APHC010628892005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Thursday, the tenth day of July, two thousand and twenty five The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi M.A.C.M.A No.2723 of 2005 Between: National Insurance Company Limited, and Akula Ramalakshmi and Counsel for the appellant: 1. Sravan Kumar Mannava Counsel for the respondents: 1. Godey Satish The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) Thursday, the tenth day of July, two thousand and twenty five Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi M.A.C.M.A No.2723 of 2005 National Insurance Company Limited, ...Appellant Akula Ramalakshmi and others ...Respondents Counsel for the appellant: Sravan Kumar Mannava Counsel for the respondents: following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3311] Thursday, the tenth day of July, two thousand and twenty five ...Appellant ...Respondents APHC010531842005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Thursday, the tenth day of July, two thousand and twenty five The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi M.A.C.M.A Between: National Insurance Company Limited, and Kaparapu Ganga W/o. late L Counsel for the appellant: 1. Sravan Kumar Mannava Counsel for the respondents: 1. Godey Satish The Court made the following: 2 M.A.C.M.A Nos.2723 & 2725 of 2005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) Thursday, the tenth day of July, two thousand and twenty five Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi M.A.C.M.A No.2725 of 2005 National Insurance Company Limited, ...Appellant late Lacharao and others ...Respondents Counsel for the appellant: Sravan Kumar Mannava Counsel for the respondents: The Court made the following: BSB, J M.A.C.M.A Nos.2723 & 2725 of 2005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3311] Thursday, the tenth day of July, two thousand and twenty five ...Appellant ...Respondents 3 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A Nos.2723 & 2725 of 2005 COMMON JUDGMENT: M.A.C.M.A.No.2723 of 2005 is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, aggrieved by the award and the decree, dated 24.06.2005, passed in M.V.O.P.No.170 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, East Godavari, at Kakinada. M.A.C.M.A.No.2725 of 2005 is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 aggrieved by the award and the decree, dated 24.06.2005, passed in M.V.O.P.No.167 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, East Godavari, at Kakinada. 2. The facts, briefly stated, are as follows: a. The deceased, along with fifteen other jattu coolies intended to go to Gokavaram, West Godavari district, for sugarcane cutting. They reached Kathipudi and waiting for a vehicle. They were engaged as jattu coolies on a lorry bearing No.AP 13 T 5495 for loading and unloading iron girders. On 22.01.2001 night at 7 P.M., they boarded the lorry in the capacity of coolies for the purpose of loading and unloading iron girders and on 23.01.2001 at about 04.45 A.M., when the lorry came to ‘Y’ junction, the driver of the lorry drove it in a rash and negligent manner and at high-speed and when the driver of the lorry going in front applied sudden brakes, the 1st respondent also applied brakes to avoid accident. Due to sudden application of brakes, the iron girders fell on two persons who died on the spot and other persons received injuries. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by the 1st respondent. The injured were admitted in Government Hospital, Rajahmundry. A case in Crime No.8 of 2001 4 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A Nos.2723 & 2725 of 2005 under Sections 304-A, 338 and 337 I.P.C was registered and investigated into. b. Akula Devayya (the deceased in M.V.O.P.No.170 of 2001) was aged 24 years and on account of the sudden death of the deceased in the accident, his wife and son lost their sole bread winner and became destitutes and helpless. c. Kaparapu Lacharao (the deceased in M.V.O.P.No.167 of 2001) was aged 40 years and got wife and two children. On account of the sudden death of the deceased in the accident, the claimants became helpless. d. The 1st respondent is the driver, the 2nd respondent is the owner and the 3rd respondent is the insurer of the lorry bearing No.AP 13 T 5495. Therefore, all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. e. Thus, the claimants in both the petitions have common cause of death of the deceased in the same accident. 3. The 1st respondent remained ex parte. 4. The 2nd respondent / owner filed a counter denying the liability and also the negligence of the driver while attributing negligence to the deceased and further stating that since the vehicle was insured with the 3rd respondent, this respondent is not liable to pay any compensation. The quantum of compensation sought was also described as excessive and prayed to dismiss the petition. 5. The 3rd respondent / insurance company filed a separate counter denying the liability and also attributing gross negligence of the deceased by sitting on the top of the lorry along with other passengers 5 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A Nos.2723 & 2725 of 2005 which contributed to the accident causing death. The other averments in the petition were also denied and this respondent also prayed to dismiss the petition. 