APHC010005452013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3365] TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE DR V R K KRUPA SAGAR MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 531/2013 Between: Dr. N.Sreeramulu ...APPELLANT AND R Jayachandra And 2 Others and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant: 1. Y V ANIL KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. DR SASTRY JANDHYALA 2. O UDAYA KUMAR 3. MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM 4. B NAGA SAILAKSHMI 5. ELEVATED AS JUDGE The Court made the following: 2 Dr.VRKS,J MACMA.No.531 of 2013 THE HON’BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR MACMA No. 531 of 2013 JUDGMENT: 1. This appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is filed by the appellant/claimant impugning the order dated 10.10.2012 of the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – Cum –IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati in M.V.O.P.No.307 of 2009. 2. Heard arguments of Sri Y.V.Anil Kumar, the learned counsel for appellant and Sri Dr.Sastry Jandhyala, learned counsel for respondent No.3/Insurance Company. 3. The following facts are required to be noticed: Dr.N.Sreeramulu, who suffered an automobile accident on 17.09.2007 near Sreerama Theatre, Town club, Tirupati, praying for compensation in terms of Section 166 (1) (A) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, he filed M.V.O.P.No.307 of 2009 in making the driver and owner of the offending vehicle as respondents 1 and 2 and the insurer/ M/s.Oriental Insurance company Limited as respondent No.3. Relevant pleadings are placed on record by both sides. 3 Dr.VRKS,J MACMA.No.531 of 2013 4. The learned Claims Tribunal settled the following issues for trial: 1. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in a Motor Vehicle accident that took place on 17.09.2007 due to rash and negligent driving of driver of motorcycle bearing registration No.AP 03 AC 1367 as alleged? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, what is the quantum of compensation and against whom? 3. To what relief? 5. Before the Claims Tribunal the evidence of PWs.1 to 6 and Exs.A.1 to A.8 and the evidence of RWs.1 and 2 and Ex.B1 Insurance policy and Ex.X1 were placed for consideration. 6. After detailed analysis of the evidence on record and after considering the submissions made on both sides, the learned Claims Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.4,42,000/- and awarded 7.5% interest p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization and other usual conditions were prescribed as to method and manner in which the compensation amount was to be withdrawn by the claimant. The operative portion of the Award reads as below: In the result, the petition is allowed in part in favour of petitioner and against second respondent/Owner 4 Dr.VRKS,J MACMA.No.531 of 2013 granting compensation of Rs.4,42,000/- with proportionate costs and subsequent interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till realization. Direct the 2nd respondent/Owner to deposit the amount within two months. On such deposit, petitioner is at liberty to withdraw Rs.2,42,000/- with costs and interest and the rest of Rs.2,00,000/- shall be kept in fixed deposit for a period of one year and the petitioner is at liberty to withdraw the same after expiry of fixed deposit period with accrued interest. Petition against R.1 and R.3 is dismissed without costs. The rest of the petition claim is dismissed without costs. Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.2,000/-. 7. Impugning the said order, the injured/claimant preferred this appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act before this Court. The only submission made on behalf of appellant is that the Claims Tribunal erroneously exonerated the Insurance Company from the liability and fastened liability on the owner of the offending vehicle. The learned counsel submits that the Claims Tribunal ought to have atleast applied the doctrine of pay and recovery and further cited a judgment of this Court in M.A.C.M.A.No.144 of 2015. 8. Protesting the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant, the submission made by the learned counsel for respondent No.3 Insurance Company is that at the material point of time though the vehicle of the victim was insured in terms of Ex.B1, the motor cycle was not being driven by a person who was 5 Dr.VRKS,J MACMA.No.531 of 2013 holding valid and effective driving licence. In other words, the accident occurred when the vehicle was driven by the person, who did not hold any driving licence at all and therefore, the Award of the Claims Tribunal in exonerating the Insurance Company is in accordance with law and does not call for interference in this appeal. 9. This Court has perused the entire record and has considered the submissions of learned counsel for both sides. It is stated that the fact that at the material point of time the vehicle being driven by person who did not have valid driving licence is a fact arrived at by the Tribunal on the evidence placed before it. The further fact that Ex.B1 Insurance policy is to cover the risk of third parties and at the material point, Insurance policy was in force is also in dispute. 10. In the judgments cited on behalf of the appellant, this Court had to consider the ratio of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. The ratio in these two judgments of their lordship is to the effect that it was only those cases where there was a fundamental breach of insurance policy conditions, liability cannot be fastened 6 Dr.VRKS,J MACMA.No.531 of 2013 on Insurance company1. However, in those cases, where the third party claimant suffered serious injuries and acquired disability with which he survives the rest of his life, the consistent view that was taken was to obtain the doctrine of pay and recovery. Viewed from the same, when the facts on record are considered, this Court is of the considered view that it is a fit case where the doctrine of pay and recovery could be applied. To that extent, the impugned award requires modification. 11. The other submission made on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellant is inadequate compensation. 12. The learned counsel for Insurance company submits, while referring to the facts on record, the Claims Tribunal appropriately assessed the compensation on all the relevant heads and found that the claim made was excessive and therefore, the granted compensation that is just in the circumstances and no interference is required. 1 Shamanna v. The Divisional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. (2018) 9 SCC 650 and Parminder Singh v. New India Assurance Company Limited (2019) 7 SCC 217 7 Dr.VRKS,J MACMA.No.531 of 2013 13. On perusal of the record, it is noted that the claimant/appellant was aged about 56 years and was Vice Principal of S.G.S. Arts College, Tirupati and was earning Rs.45,452/- as salary per month. After considering the Ex.A2 wound certificate and Ex.A4 discharge summary and Exs.A.5 and A.6 medical certificates and expenses receipts, the learned Claims Tribunal assessed the compensation which, in the opinion of this Court, is appropriate in the given facts and circumstances. Therefore, it appears no reason to think that what was awarded was not just compensation. 14. In the result, this Appeal is allowed. The impugned Award dated 10.10.2012 of learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati in Motor Vehicles Original Petition No.307 of 2009 is modified. Consequently, the compensation that was awarded is to be first deposited by M/s.Oriental Insurance company Limited/ respondent No.3 in the present appeal with interest and costs, within a period of two (02) months, thereafter M/s.Oriental Insurance company Limited/ respondent No.3 is permitted to recover the same from the respondent No.2/Sri N.Srujan being the owner of the offending vehicle by filing an execution petition 8 Dr.VRKS,J MACMA.No.531 of 2013 without there being any need for initiating a suit. On such a deposit, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the same along with costs and accrued interest thereon. 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: 22.04.2025 sj 9 Dr.VRKS,J MACMA.No.531 of 2013 104 THE HON’BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR MACMA No.531 of 2013 Date:22.04.2025 sj