1 APHC010587272012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3520] FRIDAY,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 157/2012 Between: 1. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, RELPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT AND 1. MARUTI RAMA LINGA REDDY, S/O. RAMA KRISHNA REDDY, SATTENAPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. P SREENIVASA RAO, S/O. VENKATESWARLU, D.NO. 11-26-20, RAMIREDDYPET, NARASARAOPET, Counsel for the Appellant: 1. S A V RATNAM MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1535/2007 Between: 1. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD, REP BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER THE BRANCH MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD., ARUNDELPET, NARASARAOPET. ...APPELLANT AND 2 1. AVULA GOVARDHANAMMA 4 ORS, W/O.LATE ANKI REDDY R/O.DODLERU, KROSURU MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. AVULA RAMADEVI, W/O.LATE NARASAREDDY R/O.DODLERU, KROSURU MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. AVULA ANKIREDDY, S/O.LATE NARASAREDDY @ NARSAREDDY R/O.DODLERU, KROSURU MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 4. AVULA LAKSHMI, D/O.LATE NARASAREDDY @ NARSAREDDY, AGED 9 MONTHS P2 AND 4 BEING MINORS REP BY THEIR MOTHER AS LEGAL GUARDIAN R/O.DODLERU, KROSURU MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 5. PALAPATI SRINIVASA RAO, S/O.VENKATESWARLU ZEEP OWNER R/O.D.NO.11-26-20, 11TH WARD, NARASAROPET, GUNTUR DISTRICT. Counsel for the Appellant: 1. S A V RATNAM Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. THOTA RAMAKOTESWARA RAO The Court made the following: 3 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA M.A.C.M.A.Nos.157 of 2012 and MACMA No.1535 of 2007 COMMON JUDGMENT: Introduction:- 1. [i] The National Insurance Company Ltd. / 2nd respondent in M.V.O.P.No.889 of 2001 on the of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- IX Additional District Judge, Guntur [for short “MACT”], preferred the appeal in MACMA No.157 of 2012. [ii] The 2nd respondent- the National Insurance Company Ltd. in M.V.O.P.No.296 of 2004 on the of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- III Additional District Judge, Guntur [for short “MACT”], preferred the appeal in MACMA No.1535 of 2007. [iii] Both the cases i.e., M.V.O.P.No.889 of 2001 and 296 of 2004, are arising out of a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 18.05.2001. [iv] One Maruri Ramaligna Reddy, injured in the accident, is the claimant/petitioner in M.V.O.P.No.889 of 2001. [v] Legal representatives of one Avula Narasa Reddy @ Narasareddy, who died in the said accident, are the claimants/petitioners 1 to 4 in M.V.O.P.No.296 of 2004. 2. M.V.O.P.No.889 of 2001 was decreed on 28.12.2005 and M.V.O.P.No.296 of 2004 was decreed on 18.05.2006 by the respective MACTs. Though both the cases are arising out the same accident, different 4 applications are filed and they are made out to different Courts/Tribunals and the matters were decided on different dates. 3. Claims, defenses and substantially the contesting parties being the same, both the appeals are now being decided together, upon advancement of arguments by all counsels together. 4. Challenge in MACMA No.1535 of 2007 is against the Order and Decree dated 18.05.2006 was in M.V.O.P.No.296 of 2004 where under compensation of Rs.1,45,000/- was awarded as against a claim made for Rs.2,00,000/- and the challenge in M.A.C.M.No.157 of 2012 is against the Order and Decree dated 28.12.2005 where under a compensation of Rs.92,650/- was awarded as against a claim made for Rs.2,00,000/-. Details of the accident:- 5. On the fateful day i.e., on 18.05.2001 at about 6.30 p.m., one Avula Narasa Reddy @ Narsarareddy [for short ‘the deceased’] referred in M.V.O.P.No.296 of 2004 and Maruri Rama Linga Reddy [for short ‘the injured’] claimant in M.V.O.P.No.889 of 2001, along with some others were travelling in a Jeep bearing No.AP V 6512 [for short ‘the offending vehicle’], due to lapse of driver of the vehicle in controlling the same, the vehicle hit a Tree on the outskirts of Yerrabalem village of Krosuru Mandal, Guntur District to Sattenapalli, the deceased-Narasa Reddy died and Maruri Ramalinga Reddy sustained injuries due to the impact of accident. The matter was reported to Police, upon which a case in Crime No.38 of 2001 5 was registered in Krosuru Police Station for the offences under Sections 337, 338 and 304-A IPC against the driver of the offending vehicle. 