APHC010442942024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3367] WEDNESDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 674/2024 Between: THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD, REP BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, BRANCH OFFICE, OPP DISTRICT COURT PRAKASAM HIGH ROAD, CHITTOOR THROUGH ITS TP CLAIMS SERVICE CENTRE, GUTTIKONDA ZOOM, NEAR VINAYAKA THEATRE RING ROAD, VIJAYAWADA-8 ...APPELLANT AND 1. C MOHAN KUMAR, S/O. C VASU AGED 26YRS, OCC COOLIE 4-45 DANDUVARIPALLI(V), JAMBUVARIPALLI POST, BANGARUPALEM(M) CHITTOOR DISTRICT - 517416 2. N PRAVEEN, S/O. S. JAYACHANDRA AGED 29YRS, OCC DRIVER OF TATA AP 3X 3142 D. NO. 21-241 SAMPATHNAGAR, CHITTOOR-507124 3. RATHNAM RAVI, S/O. RATHNAM AGED NOT KNOWN BUT MAJOR. OWNER OF VEHICLE D.NO.8-31/1 VAVILTHOTA, PUTHALPATTU (M) CHITTOOR DISTRICT - 517127 ... RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 4. K BALAKRISHNA PILLAI, S/O. DAMODAR PILLAI AGED NOT KNOWN BUT MAJOR, OCC OWNER OF AP03X 3142 D.NO.1/37, 194 BANDAPALLI(V), NARIGAPALLI(POST) CHITTOOR DIST. - 517127 ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying that the High Court may be pleased to allow appeal and set aside the decree dt.11.06.2024 and Award/Order in MVOP No.85 of 2020 passed 2 by the Hon’ble Principal Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- Principal District Judge, Chittoor, Chittoor District. IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 to pass an order to stay of all the further proceedings in the MVOP No. 85/2020 on the file of the Hon’ble Chairman, Principal Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- Principal District Judge, Chittoor, Chittoor District including that of withdrawal of an amount if any deposited pending disposal of the above MAGMA. IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 to grant permission to Petitioner/Claimant for withdrawing amounts deposited in pursuance of Orders passed in I.A.No. 1 of 2024 in MACMA NO. 674 of 2024 dated 25-10-202. Counsel for the Appellant: V VEERABHADRA CHARY Counsel for the Respondent(S): D SESHASAYANA REDDY The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District 3 Judge at Chittoor (hereinafter called as ‘the Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.85 of 2020 dated 11.06.2024. 2. The appellant is the insurer of the Tata Ace bearing No.AP 03 X 3142 (hereinafter referred to as “crime vehicle”). The respondent No.1 is the claimant before the Tribunal. The respondent Nos.2 to 4 are the driver and owners of the said crime vehicle respectively. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as they arrayed before the tribunal. 4. The case of the claimant, in the petition before the Tribunal is that: i). On 01.07.2015 at about 06.00 a.m., while the claimant was proceeding on his TVS 50 XL Scooter bearing No.ATC 2411 from Diguvathadakara Village to Thavanampalle Village, when he reached near Diguvathadakara Village, the crime vehicle driven by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner dashed the motorcycle of the claimant in opposite direction, resulted the claimant sustained severe crush 4 injury on his right thigh and all over the body. Then, he was shifted to Government Hospital, Chittoor, in turn to Ramadevi Hospital at Tirupati from there to SVRRGG Hospital at Tirupati for better treatment. ii). He claimed compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- against the driver, owners and insurer of the crime vehicle. 5. The respondent No.3/insurer of the crime vehicle filed written statement and additional written statement denying the averments in the petition and pleaded that the accident occurred was due to the negligence of the claimant, but not driver of the crime vehicle; that the 1st respondent/driver is not having valid driving license to drive the crime vehicle by the date of incident; that the policy issued in respect of the crime vehicle is not in force by the date of incident; that the compensation claimed by the claimant is excessive, thereby, prayed to dismiss the claim against this respondent. 6. The Tribunal settled the following issues and additional issue for enquiry basing on the material: 5 “1.Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in the accident due to rash and negligent driving of the driver/1st respondent of TATA Ace bearing registration No.AP03 X 3142? 2.Whether the petitioner is entitled for any compensation and if so, to what amount and from which of the respondents? 3.Whether the policy of the offending-vehicle was in force by the date of accident? and 4.To what relief?” 7. During enquiry, on behalf of the claimant, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined, Exs.A.1 to A.9 and X.1 were exhibited. On behalf of the respondent No.3, R.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B.1 and X.2 were marked, however the evidence of R.W.1 was eschewed before the Tribunal. 8. On the material, the Tribunal, having come to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the 1st respondent, held that claimant is entitled for the compensation of Rs.7,33,200/-, with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization against the respondent Nos.1 to 3, for the injuries 6 sustained by the claimant in the accident. However, directed the respondent No.3/insurer to pay the said compensation at first instance and then recover of the same from the respondent No.2. The claim against the 4th respondent is dismissed. 9. It is against the said award; the present appeal was preferred by the appellant/insurer of the crime vehicle. 10. Heard Sri V.Veerabhadra Chary, learned counsel for the appellant/insurer and Sri D.Sesha Sayana Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent No.1/claimant. 11. Now, the point that arise for determination is “whether the Tribunal committed any error in ordering pay and recovery against the appellant/insurer in the absence of valid driving license to the driver of the crime vehicle, when policy issued in respect of the crime vehicle is in force by the date of incident?” 