IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 179 OF 2025 Between: United India Insurance Company Limited, Represented by its Branch Manager, Rayachoty, Kadapa District. ...Appellant AND 1. Meddari Subbamma, W/o Chinna Naganna, Aged about 40 years, Occ; Date Leavers Mate Makers, Yerukula Colony, Kaiakada Mandal, Chittoor District. 2. Maddirala Vamsidhar Reddy, S/o. Bhasker Reddy, aged about 35 years. Owner of Tractor and Trailer Bearing No. AP04 W - 4897 and AP 04 W 4898, Occ: Cultivation, R/o. Korlakunta, Talamudipi, Galiveedu Mandal. (Respondent No. 1 in M.V.O.P) ...Respondents Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V Act, against the Judgment and Decree passed by the Hon'ble Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal- Cum-V Additional District Judge, Kadapa District M.V.O.P.No.23 of 2012, dated 23-07-2013. at Raychoty in This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the judgment and decree of the Tribunal and the material papers in the appeal and upon hearing the arguments of Smt. P Satya Manjula, Advocate for the Appellant and Sri. V Nitesh, Advocate for the Respondents This Court doth order and decree as follows: 1. That the appeal be and hereby is Dismissed. 2. That there shall be no order as to costs in this Appeal Sd/- K SRINIVASA RAJU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER J 1. The Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal-Cum-V Additional District Judge, Raychoty at Kadapa District 2. Three CD Copies To MV sree HIGH COURT DATED: 06/03/2025 DECREE MACMA.No.179 of 2025 ■s' 2 1 MAH 2IP5 S ^ . Current Section . ^ DISMISSING THE MACMA No.179 of 2025 WITHOUT COSTS 4/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY ,THE SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE / PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS jVIOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 170 OF 2025 Between: United India Insurance Company Limited, Represented by its Branch Manager, Rayachoty, Kadapa District. ...Appellant/Respondent No.2 AND 1. Pagadala Nagender Babu, aged about 27 years, 2. Pagadala Rajendra, aged about 24 years, 3. Pagadala Anjanamma, aged about 21 years. All are the Children's of Sunkanna and Deceased Nagamma, Occ: Date Leavers Mate Makers, Yerukula Colony, Kaiakada Mandal, Chittoor District. ... Respondents/Petitioners 4. Maddirala Vamsidhar Reddy, S/o. Bhasker Reddy, aged years, Owner of Tractor and Trailer Bearing No. AP04 W - 4897 and AP 04 W 4898, Occ; Cultivation, R/o. Korlakunta, Talamudipi, Galiveedu Mandal. (Respondent No. 1 in M.V.O.P) about 35 ...Respondents/Respondent No.1 Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V Act, against the Judgment and Decree passed by the Hon'ble Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal- Cum-V Additional District Judge, Kadapa District at Raychoty in M.V.O.P.No.102/2011, dated 23-07-2013 This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the judgment and decree of the Tribunal and the material papers in the appeal and upon hearing the arguments of Smt. P. Satya Manjula, Advocate for the Appellant and Sri. V Nitesh, Advocate for the Respondents This Court doth order and decree as follows: 1. That the appeal be and hereby is Dismissed. 2. That there shall be no order as to costs in this Appeal Sd/- K SRINIVASA RAJU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR^ //TRUE COPY// SE OFFICER To. 1. The Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal-Cum-V Additional District Judge, Raychoty at Kadapa District 2. Three CD Copies MV sree HIGH COURT DATED: 06/03/2025 DECREE MACMA.No.170 of 2025 'x 2 1 MAR 2025 ^ . Current Section ^ DISMISSING THE MACMA No.170 of 2025 WITHOUT COSTS c IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS IVLOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No’s- 170 179 OF 2025 jVjOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 170 OF 2025 Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V Act Decree passed by the Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal-Cum-V Additional District Judge, Kadapa District at Raychoty in M.V.O.P.No.102 of 2011, dated 23-07-2013. against the Judgment