APHC010469642021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3505] THURSDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 587/2021 Between: 1. VANGAPATI SAMBAIAH, , S/O LATE VEERA SWAMY, AGED 63 YEARS, R/O H.NO.11-189/1. SIRAM NAGAR, YERRBALEM, MANGALAGIRI MANDAL, MANGALAGIRI JCJC. 2. VANGAPATI MANIKYAM, , S/O SAMBAIAH, AGED 60 YEARS, R/O H.NO.11-189/1. SIRAM NAGAR, YERRBALEM, MANGALAGIRI MANDAL, MANGALAGIRI JCJC. ...APPELLANT(S) AND 1. JUPALLI PRASADA RAO, S/O SRINIVASA RAO, R/O H.NO.4- 90/3, KHAMMAM 'X' ROAD, KODAD 508 206, NALGONDA DISTRICT. (OWNER OF TANKER LORRY BEARING NO.AP24 TA 8343). 2. UNIVERSAL SAMPO GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD, 302, VASUDEVA PLAZA, D.NO.8-3- 977/4, OPP- SRINAGAR COLONY RECREATION CLUB, POLICY ISSUED AT HYDERABAD BRANCH, HYDERABAD. (COVER NOTE NUMBER- USGIA/00254988, VALID FROM 1.11.2012 TO 1.11.2013) (INSURER OF TANKER LORRY BEARING NO.AP 24 TA 8343). 3. SAJJA ANIL, S/O SSV RAMA KRISHNA RAO, F.NO.302, KVR COLONY, ENIKEPADU, KRISHNA DISTRICT. (OWNER OF CAR 2 BEARING NO.AP16 CF 0210). 4. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD, ICICI LOMBARD HOUSE, 41, VEERA SAVARKAR MARG, NEAR SIDHIVINAYAK TEMPLE, PRABHADEVI, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA-400 025. 5. BARIGALA HUSSAIN, , S/O LAKSHMAIAH, 32 YEARS, R/O H.NO. 32-73, NEW GATE, SRAMIKANAGAR, KONDAPALLY, KRISHNA DISTRICT, VIJAYAWADA JCJC. (DRIVER OF TANKER LORRY BEARING NO.AP24 TA 8343). 6. TUMMALA NARENDRA, , S/O VENKATESWARA RAO, 42 YEARS, RIO F.NO.202, SECOND FLOOR, CHIGURUPATI RESIDENCY, YANAMALAKUDURU, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT, VIJAYAWADA JCJC. (DRIVER OF TATA INDICA VISTA CAR BEARING NO.AP16 CF 0210). ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be pleased topleased to allow the MACMA by directing the 2nd respondent to pay the 40 percent amount which is Rs.21,23,962/- together with proportionate costs and interest @ 7.5percent annum form the date of petition till the dated of realization awarded on the 1st petitioner which is joint and several at 40percent on 1st and 5th respondents and to recover the same form the 1st and 5th respondents together with interest in the interest of justice and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2021 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 pleased to condone the delay of 521 days in filing the present MACMA, aggrieved by the order and decree passed by learned Chairperson, Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal-Cum-IV Additional District, Judge, Guntur mack. in M.V.O.P. No.374 of 2014dt. 05-11-2019 Counsel for the Appellant(S): 3 1. AJAY KUMAR KANAPARTHI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. NAGARAJU NAGURU 2. V HEMANTH KUMAR 3. A.SAI ROHIT 4 The Court made the following judgment: The present appeal is filed by the appellants/claimants aggrieved by order dated 05.11.2019, passed in MVOP No.374 of 2014, on the file of Chairperson, Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-IV Additional District Judge, Guntur, insofar as exonerating the 2nd respondent/Universal Sampo General Insurance Co. Ltd., from the liability of payment of compensation to the extent of 40% i.e., for an amount of Rs.21,23,962/-. 2. Since the quantum of compensation is not disputed by both the parties, this Court does not wish to go into the other aspects of the matter. The only question remains for adjudication is that, whether the 2nd respondent/Universal Sampo General Insurance Co. Ltd., is liable to pay compensation along with respondent Nos.1 & 5 to the extent indicated in the order under challenge. 3. The counsel for appellants would strenuously contend that the tribunal erred in exonerating the 2nd respondent from the liability, on the ground that the 5th respondent/driver of the offending vehicle had no license at the time of accident. In support of his contention, he would 5 rely on the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Swaran Singh and others1, held as under: “It may be true as has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that a fake or forged licence is as good as no licence but the question herein, as noticed hereinbefore, is whether the insurer must prove that the owner was guilty of the wilful breach of the conditions of the insurance policy or the contract of insurance. In Lehru’s case (supra), the matter has been considered at some details. We are in general agreement with the approach of the Bench but we intend to point out that the observations made therein must be understood to have been made in the light of the requirements of law in terms whereof the insurer is to establish wilful breach on the part of the insured and not for the purpose of its disentitlement form raising any defence or the owners be absolved from any liability whatsoever. We would be dealing in some details with this aspect of the matter a little later.” 4. From the above decision it is evident that the 2nd respondent/insurance company is liable to pay compensation to the claim petitioners and later it can recover the same from respondent Nos.1 & 5, who are the owner and driver of the offending vehicle, by invoking the remedies available under law. 5. Further, a coordinate bench of this Court followed the ratio laid down in the above referred judgment in MACMA No.2184 of 2012 and accordingly directed the insurance company therein to pay the 1 2004(2) ALD(SC)36 6 compensation to the claim petitioners and to recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle therein. 6. Though the counsel for the 2nd respondent vehemently opposed the appeal stating that the 2nd respondent is not liable to pay compensation in view of the undisputed fact that the 5th respondent driver had no license at the time of accident, the same cannot be accepted inasmuch as the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above judgment has categorically held that the insurance company is liable to pay compensation to the claimants and later the same can be recovered from the owner and the driver of the offending vehicle. In that view of the matter, the issue involved in the present appeal is no more res integra and following the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Swaran Singh and others and order dated 17.04.2023, passed in MACMA No.2184 of 2012 & Cross Objections No.41039 of 2019, the present appeal is allowed and accordingly order dated 05.11.2019, passed in MVOP No.374 of 2014 on the file of Chairperson, Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tirbunal- Cum-IV Additional district Judge, Guntur is modified holding the 2nd respondent/insurance company is jointly and severally liable to pay 40% of the compensation as awarded by the tribunal i.e., an amount of Rs.21,23,962/-, along with respondent Nos.1 & 5. Further, the 2nd 7 respondent/insurance company is at liberty to recover the said amount from respondent Nos.1 & 5, as per the remedies available under law. 7. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________ JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR Dt.04.12.2025 DSB 8 93 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR MACMA.No.587 OF 2021 Date: 04.12.2025 U DSB