APHC010499252023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI TUESDAY,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS motor accident civil MISCELLANEOIIS APPEAL NO- 652 OF 2n7a Between: Shriram General Insurance Company Limited. Rep. by its Manager, E8, EPIP RIICO Industrial Area, Sitapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302 022. ...Appellant/Respondent No.4 AND 1. Kalyanam Geethika, D/o. Late Ramesh, Aged about 19 years House No.5, Sampath Nagar. Saradha Pitam Temple Road, Guntur. Guntur District. Rio. ...Respondent/Claim Petitioner Kumar, R/o. 1-2A, 6th line, Nallacheruvu, Guntur, Guntur District, (Driver of the Tata No. AP 16TD 2970) 3. Shaik Nagur Babu, S/o.Siddaiah Anjaneyapet, Guntur, Guntur District (Owner of the Tata Ace baring No. AP 16 TD 2970 4. Pulapaka Santhbhushanam, S/o. Hanumanthnigudem, Nuzvid, Krishna District. (Owner of the Tata Ace baring No. AP 16 TD 2970 (Respondent No.2 not necessary party) 2. Ragam Pavan Kumar, S/o, Chandra Ace bearing R/o. Door No. 4-14-86/5, 2nd Line as per RC) Premanandam, Door No. 1-36-1, as per the Policy) ...Respondents/Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V Act, against the decree and award dated 29.05.2023 passed in MVOP.No.713 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -Cum- Principal District Judge Guntur. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the judgment and Decree of the Trial Court and the Suit and material papers in upon hearing arguments of Sri Raviteja representing Smt A Jayanthi, Advocate for the Appellant and Sri Kommareddy Divakara Advocate for Respondent No.1 Reddy This Court doth Order and decree as follows: 1. That the MACMA be and is hereby dismissed; 2. That there be no order as to costs in this appeal. Sd/- K SRINIVASA RA^U ASSISTANT RE AR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To. 1. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -Cum- Principal District Judge, Guntur, Guntur District 2. Two CD Copies HIGH COURT SV, J DATED:15/07/2025 DECREE MACMA NO. 652 OF 2023 DISMISSING THE MACMA APHC010499252023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI TUESDAY,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS jyLOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 652 OF Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V Act, against the decree and dated 29.05.2023 passed in MVOP.No.713 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -Cum- Principal District Judge, Guntur. award Between: Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, Rep. by its Manager, E8 EPIP RIICO Industrial Area, Sitapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302 022. ...Appellant/Respondent No.4 AND 1. Kalyanam Geethika, D/o. Late Ramesh, Aged about 19 years House No.5, Sampath Nagar, Saradha Pitam Temple Road Guntur District. Rio. Guntur, ...Respondent/Claim Petitioner R/o. 1-2A, 6th line, Ace bearing 2. Ragam Pavan Kumar, S/o, Chandra Kumar, Nallacheruvu, Guntur, Guntur District, (Driver of the Tata No. AP 16 TD 2970) 3. Shaik Nagur Babu, S/o.Siddaiah R/o. Door No. 4-14-86/5, 2nd Line Anjaneyapet, Guntur, Guntur District (Owner of the Tata Ace baring No. AP 16 TD 2970 as per RC) , Door No. 1-36-1 4. Pulapaka Santhbhushanam, S/o. Premanandam Hanumanthnigudem, Nuzvid, Krishna District. . f' \ j / (Owner of the Tata Ace baring No. AP 16 TD 2970 as per the Policy) (Respondent No.2 not necessary party) ...Respondents/Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 lA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 stay of all further proceedings dated 29.05.2023 MVOP.No.713 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - Cum- Principal District Judge, Guntur including execution proceedings. Counsel for the Appellant: Sri Raviteja representing Smt A Jayanthi Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : Sri Kommareddy Divakara Reddy The Court made the following order: j I passed in I t I Ia I 4 I ■i I 1,1' ii 1 si \ :i R i] ll / / / the HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS M.A.C.1V1.A.No.652 of 202.^ judgment- This appeal is directed against the order of the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Judge at Guntur (hereinafter Chairman, Tribunal-cum-Principal District called M.V.O.P.No.713 of 2017, dated 29.05.2023. The appellant i 16 TD 2970 (hereinafter referred ‘the TribunaT) in as 2. IS the insurer of the Tata Ace bearing No.AP to as crime vehicle”). The one Kalyanam Sumathi respondent No.l, who is daughter of (hereinafter called Tribunal. The respondent Nos.2 of the said crime vehicle. For the sake of as “the deceased”) is the claimant before the to 3 are the driver and owners respectively, convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as they arrayed before the tribunal. 3. 4. The case of the claimants, in the petition before the Tribunal is that; i). On 09.08.2015 at about 03.00 a.m., while the from Penuganchiprolu to Guntur by the crime vehicle, when they reached deceased along with others returning near NH-65 road village, Nandigama Mandal, the said crime vehicle i near Munagacherla the 1st respondent driven f m a rash and negligent manner. 1 2 hit the parked crane baring No.AP 29 AD 9979 on its backside, resulted the deceased and others sustained severe injuries. Then the deceased was shifted to Government Hospital at Nandigama. While undertaking treatment, the deceased was succumbed to injuries. ii). By the date of incident, the deceased was working as clerk in K.K.R. Agencies at Guntur and earning Rs.7,000/- per month and contributed the same for the welfare of the claimant. Being dependent, she claimed compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- against the driver, owners, and insurer of the crime vehicle. respectively. The respondent No.4/insurer of the crime car filed written 5. statement denying the averments in the petition and pleaded that the passengers are not entitled to travel in the crime vehicle, which is a goods carrying vehicle, as such, there is violation of terms and conditions of the policy; that the accident occurred was due to the negligent parking of the crane, but not // 3 respondent; that the driver, crane are proper and respondent is owner and insurer of the said neeessaiy parties to this petition; that the not having valid driving license to drive the prayed to dismiss the petition crime vehicle and thereby, against this respondent. 