6. Respondent No.1 is the owner of the vehicle and the 2nd respondent [appellant herein] in both the cases, is the insurer of the offending vehicle, before the learned MACT. Details of the Claim:- In M.V.O.P.No.296 of 2004:- 7. The deceased-Avula Narasa Reddy was aged about 25 years, hale and healthy, sole bread winner for the family, driver by provision, earning Rs.2,500/- salary per month and Rs.50/- per day as batta; claimant No.1 is the mother, claimant No.2 is the wife, claimant No.3 and 4, are the children of the deceased. Hence, they are dependents and legal heirs of the deceased, therefore, entitled for compensation. In M.V.O.P.No.889 of 2001:- 8. The injured/claimant was running Fertilizers business, hale and healthy, suffered 1) fracture of right scapula 2) fracture of right clavicle and 3) fracture of right ribs and other multiple injuries. He got treatment at Government Hospital, Sattenapalli, thereafter Peoples Trauma Emergency Hospital, Guntur. He was in-patient from 18.05.2001 to 03.06.2001, suffered disability due to the accident and unable to attend any work and he was earning Rs.8000/- per month prior to the accident. 6 Defenses of 1st respondent/Owner of the offending vehicle:- 9. [i] Claimants are put to strict proof of all the allegations and the allegations made are in correct. [ii] Offending vehicle was injured with the 2nd respondent/ appellant – Insurance Company, there was valid Policy and the driver of the offending vehicle viz., was having valid driving licence, there was no negligence on the part of the driver. Hence, the 1st respondent owner is not liable. In any event the 2nd respondent, being the insured, is liable to pay compensation. [iii] The claimants are put to strict proof of age, occupation and income of both, the injured and the deceased, in respective cases. [iv] The compensation claimed is excessive. Defences of 2nd respondent/Insurance Company:- 10. [i] The claimants are put to strict proof of all the allegations. [ii] The Offending vehicle was not insured with the 2nd respondent. [iii] The accident was due to mechanical defect. Hence, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation. [iv] There was no valid and effective driving licence to the offending vehicle. Therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation. 7 11. Issues framed by the learned MACT in both the cases are as follows: In M.V.O.P.No.296 of 2004: (i) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Jeep bearing No.AP V 6512? (ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation and if so, to what amount and against whom? (iii) To what relief? M.V.O.P.No.889 of 2001: (i) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Jeep bearing registration No.AP V 6512? (ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation and if so, to what amount and against whom? (iii) To what relief? 12. Evidence before the learned MACT: [i] In M.V.O.P.No.296 of 2004: Description Remarks Oral evidence For the claimants:- P.W.1: Avula Rama Devi Wife of the deceased/2nd claimant P.W.2: M. Manthru Naik Civil Assistant Surgeon/Superintendent of Community Health Centre at Sattenapalli. For the respondent/s:- R.W.1: P. Srinisvasa Rao Owner of the offending vehicle. R.W.2: B.Ch.Meeraiah Working as Assistant in 2nd respondent Company Documentary evidence Ex.A1: Certified copy of F.I.R. Ex.A2: Certified copy of statement of the Avula NarasaReddy [Deceased] Ex.A3: Certified copy inquest report. On behalf of the petitioner(s). 8 Ex.A4: Certified copy of Post- mortem report. Ex.B1: Receipt for Rs.40,000/- passed by PW.1. Ex.B2: Certified copy of Insurance Policy Ex.B3: Certified copy of Acknowledgement Ex.B4: Certified copy of the registered notice. Ex.B5: Certified copy of M.V.I. Report. On behalf of Respondents [ii] M.V.O.P.No.889 of 2001: Description Remarks For the Claimants:- Oral evidence P.W.1: Maruri Rama Ling Reddy Injured/claimant P.W.2: Dr. S. Hanumantha Rao Medical Officer in Peoples Trauma Hospital, Kothapet, Guntur. PW.3: A.Srinivasu Orthopedic Surgeon in Peoples Trauma Emergency Hospital. For the Respondent/s:- R.W.1: M.Veeraiah Senior Assistant in 2nd Respondent Company. Documentary evidence Ex.A1: Certified copy of F.I.R., Ex.A2: Ex.A2: Certified copy of wound certificate, dated 18.05.2001 Ex.A3: Medical Bills for Rs.16,650/- Ex.A4: VAT Tax Registration Certificate. Ex.A5: Certificate of Registration. Ex.A6: Income-Tax Assessment for the year 2004-2005. Ex.A7: Income-Tax Assessment for the year 2002-2003. Ex.X1: Case Sheet maintained by Peoples Trauma and Emergency Hospital. Ex.X2: X-ray On behalf of the petitioner(s). Ex.B1: Copy of Certified copy of MVI Report. Ex.B2: Copy of Policy dated 19.04.2001. Ex.B3: Endorsement letter. On behalf of Respondents 9 Findings of the learned MACT:- A. On Negligence: M.V.O.P.No.296 of 2004:- 13. As per the F.I.R. and the statement of the deceased-A.Narasa Reddy and other record, the accident occurred due to fault of Jeep driver, if the Jeep driver was vigilant in verifying the steering system of the vehicle before they start, the accident would not have occurred. Therefore, the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. M.V.O.P.No.889 of 2001:- 14. The driver of the Jeep himself gave the report, the certified copy of the FIR and other documents would show the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. Therefore, the negligence is believed. B. On Liability:- M.V.O.P.No.296 of 2004:- 15. [i] The 1st respondent contended that the claimants received Rs.40,000/- towards full and final settlement and hence, not entitled for any compensation. Receiving of compensation from the employer does not debar claiming compensation particularly when there are minor children. 