IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAVA^r -ol THURSDAY ,THE SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE :3D O i O PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 2727 OF 2007 Between: M/s United India Insurance Company Limited, Rep. by its Divisional Manager, Red Hills, Chennai- 52. Divisional Office Near Head Post Office, Tirupathi. ...Appellant/Respondent No.2 AND K. Lakshmi, W/o K.Krishna Reddy, aged about 32 years. Dependent R/o D.No.16/111, Reddy Veedhi Chandragiri Post and Mandal, Chittoor District 1. ... Petitioner/Respondent 2. R. Jeera, S/o Rajarathnam, Owner of lorry no. TML 4708 R/o Podianallur, Ponneri Taluq, Thiruvallur District, Tamilnadu State. ...Respondent/Respondent No.1 Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V Act, against the order and decree dated 23-08-2007 made in MVOP No. 339 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - V Additional District Judge, Tirupathi. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the judgment and Decree of the Trial Court and material papers in the Suit and upon hearing arguments of Smt A. Jayanthi, Advocate for the Appellant and of Sri P. Hemachandra, Advocate for Respondents. This Court doth Order and decree as follows: 1. That the appeal be and is hereby dismissed; 2. That there be no order as to costs in this appeal. Sd/- A VENUGOPALA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SEC OFFICER 1. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - V Additional District Judge, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. 2. Three CD Copies To, Stu sree 'X HIGH COURT DATED:06/03/2025 DECREE MACMA.No.2727 of 2007 g OJ APR 2025 a ^ . Current Section .'y DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI THURSDAY ,THE SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE /f PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 2727 OF 2007 Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V Act, against the order and decree dated 23-08-2007 made in MVOP No. 339 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - V Additional District Judge, Tirupathi. Between: M/s United India Insurance Company Limited, Rep.by its Divisional Manager, Red Hills, Chennai- 52. Divisional Office Near Head Post Office, Tirupathi. ...Appellant/Respondent No.2 AND 1. K. Lakshmi, W/o K.Krishna Reddy, aged about 32 years. Dependent R/o D.No.16/111, Reddy Veedhi Chandragiri Post and Mandal, Chittoor District ...Petitioner/Respondent 2. R. Jeera, S/o Rajarathnam, Owner of lorry no. TML 4708 R/o Podianallur, Ponneri Taluq, Thiruvallur District, Tamilnadu State ...Respondent/Respondent No.1 I.A. NO: 1 OF 2007(MACMAMP. NO: 6688 OF 2007) 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 grant interim stay of execution of the order and decree dated 23-8-07 made in MVOP.NO. 339 of 2005 on the file of the MACT - cum - V Addl. Dist. Judge, Tirupathi pending disposal of MACMA I.A. NO: 1 OF 2013fMACMAMP. NO: 4391 OF 2013) 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 permit the petitioner to withdraw the remaining amount deposited by the appellant here in as per direction of this Honourable Court through its order dated 23.08.2007 in MACI\/IAMP.No.6688/2007 in MACMA.No.2727 OF 2007, pending disposal of the appeal. Counsel for the Appellant: Smt. A Jayanthi Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Sri P. Hemachandra The Court made the following: APHC010564452007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] Thursday ,the sixth day of March two thousand and twenty five Present The Honourable Ms Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No: 2727/2007 Between: M/s United India Insurance Company Limited, Tirupathi. ...Appellant and K Lakshmi and others ...Respondents Counsel for the Appellant: 1.A JAYANTHI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.P Hemachandra The Court made the following: ORDER: This petition is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award and decree dated 23-08-2007 in M.V.O.P.No.339 of 2005 on the file of the Court of V Additional District Judge-cum-Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tirupati, granting compensation of Rs.3,15,000/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization and costs. ] 2 MACMA.No.2727 of 2007 The appellant is the second respondent. The 1®* respondent is the claimant. The 2"^^ respondent is the respondent. 2. 3. The case of the claimant is briefly as follows: The claimant is the wife of the deceased. On 07.03.2004, at about 7:15 A.M., while the deceased K.Krishna Reddy, along with T.Lakshmaiah, was going by walk on the extreme left side of the road, the driver of the lorry bearing No.TML 4708 drove the lorry in a rash and negligent manner and hit the deceased resulting in his spontaneous death. A case in Crime No. 19 of 2004 was registered under Sections 304A, and 337 IPC against the driver of the lorry. The deceased was aged about 42 years and doing business as the date of the accident and earning Rs.6,000/- per month. The respondent is the owner of the lorry which was insured with the 2"^^ respondent. The 1®* respondent remained ex parte. The 2"*^ respondent opposed the claim by filing written statement denying the case of the claimant and further contending that the deceased and T.Lakshmaiah suddenly had turned to right side without observing the lorry coming from their behind and contributed to the occurrence to the accident, tough the driver of the lorry had tried his best applying sudden breaks, but could not avert the accident. It is further contended that the driver of the lorry did not have valid driving licence and the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation and further that the amount claimed is excessive. 