6. 6. The Tribunal settled the basing on the material: following issues for enquiry 1.Whether the accident that 3.00 occurred on 09.08.2015 at Munagacherla village, Nandigama in which the deceased Kalyanam Sumathi died is due to rash and negligent driving of TATA Ace bearing No.AP respondent? p.m., near Mandal, on NH 65 Road i 16 TD 2970 by 1 St 2.Whether the petitioner is entitled for so, how much and from whom? 3.To what relief?” compensation? If and 7. During enquiry, examined as P.W.l and Exs.A.l of the respondent No.4, Exs.B.1, B.2,X.1 and X.2 on behalf of the claimant, to A.5 were exhibited. On behalf R-Ws.l and 2 she was were examined and were marked. \ 4 8. On the material, the Tribunal, having concluded that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the crime vehicle by the l^t respondent, held that the claimants entitled for the compensation of Rs. 10,70,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization against the respondent Nos.l, 3 and 4, for the death of the deceased in the accident. However, respondent No.4 is entitled to are recover the amount deposited from the 3^^ respondent. It is against the said order; this appeal was preferred by the insurer of the crime vehicle. 9. 10. Heard Smt.A.Jayanthi, appellant/insurer and Sri K.Divakar Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 / claimant. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that since the deceased was travelling in the crime vehicle, which is a goods carrying vehicle, as an unauthorized passenger, the insurer is liable to pay any compensation to the learned counsel for the 11. 5 claimant, but the Tribunal thereby, prays to consider the erred in ordering pay and present appeal, counsel for the respondent by considering the fact recoveiy, 12. Per contra, the learned No. 1/claimant submits that the Tribunal that Ex.B.l policy issued i force by the time of incident following the settled in respect of the crime vehicle is in ordered pay and recoveiy by preposition laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court even there is violation of terms and conditions of no valid grounds urged by the the well-articulated order of the policy; that there are appellant to interfere with Tribunal, thereby. the prays to dismiss the present appeal. Now, the only point that 13. arises for determination iis “Whether the appellant/insurer is liable to be exonerated from its liability to pay the compensation to the claimant?^ 14. POINT. It is not in dispute about the death of the deceased in the of the crime vehicle by the policy crime vehicle is in force by the date of accident, rash, and negligent driving 1®^ respondent i issued in respect of the cri in causing the incident and that Ex.B.l Stu O " 6 incident. It is also a fact that the claimant did appeal against the findings of the Tribunal. not prefer any 15. As per the testimony of R.W.2 coupled with Ex.X.2 i categorical that the crime vehicle i thereby, the deceased by the date of incident - It is a goods cariying vehicle, was travelling in a goods carrying vehicle IS as an unauthorized passenger. By considering the said fact, since the Ex.B.l policy issued in respect of the crime vehicle is in force, various pronouncements of Apex Court, pay and recovery against the insurer. well by following the the Tribunal ordered as 16. Now, it is relevant to refer Court in in Manuara Khatun wherein the Apex Court referred a judgment of Hon’ble Supreme . Rajesh Kumar Singh^, and relied on its earlier V pronouncement in National Insurance Company Limited o. Saju P.PauP and categorically held at paragraph Nos. 15 and 21 as follows: 15.This question also fell for I in National Insurance Company Limited consideration recently V. Saju P. Paul ' (2017) 4 see 796 ^(2013) 2 see 41 / / 7 wherein this Court took note of entire previous case law on the subject mentioned above and examined the question in the context of Section 147 of the Act. While allowing the appeal filed by the Insurance Company by reversing the judgment of the High Court, it was held on facts that since the victim was travelling in offending vehicle as "gratuitous passenger" and hence, the Insurance Company cannot be held liable to suffer the liability arising out of accident on the strength of the insurance policy. However, 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. 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 Stu 8 the paid awarded sum from the owner of the offending vehicle (Tata Sumo) Respondent No.l 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.” Having regard to the above categorical precedents, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, since it is benevolent legislation. 17. even in the event of gratuitous passenger, a direction can be issued against the insurer of the crime vehicle to pay the awarded sum to the claimant at first instance and then recover the same from the insured/owner/3rd respondent, because as stated supra the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle by the respondent, resulted death of the deceased. It is needless to say that the Tribunal by considering the material on record as well following the renowned pronouncement of Honhle Supreme Court in National 18. 9 Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi^, rightly calculated the compensation entitled by the claimant, which requires no interference of this Court 19. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that no valid grounds urged by the appellant to meddle 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. In the result, M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed. There shall be 20. I no order as to costs. Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, stand closed. 3aRI 2017 sc 5157 Sd/- K SRINIVASA RAJU ASSISTANT TRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -Cum- Principal District Judge, Guntur, Guntur District (with records if any) 2. One CC to Smt. A Jayanthi Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri. Kommareddy Divakara Reddy Advocate [OPUC] 4. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi 5. Two CD Copies Stu .. NM HIGH COURT DATED:15/07/2025 JUDGMENT + DECREE MACMA NO. 652 OF 2023 DISMISSING THE MACMA