and Between: United India Insurance Company Limited, Represented by its Branch Manager, Rayachoty, Kadapa District. ...Appellant/Respondent No.2 AND 1. Pagadala Nagender Babu, aged about 27 2. Pagadala Rajendra, aged about 24 years, 3. Pagadala Anjanamma, aged about 21 years. years. All are the Children's of Sunkanna and Deceased Nagamma Leavers Mate Makers, Yerukula Colony, Kaiakada Mandal, Chittoor District. Occ; Date ... Respondents/Petitioners 4. Maddirala Vamsidhar Reddy, S/o. Bhasker Reddy, aged about 35 years. Owner of Tractor and Trailer Bearing No. AP04 W - 4897 and AP 04 W 4898, Occ: Cultivation, R/o. Korlakunta, Talamudipi, Galiveedu Mandal. (Respondent No. 1 in M.V.O.P) ...Respondents/Respondent No.1 I.A. NO: 2 OF 2014tMACMAMP. NO: 1549 OF 2014t Petition under Section 151 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceeding in pursuance of the decree passed by the Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge, Kadapa District, at Rayachoty in O.P.No.102/2011 dated 23/7/2013, pending disposal of the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. Counsel for the Appellant: SMT. P. SATYA MANJULA Counsel for the Respondents: SRI V. NITESH MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 179 OF 2025 Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V Act, against the Judgment and Decree passed by the Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal-Cum-V Additional District Judge, Kadapa District at Raychoty in M.V.O.P.No.23 of 2012, dated 23-07-2013. Between: United India Insurance Company Limited, Represented by its Branch Manager, Rayachoty, Kadapa District. ...Appellant AND 1. Meddari Subbamma, W/o Chinna Naganna, Aged about 40 years, Occ: Date Leavers Mate Makers, Yerukula Colony, Kaiakada Mandal, Chittoor District. 2. Maddirala Vamsidhar Reddy, S/o. Bhasker Reddy, aged about 35 years. Owner of Tractor and Trailer Bearing No. AP04 W - 4897 and AP 04 W 4898, Occ; Cultivation, R/o. Korlakunta, Talamudipi, Galiveedu Mandal. (Respondent No. 1 in M.V.O.P) ...Respondents I.A. NO: 2 OF 2014rMACMAMP. NO: 1577 OF 2014) 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 stay all further proceeding in pursuance of the Decree passed by the Motor vehicles claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge, Kadapa district, at Raychoty in M.V.O.P.No.23/2012 Dated 23.07.2013 Counsel for the Appellant: SMT. P SATYA MANJULA Counsel for the Respondents: SRI. V NITESH The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS M.A.C.M.A.Nos.170 & 179 of 2025 COMMON JUDGMENT; These appeals are directed against the order of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge at Rayachoty (hereinafter called as ‘the Tribunal in M.V.O.P.Nos.l02 of 2011 and 23 of 2012 dated 23.07.2013. Since these appeals arise out of same accident and as the 2. material facts are common, the same are being disposed of by this common judgment. Both the M.A.C.M.As. are preferred by the insurer of the 3. Tractor-cum-Trailer bearing No.AP 04 W 4897 and AP 04 W 4898 (hereinafter referred to as “crime vehicle”). The respondent Nos.l to 3 in M.A.C.M.A.No.l70 of 2025 are the children of one Pagadala Nagamma (hereinafter called as “deceased”). The respondent Nos.l and 2 in M.A.C.M.A.No. 179 of 2015 are the injured/claimant and owner of the crime vehicle respectively. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter 4. referred to as they arrayed before the tribunal. The case of the claimants, in the petitions before the 5. Tribunal in both M.V.O.Ps. is that: while the deceased. i). On 16.05.2011, injured/claimant along with others proceeding on the 2 crime vehicle with load of date leaves from Koriakunta to Kalakada, when they reached near Devapatla Mitta at Kasthuri Bai School, the driver of the said drove the same in vehicle a rash and negligent manner at high speed, lost control over the same, resulted the vehicle turned turtle, the deceased died injured sustained severe bleeding injuries, ii). They claimed compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- and Rs.3,00,000/- respectively against the insurer of the crime vehicle. The respondent No. 1/insured filed matters before the Tribunal