APHC010447562012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3365] MONDAY ,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE DR V R K KRUPA SAGAR MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 3699/2012 Between: Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd., ...APPELLANT AND Rayavarapu Lakshmi Kantamma 3 Others and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant: 1. KOTA SUBBA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. ANNAPURNA SREERAM The Court made the following: 2 Dr.VRKS,J MACMA.No.3699 of 2012 THE HON’BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR MACMA No.3699 of 2012 JUDGMENT: 1. This appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is filed by the Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited impugning the order dated 23.02.2012 of the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – Cum – XII Additional District Judge (FTC), Vijayawada in MVOP.No.725 of 2008. 2. Heard arguments of Sri K.Srinivasa Rao, the learned counsel appeared on behalf of Sri Kota Subba Rao, the learned counsel for appellant and no arguments were submitted on behalf of respondents. 3. The following aspects are required to be noticed: Sri R.Venkateswarlu aged 42 years was a lorry cleaner and was earning Rs.3,000/- per month. On 08.07.2008 at about 08.00 pm at Gumpala Tirumalagiri Village, while he was crossing the road, the Tata Indica car bearing registration No.AP 09 X 5402 was driven by its driver rashly or negligently and dashed him causing serious injuries to him leading to his hospitalization and eventual death out of those injuries. His wife and two minor 3 Dr.VRKS,J MACMA.No.3699 of 2012 children filed MVOP.No.725 of 2008 before the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – XII Additional District Judge (FTC), Vijayawada praying for compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- arraigning the owner of the offending car as respondent No.1 and the insurance company as respondent No.2. Before the claims tribunal, the owner did not choose to appear and contest. The insurance company filed its counter and contested the matter. Learned claims tribunal settled the following issues for trial. 1. Whether the death of the deceased Rayavarapu Venkateswarlu occurred in a road accident on 8-7-2008 at G.Tirumalagiri Village in Nalgonda District due to the involvement of the Tata Indica Car bearing No.AP 09 X 5402 ? 2. If so whether the deceased was aged about 42 years and he was earning Rs.3,000/- per month as on the date of the said accident? 3. Whether the petitioners 1 to 3 are entitled to the compensation as prayed for and if so to which extent and from whom? 4. To what relief? 4 Dr.VRKS,J MACMA.No.3699 of 2012 4. For claimants, there was the evidence of PW.1 and 2 and Exs.A1 to A6. For R2/Insurance company, one of its officers testified as RW.1 and an officer of Road Transport Authority testified as RW.2 and Exs.B1 to B4 and Exs.X1 and X2 were marked. 5. After detailed analysis of the facts and the evidence and the rival contentions, the learned claims tribunal found that the accident and the eventual death of the deceased was directly related to rash or negligent driving of the offending car by its driver and therefore the owner of the car as well as the insurance company which issued Ex.B1 insurance policy were to shoulder the responsibility of paying the compensation. It found the deceased aged 42 years earning about Rs.3,000/- per month and multiplier 15 was applied and Rs,3,60,000/- was accordingly granted towards loss of dependency. It granted Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.3,000/- towards loss of estate and thus, a total compensation of Rs.3,70,000/- was granted. It finally passed the award in the following terms: 5 Dr.VRKS,J MACMA.No.3699 of 2012 “i. In the result, the claim application of the petitioners 1 to 3 is partly allowed with proportionate costs by awarding an amount of Rs.3,70,000/- as compensation to the petitioners 1 to 3 due to the accidental death of the deceased in a Motor vehicle accident which took place on 08-07-2008. ii. The respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the said compensation amount of Rs.3,70,000/- to the petitioners 1 to 3 with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing of this claim application i.e. from 29-10-2008 till the date of deposit or realization which ever is earlier. (iii) The respondents 1 and 2 are further directed to deposit the said compensation amount of Rs.3,70,000/- and accrued interest thereon within 30 days from the date of this Judgment. (iv)Out of the said compensation amount of Rs.3,70,000/- and accrued interest thereon, an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and