12. POINT: It is not in dispute that the claimant sustained injuries in the accident, the involvement of the crime vehicle, rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent in causing the incident and the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and 7 the fact that Ex.A.9 policy issued in respect of the crime lorry was in force as on the date of the incident are also not disputed. Furthermore, it is not in dispute that no appeal was preferred by the claimant, the driver or the owner of the crime vehicle against the findings of the Tribunal. 13. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that in the absence of valid driving license to the 1st respondent in driving the crime vehicle, the Tribunal erred in ordering pay and recovery against the appellant/insurer. 14. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimant submits that the Tribunal after considering the material on record rightly ordered pay and recovery against the insurer, which requires no interference of this Court. 15. It is an undisputed fact in view of the testimony of R.W.3 coupled with Ex.X.1, it is categorical that the 1st respondent driver of the crime vehicle is not possessing valid license to drive the same, thereby, violated the terms of Ex.A.9 policy. 16. To decide the above point, it is relevant to refer to certain pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, particularly in 8 Shamanna v. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, wherein it was held that where the driver did not possess a valid driving license and there was a breach of policy conditions, a 'pay and recover' order can be passed in cases involving third-party risks. In light of this, it is our considered view that the High Court ought not to have interfered with the award passed by the Tribunal, which directed the first respondent to pay the compensation and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. It is also required to refer another Three Judge Bench pronouncement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Singh Ram v. Nirmala1, wherein it was categorically held at paragraph Nos.8 and 9 that: “8.In the present case it is necessary to note, as observed by the Tribunal, that the owner did not depose in evidence and stayed away from the witness box. He produced a license which was found to be fake. Another license which he sought to produce had already expired before the accident and was not renewed within the prescribed period. It was renewed well after two years had expired. The appellant as 1 AIR 2018 SC 1290 9 owner had failed to take reasonable care (proposition (vii) of Swaran Singh) (AIR 2004 SC 1531) since he could not have been unmindful of facts which were within his knowledge. 9.In the circumstances, the direction by the Tribunal, confirmed by the High Court, to pay and recover cannot be faulted. The appeal is accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.” 17. Furthermore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Manuara Khatun v. Rajesh Kumar Singh2, by referring and relying on its earlier pronouncement in National Insurance Company Limited v. Saju P.Paul3, categorically observed at paragraph Nos.15 and 21 that: “15…..This Court keeping in view the benevolent object of the Act and other relevant factors arising in the case, issued the directions against the Insurance Company to pay the awarded sum to the claimants and then to recover the said sum from the insured in the same proceedings by applying the principle of “pay and recover. 2 (2017) 4 SCC 796 3 (2013) 2 SCC 41 10 21. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the view that the direction to United India Insurance Company (Respondent No. 3) - they being the insurer of the offending vehicle which was found involved in causing accident due to negligence of its driver needs to be issued directing them (United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Respondent No.3) to first pay the awarded sum to the appellants (claimants) and then to recover the paid awarded sum from the owner of the offending vehicle (Tata Sumo) Respondent No.1 in execution proceedings arising in this very case as per the law laid down in Para 26 of Saju P. Paul’s case quoted supra.” (emphasis supplied) 18. Having regard to the above authoritative precedents and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, since the Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial piece of legislation and the policy issued in respect of the crime vehicle was in force at the time of the incident, a direction can be issued against the insurer of the crime vehicle to pay the awarded sum to the claimant in the first instance and thereafter recover the same from respondent No.2/owner of the crime vehicle. As 11 stated above, the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle by the 1st respondent, which resulted in the incident. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly ordered 'pay and recover' against the appellant/insurer, which warrants no interference. 19. It is needless to mention that the Tribunal, after considering the material on record, rightly calculated and awarded the compensation to which the claimant is entitled, and the same is not in dispute. 20. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that no valid grounds urged by the appellant to interfere with the findings arrived by the Tribunal in all aspects, as there is no need to disturb the well-articulated order passed by the Tribunal, the appeal preferred by the appellant is liable for dismissal. Thus, the point is answered accordingly. 21. In the result, M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 12 Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, stand closed. _____________________ JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS Date: 18.06.2025 Krs 13 333 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS M.A.C.M.A.No.674 of 2024 (J U D G M E N T) DATE: 18.06.2025 Krs