6. On behalf of the claimants in M.V.O.P.No.170 of 2001, the 1st claimant was examined as PW1 and one K.Sivaji was examined as PW2. T.J.M. Murali, Administrative Officer in the 3rd respondent company was examined as RW1 on behalf of the 3rd respondent. Exhibits A1 to A4 were marked and exhibits B1 and B2 were marked on behalf of the 3rd respondent. Exhibit A1 is the attested Xerox copy of FIR in Crime No.8 of 2001 of Traffic P.S., Rajahmundry, dated 23.01.2001, exhibit A2 is the attested Xerox copy of inquest report, dated 23.01.2001, exhibit A3 is the attested Xerox copy of Post Mortem Certificate and exhibit A4 is the attested Xerox copy of M.V.I report. Exhibit B1 is the policy copy and exhibit B2 is the investigation report, dated 23.01.2002. 7. Similarly, on behalf of the claimants in M.V.O.P.No.167 of 2001, the 1st claimant was examined as PW1 and one K. Sivaji was examined as PW2. T.J.M.Murali was examined as RW1 on behalf of the 3rd respondent. Exhibit A1 is the attested Xerox copy of F.I.R in Crime No.8 of 2001 of Traffic P.S., Rajahmundry, dated 23.01.2001, exhibit A2 is the attested Xerox copy of post mortem report, dated 23.01.2001, exhibit A3 is the attested Xerox copy of inquest report, dated 23.01.2001, exhibit A4 is the attested Xerox copy of M.V.I report. Exhibit B1 is the policy copy. 8. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.1,80,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum payable from the date of the petition till the date of realization to the claimants in M.V.O.P.No.170 of 2001 and a sum of 6 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A Nos.2723 & 2725 of 2005 Rs.1,57,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum payable from the date of the petition till the date of realization to the claimants in M.V.O.P.No.167 of 2001. 9. In both the petitions, the liability was fastened on all the three respondents with joint and several liability. 10. Aggrieved by the awards, the third respondent / insurance company preferred these two appeals mainly on the ground that the deceased were fare paid passengers in the lorry carrying pillets, but the Tribunal erroneously held that the driver of the lorry engaged the deceased and others for loading and unloading purpose. 11. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that a lorry which is a goods carriage vehicle is not meant for carrying passengers and the evidence established that (16) labourers / coolies were waiting for travelling to Gokavaram village for cutting sugarcane crop and they boarded the lorry as fare paid passengers and at that time, the lorry was carrying pillets and therefore, the liability cannot be fastened on the insurer as the ‘act policy’ does not cover the risk of fare paid passengers, and therefore, the Tribunal ought not to have fastened the liability on the appellant. 12. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents / claimants submitted that the policy covered six (6) employees under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. He further submitted that the Tribunal, by considering the clinching oral evidence of PW2, rightly held that the deceased were engaged by the driver of the lorry for unloading purpose and therefore, such a finding does not require any interference. He further submitted that even if there is any violation of the policy, the insurance company may be directed to first pay the amount of 7 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A Nos.2723 & 2725 of 2005 compensation and then recover the same from the owner of the insured vehicle. 13. Since the question whether the deceased was travelling as a fare paid passenger or as a person engaged by the driver of the lorry is a question of fact, the only evidence available is that of PW2 who is an eyewitness. Of course, his evidence is that he, along with the others, boarded the lorry at the request of the driver of the lorry for unloading iron girders. It is pertinent to note that the employees, if any, engaged must be by the insured so as to cover the policy of insurance. The liability of the insurance company would arise only if the services of a person were engaged by the insured. A driver, acting as an agent for the insured may also engage the service of required personnel. 14. In the present case, the iron girders were being transported, obviously not at the behest of the driver, but as the lorry was engaged, in all probability, with the consent of the owner of the lorry, who is the insured. Therefore, as the evidence of PW2 clearly indicates that the service of this witness as well as other passengers were engaged for unloading purpose of the iron girders, the act is attributable to the insured and not the driver in his personal capacity. There is no evidence contrary to the evidence of PW2 except the F.I.R. and the charge sheet, which say that while these passengers were waiting for transport to go for coolie work, they got into the lorry on token of fare. But, no witness was examined by the respondent to prove the contents of exhibits A1 and A2. On the other hand, PW2 is not the maker of the complaint under exhibit A1. Therefore, he cannot be bound by the statement made by a third party. Independent evidence before the Tribunal is required, particularly, when there is a serious dispute as to the contention of the parties regarding a material factor with regard to 8 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A Nos.2723 & 2725 of 2005 the nature of the capacity in which persons were travelling in the insured vehicle. As such, the Tribunal rightly held that the insurance company is also jointly and severally liable with the other respondents. As such, the awards impugned in these appeals do not require any interference. 15. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ B. S. BHANUMATHI, J Dt.10.07.2025 RAR