10 [ii] With regard to violation of the conditions of the Policy as to want of driving licence, even if there is violation, the Insurance Company shall pay and recover. In M.V.O.P.No.889 of 2001:- 16. [i] A letter was addressed to the 1st respondent-owner of the crime vehicle to produce driving license, but the owner of the crime vehicle viz., the 1st respondent before the learned MACT did not respond. [ii] But during the cross-examination, it is admitted by RW.1 that there is no proof to show that the driver of the offending vehicle is not having driving license, even the letter is returned un-served and original of the same was filed before the Court of learned Principal District Judge in O.P.NO.777 of 2001. [iii] The 2nd respondent-Insurance Company is also liable but it can recover on payment. Arguments in the Appeals:- For the appellant/Insurance Company:- 17. [i] The injured-claimant appears to be the passenger, although it is not clear whether he boarded from the beginning or in the middle of the journey. 11 [ii] At one stage, it is referred that the deceased in M.V.O.P.No.296 of 2004 was a cleaner, but at another stage it is referred that he was a driver, joined recently, caused the accident. [iii] The evidence of owner of the vehicle shows that the claim of the legal representatives of the deceased- Narasa Reddy is settled for an amount of Rs.40,000/-. Further, there is some admission as to absence of driving license to the driver, who drove the offending vehicle at relevant time. Therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable. 18. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimant argued that mere issuing notice to produce the driving licence is not sufficient. The Insurance Company failed to prove the absence of the driving licence. 19. During the course of arguments learned counsel for the appellant- Insurance Company submitted that the Insurance Company is confining its stand to the liability, particularly on the ground of absence of driving licence. 20. The claimant neither chooses to file an appeal nor any cross objections. 21. In the instance cases, the claim petition vide M.V.O.P.No.889 of 2001 pertains to the year 2001 and the same was disposed in the year 2005 and the appeal preferred pertains to the year 2012 vide MACMA No.157 of 2012. Likewise, the claim in M.V.O.P.No.296 of 2004 is of the year 2004, 12 disposed of in the year 2006 and the appeal preferred in the year 2007 vide MACMA No.1535 of 2007. The accident took place in the year 2001. Much water is flown. Steps should have been taken by the claimants to file the appeal, if they are not satisfied. 22. Claimants are represented by advocates. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, particularly in the context of the violations alleged and the other conduct of the claims, this Court finds that in these cases it is reasonable to confine to the liability aspect with reference to the violation alleged. 23. Heard both sides. 24. Perused the record carefully and thoughtful consideration given to the arguments advanced by the both sides. 25. Now, the points that arise for determination in these appeals are - 1) Whether the appellant-Insurance Company, who is arrayed as 2nd respondent in both the cases, is not liable to pay compensation, jointly or severally? 2) Whether the Order and Decree dated18.05.2006 in M.V.O.P.No.296 of 2004 passed by the learned MACT is sustainable in law and on facts? 3) What is the result of the Appeal in MACMA No.1535 of 2007? 4) Whether the Order and Decree dated 28.12.2005 in M.V.O.P.No.889 of 2001 is sustainable in law and on facts? 