denying the petition and pleaded that the vehicle was validly insured with the 2nd respondent and the policy issued in respect of the crime vehicle is in force by the date of incident; that the accident occurred was not due to negligence on the part of the driver of the crime vehicle. on the spot and owner and 6. counter in both the averments in the 7. The respondent No.2/insurer filed written both the matters before the Tribunal denyinv the averments i statement in m h- c 3 the petition and pleaded that the driver of the crime vehicle is not having valid driving license to drive the same by the date of incident, thereby, the OAvner of the vehicle violated the terms and conditions of the policy; that the seating capacity of tractor is one and the trailer has to be used for agricultural purpose only; that the compensation claimed by the claimants is excessive, thereby, prayed to dismiss the petition against this respondent. 8. The Tribunal settled the following issues for enquiry basing on the material in M.V.O.P.No. 102 of 2011: ‘1. Whether the deceased Pagadala Nagamma died in road accident on 16.05.2011 due to rash and negligent driving of tractor and trailer bearing No.AP 04 W 4897 and AP04 W 4898 of 1®^ respondent by its driver as pleaded? 2.Whether the 1®* respondent violated insurance policy conditions as pleaded by 2^^ respondent? 3.Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from which of the respondents? and 4.To what relief?” 4 9. The Tribunal basing on the material i “1. Whether the settled the following issues for enquiiy mM.V.O.P.No.23of2012; petitioner met with sustained injuries on 16.05.2011 negligent driving of tractor 04 W 4897 and AP04 road accident and due to rash and and trailer bearing No.AP W 4898 of 1st respondent by its driver as pleaded? 2.Whether the 1 St respondent violated iinsurance policy conditions as pleaded by 2nd respondent? 3.Whether the petitioners are entitled for amount and from which compensation, of the if so, to what respondents? and 4.To what relief?” 10. During enquiry, in both the matters, Claimants, PWs.l and 2 exhibited. On behalf of the on behalf of the were examined and Exs.A. 1 to respondent No.2/insurer, B.l to B.3 A.4 were R.Ws.l and 2 were examined and Exs. were marked. 11. On the material, the Tribunal, accident occurred due to the crime vehicle by its driver, held that for the having concluded that the rash and negligent driving of the the claimants are entitled and Rs.26,000/- the date of compensation of Rs.3,09.000/- respectively, with interest at 6% per annum from c 5 petition till the date of realization against the respondent Nos.l and 2, however, 2^^ respondent is at liberty to recover the same from the respondent in the absence of valid driving license to the driver to drive the crime vehicle by the date of incident as well the injured and deceased are not allowed to travel in the crime vehicle as passengers. It is against the said orders; these appeals are preferred by the insurer of the crime vehicle. Heard Smt.P.Satya Manjula, learned counsel for the appellant/insurer and Sri V.Nitesh, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants in both the appeals. Now, the point that arises for determination is whether the order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside, if so, to what 12. 13. 14. extent? 15. POINT: It is not in dispute about the injuries sustained by the claimant as well death of the deceased in the accident, involvement of the crime vehicle, rash and negligent driving of the same by its driver, the Ex.B.l policy issued in respect of the 6 crime vehicle is in force by the date of incident. It is also a fact that the claimants as well owner of the crime vehicle did not prefer any appeal against the findings of the Tribunal. The only contention raised by the insurer is that when the injured and deceased travelling in the 16. crime vehicle as unauthorized passengers, the Tribunal erred in ordering pay and recovery against the appellant and the same is liable to be set aside. 