accrued interest thereon is apportioned to the 1st petitioner, an amount of Rs.85,000/- and accrued interest thereon is apportioned to the 2nd petitioner and an amount of Rs.85,000/- and accrued interest thereon is apportioned to the 3rd petitioner. (v) The 1st petitioner is at liberty to withdraw the entire compensation amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and accrued interest thereon which is apportioned to her immediately after deposit of the same by the respondents 1 and 2. (vi) The compensation amount of Rs.85,000/- which is apportioned to the 2nd petitioner and accrued interest thereon and the compensation amount of Rs.85,000/- which is apportioned to the 3rd petitioner and accrued interest thereon shall be invested in fixed deposits in any nationalized bank till the petitioners 2 and 3 attain majority. After attaining majority the petitioners 2 and 3 are entitled to withdraw their compensation amounts and accrued interest thereon which are apportioned to them. (vii) Rest of the claim of the petitioners 1 to 3 is dismissed without costs.” 6 Dr.VRKS,J MACMA.No.3699 of 2012 6. In the present appeal preferred by the insurance company, the only contention raised is that there was violation of policy conditions. The offending car was classified as Light Motor Vehicle (LMV). As per the evidence of RW.2 and Exs.B2, B3 and X2, the driver/ Sri A.Suresh was entitled to drive LMV (Non Transport) whereas at the material point of time, he was found driving LMV (Transport). It is on these grounds, the stout argument put forth before this court is that the trial court ought to have absolved the liability of the insurance company and at any rate, it could have ordered the insurance company to pay first and recover later from the owner of the offending vehicle for having entrusted the vehicle to the driver who was not holding valid and effective driving licence. Though appearance was made on behalf of respondents/claimants, they have not been representing on earlier occasions as well as on 14.02.2025 also and in such circumstances, it was recorded that on their behalf, there was no argument to be submitted. 7. The point that falls for consideration is “Whether in terms of law, the impugned award is incorrect in fastening liability on insurance company?” 7 Dr.VRKS,J MACMA.No.3699 of 2012 POINT: - 8. The offending vehicle Tata Indica car bearing registration No.AP 09 X 5402 was classified as LMV. Sri A.Suresh was at the steering seat at the material point of time. As per Ex.B2 and Ex.X2 and the evidence of RW.2, he was entitled to drive LMV (Non Transport). From the evidence on record, it is crystal clear that at the material point of time, he was driving LMV (Transport). Learned claims tribunal referring to these aspects took strength from the ratio of a ruling of this court in E.Rajeswari V. TS Shekar1 wherein it was held “Where driver holding licence for light motor vehicles driving a transport vehicle, connotation "light vehicle" is relevant in the context of motor size and make of vehicle, and not the use to which it is put. Expression “transport vehicle" on the other hand, deals with use and not the size of the vehicle, LMV licence issued to a driver enables him to drive vehicle of that category. It is immaterial whether such vehicle is being used as purely for private purposes, or as a transport vehicle". 9. The controversy, if any, in this regard shall be put to rest as a Five Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India dealt with this aspect in M/S Bajaj Alliance General Insurance 1 2011 1 ALD 48 (AP) 8 Dr.VRKS,J MACMA.No.3699 of 2012 Company Limited V. Rambha devi2. The operative portion of the conclusion arrived at by their Lordships read as below Our conclusions following the above discussion are as under:- (I) A driver holding a license for Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) class, under Section 10(2)(d) for vehicles with a gross 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. (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. 2 2024 INSC 840 9 Dr.VRKS,J MACMA.No.3699 of 2012 10. Therefore, the view taken by the claims tribunal in fastening the liability on the insurance company in the impugned award is unexceptionable as it is rendered in accordance with law. In these circumstances, the contention raised by the appellant holds no merit. The award impugned does not warrant any interference as it is in accordance with facts and law. Point is answered against the appellant. 11. In the result, this appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR, J Date: 17.02.2025 Dvs 10 Dr.VRKS,J MACMA.No.3699 of 2012 THE HON’BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR MACMA No. 3699 of 2012 Date: 17.02.2025 Dvs