4. 5. On behalf of the claimants, PW.1 K.Lakshmi, PW.2 T.Lakshmaiah, PW.3 L.Doraswamy Reddy were examined on his behalf. The claimant filed Ex.A.1 certified copy of FIR, Ex.A.2 certified copy of post mortem report, Ex.A.3 certified copy of inquest report. 3 MACMA.No.2727 of 2007 Ex.A.4 certified copy of MVi report, Ex.A.5 certified copy of charge sheet and Ex.A.6 ration card. On behalf of the respondents, RW.1 G.Chinnanna was examined and marked Ex.B.1 copy of insurance policy. 6. After hearing both parties, the Tribunal awarded the amount as aforesaid. Aggrieved by the award, the 2"*^ respondent preferred this appeal contending that the Tribunal erred in fastening liability against the insurance company as the driver of the lorry did not possess valid driving licence. 7. Heard Sri T.Ravi Teja, learned counsel representing Ms A.Jayanthi, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri A.V.Badra Naga Seshayya, learned counsel representing Sri P.Hema Chandra, learned counsel for the 1®' respondent. 8. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted as in the grounds of appeal. The learned counsel for the 1®' respondent contended that the tribunal had rightly appreciated the evidence on record and awarded compensation payable by the appellant as well and so it does not require interference in appeal. 10. The arguments are limited to the liability of the appellant. To prove that the driver of the insured vehicle had no driving licence, R.W.1 was examined, but no document was filed by the insurance company to establish that the driver had no driving licence. 11. } 4 MACMA.No.2727 of 2007 12, The appellant relies on MVI report alone to show that the driver had no driving licence. At the time of inspection of the vehicle, the driver might have failed to show the driving licence, but if he had driving licence, the charge sheet would have been filed against the driver/accused for that offence as well. no Regarding the burden of the insurance company to avoid its liability on account of breach of terms of policy, in National Insurance Company Limited Vs Swaran Singh^ the Supreme Court held as follows; 13. Summary of findings The summary of our findings to the various issues as raised in these petitions is as follows: (i) (ii) An insurer is entitled to raise a defence in a claim petition filed under Section 163-A or Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, inter alia, in terms of Section 149(2)(a)(//) of the said Act. The breach of policy condition e.g. disqualification of the driver invalid driving licence of the driver, as contained in sub-section (2)(a)(//) of Section 149, has to be proved to have been committed by the insured for avoiding liability by the insurer. Mere absence, fake or invalid driving licence or disqualification of the driver for driving at the relevant time, are not in themselves defences available to the insurer against either the insured or the third parties. To avoid its liability towards the insured, the insurer has to prove that the insured was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the condition of (iii) or ^ AIR 2004 SC 1531 5 MAGMA.No.2727 of 2007 the policy regarding use of vehicles by a duly licensed driver or one who was not disqualified to drive at the relevant time. Insurance companies, however, with a view to avoid their liability must not only establish the available defence(s) raised in the said proceedings but must also establish “breach" on the part of the owner of the vehicle; the burden of proof wherefor would be them. The court cannot lay down any criteria as to how the said burden would be discharged, inasmuch as the same would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each Even where the insurer is able to prove breach on the part of the insured concerning the policy condition regarding holding of a valid licence by the driver or his qualification to drive during the relevant period, the insurer would not be allowed to avoid its liability towards the insured unless the said breach or breaches on the condition of driving licence is/are so fundamental as are found to have contributed to the cause of the accident. The Tribunals in interpreting the policy conditions would apply “the rule of main purpose” and the concept of “fundamental breach” to allow defences available to the insurer under Section 149(2) of the Act. (iv) on (V) / case. ) (Vi) (vii) (viii) (ix) (X) 14. In the present case, except the offences under sections 304 A and 337 IPC, no other offence was alleged. The insurance company did not take any steps to summon any witness to prove that the driver had no driving licence. Under these circumstances, this court does find any reason to hold that the driver of the offending vehicle had driving licence, much less to observe that such breach of term of policy not no 6 MACMA.No.2727 of 2007 lead to causing the accident. Therefore, there is no ground to interfere with the award under challenge in the appeal. 15. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in this appeal, shall stand closed. Sd/- A VENUGOPALA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR il I'. //TRUE COPY// S OFFICER To, 1. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - V Additional District Judge, Tirupathi, Chittoor District (with records if any) 2. One CC to Smt. A Jayanthi, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri. P Hemachandra, Advocate [OPUC] 4. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi 5. Three CD Copies Stu sree HIGH COURT DATED:06/03/2025 \ JUDGMENT + DECREE MACMA.No.2727 of 2007 s 01 APR 2025 Current Section . ^:£^SPaTCVA^B-^ DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS