APHC011400762016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI ■.5 FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE - >. Vi cviv‘ r PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.419 of 2023 Between; 1. Betham Ramalaxmamma, W/o Betham Srinivasulu, Age 34 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. Karivewna Village, Atmakur Mandal, Kurnool District. 2. Betham Venkateshwari, D/o Betham Sreenivasulu, Age 21 years, Occ: Student, R/o. Karivewna Village, Atmakur Mandal, Kurnool District. 3. Betham Vasu, S/o Late Betham Sreenivasulu, Age 16 years. Minor, represented by his guardian and natural mother i.e., appellant No.1. herein, R/o. Karivewna Village, Atmakur Mandal, Kurnool District. 4. Betham Lakshmamma, W/o Betham Venganna, age 57 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. Karivewna Village, Atmakur Mandal, Kurnool District. 5. Betham Venganna, S/o Late Betham Ankanna, Age 67 years, Occ: Nil, R/o. Karivewna Village, Atmakur Mandal, Kurnool District. ...Appellants/Claimants AND 1. Muwa Ramakrishna, S/o Late Lenin Babu, Age 41 years, Occ: Driver, R/o H.No. 6/72, Karivena Village, Atmakur Mandal, Kurnool District. 2. National Insurance Company Limited, represented by its Branch Manager, Kurnool Post and District. ...Respondents Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, aggrieved by the Judgment dated 8-10-2015 in O.P.No.366/2014 on the file of the Hon'ble Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District Judge, Kurnool Kurnool District. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of Petition, the Order and Decree of the Trial Court and the material papers in the Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri K. Srinivas, representing on behalf of Sri D Bhasker Yadav, Advocate for the Appellant and appeared for Respondent No. 1 and of Sri Vuppalapati Srinivas Raju (no representation), Advocate for Respondent No.2. none This Court doth Order and decree as follows: 1. That the appeal be and hereby is allowed in part; 2. That the order to the Tribunal be and is hereby modified to the extent that the respondent No.2/insurer be and is hereby directed to pay the awarded sum to the claimants at first instance and then recover the same from the 1®^ respondent/owner by filing execution petition. 3. That the rest of the conditions made in the order of the Tribunal i.e., apportionment of compensation and their entitlement to withdraw the same, shall remained intact; 4. That there be no order as to costs in these appeal. Sd/- P VINOD KUMAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District Judge, Kurnool, Kurnool District. 2. Two CD Copies TK vna HIGH COURT DATED:11/07/2025 DECREE MACMA No.419of 2023 of AMD.-to ^ 04 SEP C* 1 Co jrentSecti ★ PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA APHC011400762016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. SRINIVAS MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.419 Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, aggrieved by the Judgment dated 8-10-2015 in O.P.No.366/2014 on the file of the Hon'ble Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District Judge, Kurnool, Kurnool District. Between: 1. Betham Ramalaxmamma, W/o Betham Srinivasulu, Age 34 years, Occ; Housewife, R/o. Karivewna Village, Atmakur Mandal, Kurnool District. 2. Betham Venkateshwari, D/o Betham Sreenivasulu, Age 21 years, Occ: Student, R/o. Karivewna Village, Atmakur Mandal, Kurnool District. 3. Betham Vasu, S/o Late Betham Sreenivasulu, Age 16 years. Minor, represented by his guardian and natural mother i.e., appellant No.1. herein, R/o. Karivewna Village, Atmakur Mandal, Kurnool District. 4. Betham Lakshmamma, W/o Betham Venganna, age 57 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. Karivewna Village, Atmakur Mandal, Kurnool District. 5. Betham Venganna, S/o Late Betham Ankanna, Age 67 years, Occ: Nil R/o. Karivewna Village, Atmakur Mandal, Kurnool District. ...Appellants/Claimants AND 1. Muvva Ramakrishna, S/o Late Lenin Babu, Age 41 years, Occ: Driver, R/o H.No. 6/72, Karivena Village, Atmakur Mandal, Kurnool District. 2. National Insurance Corhpany Limited, represented by its Branch Manager, Kurnool Post and District. ...Respondents : Sri K. Srinivas, representing on behalf of Sri D Bhasker Yadav Counsel for the Petitioners Counsel for Respondent No.1: None Appeared Counsel for Respondent No.2: Sri Vuppalapati Srinivas Raju (no representation) The Court made the following order: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS M.A.C.M.A.No.419 of 2023 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed against the order, dated 08.10.2015 passed in M.V.O.P.No.366 of 2014 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Kurnool (hereinafter called as ‘the Tribunal’). The appellants herein are the claimants, who are wife, children and parents of one Betham Sreenivasulu (hereinafter called as “the deceased”), before the Tribunal. The Respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein are the driver-cum-owner and Insurer of the Tata Ace Auto Trolley bearing No.AP 21 TX 2554 (hereinafter called as “crime vehicle”) respectively. The case of the claimants, in the petition before the Tribunal is that: 2. 3. i) On 15.12.2013, the deceased engaged the vehicle of the 1®^ respondent, Tata Ace Auto Trolley bearing No.AP 21 TX 2554 for transporting mulberry silk cocoons to Hindupur silk cocoons Government Market for selling the harvested by him in his land. The deceased, being cocoons .yt - 2 the owner, accompanied the vehicle along with coolie by name J.Ramu. On 16.12.2023, deceased sold the mulberry silk cocoons, while they returning on the intervening night 16/17.12.2013, when they reached near Sri Balaji Granite Factory on N.H.44 road, due to rash and negligent driving of the 1®* respondent, lost control over the same, resulted the vehicle turned turtle, the deceased and J.Ramu received severe injuries, the said J.Ramu died on the spot and deceased (Sreenivasulu) was shifted to the Government General Hospital, Kurnool, where he succumbed to injuries while undergoing treatment, ii). Being dependents, they claimed compensation of Rs.40,00,000/- against the driver-cum-owner and insurer of the crime vehicle. The respondent No. 1/driver-cum-owner of the crime vehicle filed written statement denying the averments in the petition and pleaded that he has valid driving license to drive the crime vehicle by the time of incident; that the crime vehicle was validly insured with the 2"^ respondent/insurer; and the policy was in force by the one the of 4. 3 time of accident as such, the 2''^ respondent is alone liable to pay compensation to the claimants; that the compensation claimed by the claimants is excessive and thereby, prayed to dismiss the petition against this respondent. 5. The respondent No.2/insurer of the crime vehicle filed written statement denying the averments in the petition and pleaded that no premium was paid to under the head of NFPP in the policy to cover the risk of owner of goods; that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the 1 respondent; that the compensation claimed by the claimants is excessive and thereby, prayed to dismiss the petition. The Tribunal settled the following issues for enquiry basing 6. on the material; “1.Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tata Ace Auto Trolley bearing No.AP 21 TX 2554? 2.Whetherthe deceased B. Srinivasulu, died in the road accident? S.Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount, against whom? and 4.To what relief?” 4 7. During enquiry, on behalf of the claimants, PWs.1 to 4 examined and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.8 and Exs.XI to X5. On behalf of the respondents, R.Ws.1 and 2 marked Ex.B.1. On the material, the Tribunal, having concluded that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the crime vehicle by the respondent, held that the claimants are entitled for the compensation of Rs. 17,35,000/- with interest at 9% were were examined and got 8. per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization against the Respondent No.1, for the death of the deceased in the incident. The claim against Respondent No.2 is dismissed. 9. It is against the said order; this appeal was preferred by the claimants. 10. Heard Sri K.Srinivas, learned counsel representing learned counsel for the appellants/claimants. No representation on behalf of the Sri D.Bhasker Yadav, Respondents. 11. Sri K.Srinivas, learned counsel representing Sri D.Bhasker Yadav, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that by the time of incident the deceased was travelling in the crime vehicle as owner of the goods, but not as an 5 unauthorized passenger, thereby, there are no violations of condition of Ex.B.1 policy and the insurer of the said vehicle cannot be exonerated from its liability; that the Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim against 2'^'^ respondent, as such, prays to consider the present appeal. Now, the following points arise for determination; “Whether the insurer of the crime vehicle is not liable to pay the compensation to the claimants on the ground of gratuitous passenger? and 2. To what relief? 12. 1. 13. POINT N0.1: There is no dispute about the death of the deceased in the accident; involvement of the crime vehicle, rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle by the 1®' respondent in causing the incident as well the crime vehicle is validly insured with the 2^^ respondent/insurer by the time of incident under Ex.B.1 policy. It is also not in dispute that no appeal was preferred by the 1®' respondent/driver-cum-owner of the crime vehicle against the order of the Tribunal. The only contention of the claimants is that by the time of incident the deceased was travelling in the crime vehicle not as ^atuitous passenger, thereby, the insurer of the crime vehicle is 14. 6 liable to pay compensation and Tribunal claim against the 2"'^ respondent/insurer, respondent under Ex.B.1 policy. It is not the case of the claimants that the accident erred in dismissing the who indemnify the 15. occurred when they were travelling with any goods or by the time of incident the deceased was travelling in the auto with goods loading and unloading coolies. Thereby, the deceased as cannot be called as authorized passenger in the auto by the time of incident. The Tribunal after elaborate consideration of material on record rightly came to conclusion that the deceased is not entitled to travel in the vehicle in question. However, as stated 16. supra, the Ex.B.1 policy issued in respect of the crime vehicle is in force by the time of incident. Now, it is very much relevant to refer the pronouncement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Manuara Khatun v. Rajesh Kumar Singh\ wherein the Apex Court referred and relied on its earlier pronouncement in National Insurance Company Limited v. Saju P.PauF and categorically held at paragraph Nos. 15 and 21 as follows: '(2017) 4 see 796 "(2013) 2 see 41 7 “15.This question also fell for consideration recently in National Insurance Company Limited v. Saju R Paul wherein this Court took note of entire previous case law on the subject mentioned above and examined the question in the context of Section 147 of the Act. While allowing the appeal filed by the Insurance Company by reversing the Judgment of the High Court, it was held on facts that since the victim was travelling in crime vehicle as "gratuitous passenger" and hence, the Insurance Company cannot be held liable to suffer the liability arising out of accident on the strength of the insurance policy. However, 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”. 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 crime 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 \ 8 pay the awarded sum to the appellants (claimants) and then to recover the paid awarded sum from the owner of the crime vehicle (Tata Sumo) Respondent No.1 in execution proceedings arising in this very case as per the law laid down in Para 26 of Saju R Paul’s case quoted supra.” 17. Having regard to the above categorical precedents, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, since it is benevolent legislation, even in the event of gratuitous passenger, 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 the same from the insured/owner/1®* respondent, because stated supra the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle by the 1®* respondent, resulted death of the deceased. recover as 18. Coming to the other contention raised by the insurer is that the 1®* respondent is not authorized to drive the crime vehicle under Ex.X.4 driving license, which was issued to drive the Non Transport LMV. It is not in dispute that the crime vehicle is an LMV Transport vehicle. It is also not in dispute that the crime vehicle is also a light motor vehicle, which unloaded weight does not exceed 7,500 kgs. 9 19. Now it is relevant to refer a pronouncement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.lyyapan v. M/s.United India Insurance Company Limitecf, wherein at paragraph No. 19 categorically observed that “In the instant case, admittedly the driver was holding a valid driving license to drive light motor vehicle. There is no dispute that the motor vehicle in question, by which accident took place, was Mahindra Maxi Cab. Merely because the driver did not get any endorsement in the driving license to drive Mahindra Maxi Cab, which is a light motor vehicle, the High Court has committed grave error of law in holding that the insurer is not liable to pay compensation because the driver was not holding the license to drive the commercial vehicle. The impugned Judgment is, therefore, liable to be set aside.” (emphasis supplied). In the recent Five (5) Bench Judgment by the Apex Court in Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Rambha Devi and Others'^held “1. A driver holding a license for Light Motor Vehicle for vehicles for vehicles underweight 7500 kg is permitted to operate a transport vehicle without needing additional authorization under Section 10(2)(e) of the MV Act. ^ AIR 2013 sc 2262 ^2024 SCO^OaLine SC 3183 A, 10 2. For licensing purposes, LMVs and transport vehicles entirely separate classes. An overlap exists between the two. The special eligibility requirement will however continue to apply to, inter-alia, e-carts, e-rickshaws, and vehicles carrying hazardous goods.3. The second part of Section 3(1), which emphasizes the necessity of a specific requirement to drive transport vehicle, does not supersede the definition of LMV provided in Section 2(21) of the MV Act”. Having regard to the above settled legal position, this Court has no hesitation to say that the contention of the insurer that respondent No.1 is not having valid driving license to drive the crime vehicle by the time of incident is absolutely baseless and untenable. are not 20. 21. It is needless to say that the Tribunal after considering the record rightly calculated the quantum of compensation entitled by the claimants and this Court has reason to interfere with the findings arrived by the Tribunal regarding quantum of compensation entitled by the claimants. Thus, this point is answered accordingly. 22. POINT No.2: material on no 11 In view of the findings on point No.1, the order passed by the Tribunal warrants interference only regarding liability to pay the compensation by the insurer at first instance on the ground of gratuitous passenger and then recover the same from the insured/owner. As such, the appeal preferred by the appellants/claimants are liable to be considered partly. In the result, M.A.C.M.A. is allowed in part by modifying the order to the Tribunal to the extent that the respondent No.2/insurer is directed to pay the awarded sum to the claimants at first instance and then recover the 23. same from the respondent/owner by filing execution petition. The rest of the conditions made in the order of the Tribunal i.e., apportionment of compensation and their entitlement to withdraw the same, shall remained intact. Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- P VINOD KUMAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTIO^FFICER To 1. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District Judge, Kurnool, Kurnool District, (with records if any) 2. One CC to Sri D Bhaskar Yadav, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri Vuppalapati Srinivas Raju, Advocate [OPUC] 4. The Section Officer, V.R Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi. (to dispatch the trial court records) 5. Two CD Copies TK vna HIGH COURT DATED:11/07/2025 JUDGMENT + DECREE MACMA No.419 of 2023 PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA