Appeal is dismissed. The award dated 21.10.2008 of the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge (F.T.C.), Anantapur in O.P.No.417 of 2006 is confirmed. There shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR, J Date: 14.02.2025 Ivd 14 Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.3266 of 2012 THE HON’BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR M.A.C.M.A.No.3266 of 2012 Date: 14.02.2025 Ivd