13 5) What is the result of the appeal in MACMA No.157 of 2012? Point No.1 :- 26. Initial contention of the Insurance Company is that there was mechanical failure and there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle and that the Insurance Company is not liable. To some extent, it is also the case of the 1st respondent-owner of the vehicle that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. Motor Vehicle Inspector Report, an official document discloses that the accident is not due to mechanical defect. Even if it were to be due to some problem in the movement of steering, as rightly observed by the learned MACT, at relevant time the driver should have taken proper care as to the condition of the vehicle. Negligence in handling the vehicle at any stage, beyond actual driving time shown to be the cause for the accident, the driver and owner of the vehicle cannot claim that they are not liable for the tort of negligence. Therefore, the ground of absence of negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle cannot be acceptable. 27. The second ground pressed into service is that there was entrustment of the vehicle to the driver, who is not having driving licence. The evidence relied is that a letter was addressed to the 1st respondent to produce driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle. It is there on record that it was not served. Ex.B4 in M.V.O.P.No.296 of 2004 referred by RW.2 indicates that it is referred unserved even as per the chief-examination. 14 28. Even as per the evidence of RW.1, One Jaffar Baji appears to be regular driver. It was projected as if Narasa Reddy @ Narasarareddy, drove the vehicle in the capacity of cleaner. The document undisputed by the respondent is Ex.A2. As per Ex.A2-statement of the deceased, he was working as driver for one week, for the offending vehicle. So the theory of he being the cleaner, gets washed away. The next aspect is whether he was having driving licence? He died due to the accident. The burden to prove that there is no driving licence, lies with the Insurance Company, who denies. Probably, Insurance Company would rely on the evidence of owner of the vehicle. But when owner of the crime vehicle examined as RW.1, it was not elicited Insurance Company has sent a notice for production of driving licence and the same was not responded by the respondent No.1- Onwer of the Jeep. Examination of RW.1 and his cross-examination done on 27.03.2006 in M.V.O.P.No.296 of 2004 and the evidence of RW.2, official of the Insurance Company on 11.05.2006, in M.V.O.P.No.296 of 2004 does not reflect the same. He admits that notice sent for production of driving license was returned unserved. 29. In all casual manner, the defenses were taken formally but no evidence is adduced. Endorsement/letter –Ex.B3 relied on, is the certified copy of notice, which is dated 18.12.2001. During the cross-examination of RW.1- the owner of the vehicle, there is no whisper about the notice sent and non-response of the owner. The other efforts to produce the driving 15 licence like requiring particulars from RTA etc., were absent. Therefore, the theory of either absence of driving license or mechanical failure, found not proved, at least with probability theory. 30. It is relevant to note that the owner of the offending vehicle against whom the pay and recovery was ordered under the impugned judgments did not choose to file any appeal. 31. In view of the aforesaid discussion and in the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the humble view that appellant- Insurance Company failed to prove the defenses taken, hence, this Court finds that the liability imposed by the learned respective MACTs and the impugned judgments does not warrant any interference. Point No.1 framed is answered against the appellant-Insurance Company. Point No.2 and 3:- 32. In view of the above stated reasons and the conclusions drawn under Point No.1, the impugned Order and Decree dated 18.05.2006 in M.V.O.P.No.296 of 2004 passed by the learned MACT are found sustainable in law and on facts and this Court concludes that there are no grounds to interference. Point No.2 is answered accordingly. 33. In view of findings in Point Nos.1 and 2, Point No.3 is answered concluding that the MACMA No.1535 of 2007 is liable to be dismissed. 16 Points No.4 and 5:- 34. For the aforestated reasons and discussions made and the conclusions drawn under Point No.1, the impugned Order and Decree dated 28.12.2005 in M.V.O.P.No.889 of 2001 passed by the learned MACT is found sustainable in law and on facts and this Court concludes that there are no grounds to interfere. In view of the findings in Point Nos.1 & 4, Point No.5 is answered concluding that the MACMA No.157 of 2012 is liable to be dismissed. 35. In the result, both the appeals in MACMA No.1535 of 2007 and MACMA No.157 of 2012 are dismissed. The balance compensation amount, if any due, shall be deposited before the learned MACT within a period of Six (06) weeks. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed. ____________________________ A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J Date:26.09.2025 Pnr 17 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA M.A.C.M.A.No.844 of 2006 and MACMA No.3018 of 2012 [COMMON JUDGMENT] Dt. 04.09.2025 Pnr