17. It is an undisputed fact in view of the testimony of R.W.2 coupled with Exs.B.2 and B.3 the driver of the crime vehicle is not possessing license to drive the transport vehicle. By the time of incident, the vehicle was using transporting the date leaves, thereby, violated the terms of policy. It is also not in dispute that the injured and deceased, who were engaged in transporting the date leaves, travelling in the crime vehicle by the time of incident. The premium was collected under basic third party damages and four employees. Now, to decide the above point, it is relevant to refer the certain pronouncements of HonT)le Supreme 18. Court in h. 7 Shamanna v. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited^, wherein it was held that “where the driver did not possess the valid driving license and there are breach of policy conditions, “pay and recover” can be ordered in case of third party risks While so, in our view, the High Court ought not to have interfered with the award passed by the Tribunal directing the first respondent to pay and recover from the owner of the vehicle. 19. 19. It is also required to refer another Three Judge Bench pronouncement of HonTile Supreme Court in Singh Ram v. Nirmala?, wherein it was categorically held at paragraph Nos.8 and 9 that: “8.In the present case it is necessary to note, as observed by the Tribunal, that the owner did not depose in evidence and stayed away from the witness box. He produced a license which was found to be fake. Another license which he sought to produce had already expired before the accident and was not renewed within the prescribed period. It was renewed well after two years had expired. The appellant as 1 2018 LawSuit(SC) 722 2 AIR 2018 SC 1290 8 owner had failed to take reasonable care (proposition (vii) of Swaran Singh) (AIR 2004 SC 1531) since he could not have been unmindful of facts which within his knowledge. 9.In the circumstances, the direction by the Tribunal, confirmed by the High Court, to pay and recover cannot be faulted. The appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. were accordingly, Furthermore, the Hon^ble Supreme Court in Marmara Khatun v. Rajesh Kumar Singh?, by referring and relying on its earlier pronouncement in National Insurance Company Limited v. Saju P.PauP, categorically observed at paragraph Nos. 15 and 21 that: 20. 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. 15 3 (2017) 4 see 796 M2013)2See41 L ■f 9 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 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 (emphasis supplied) supra.” Having regard to the above categorical precedents, in 21. view of the facts and circumstances of the case, since it is benevolent legislation and Ex.B.l policy issued in respect of the crime vehicle is in force by the time of incident, a / direction can be issued against the insurer of the crime vehicle to pay the awarded sum to the claimants at first instance and then recover the same from the insured/owner/ l®t respondent, because as stated supra the 10 accident occurred only due of the crime vehicle by Now, considering the awarded which does to the rash and its driver, resulted the i negligent driving incident. 22. coming to the just compensation, the Tribunal rightly calculated the claimants. by material on record compensation entitled by and thereby. not require any interference. Having regard to the above 23. discussion, there Court to the as such, the appeals preferred are no valid reasons warrant interference of this recorded by the Tribunal, insurer is liable for dismissal. findings by the 24. In the result, both 2025 are dismissed. the M.A.C.M.A.Nos. 170 and 179 of There shall be Interim orders granted Miscellaneous petitions no order as to costs, earlier if any, stand vacated. pending if any, stand closed. Sd/- K SRINIVASA RAJU assistant REGISTRAR //true copy// To, S OFFICER Tribunal-Cum-V [with records if Chairman, Motor Vehicles Additional District Judge Accident Claims Raychoty at Kadapa District any] < The Section Officer VR s °r ® Amaravathi ’ C°drt of Andhra Pradesh 5. Three CD Copies at MV sree HIGH COURT DATED: 06/03/2025 COMMON JUDGMENT + DECREE MACMA.No’s.170 and 179 of 2025 X 21 MAR 2025 B) a Current Seciion PespATC'<!S^ DISMISSING THE MAGMA No’s.170 and 179 of 2025 WITHOUT COSTS