f .. APHC011421862013 .:i IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI TUESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 117 OF 2025 Between: The United India Insurance Co Ltd, rep by its Divisional Manager, D.O, Papa Saheb Street, R.R Peta, Eluru. ...Appellant/Respondent No.4 AND 1. Jonnala Rajeshwari @ Baby Rajeshwari, W/o.Late Sesharao R/o.Cherukuwada, Undi Mandal, West Godavari District. 2. Jonnala Bhavani, S/o.Late Sesha Rao, 7 years, R/o.Cherukuwada , Undi Mandal, West Godavari District. 24 years. 3. Jonnala Naga Vamsi, S/o.Late Sesharao, 6 years, R/o.Cherukuwada Undi Mandal, West Godavari District. 4. Jonnala Seetha Mahalakshmi W/o.Satyanarayana, 50 R/o.Cherukuwada, Undi Mandal, West Godavari District. years, 5. Jonnala Satyanarayana, S/o.Late Muthyala Rao R/o.Cherukuwada, Undi Mandal, West Godavari District. (R2 & R3 represented by Mother/R1) 55 years. ... Respondents/Claimants 6. Manne Ramarao, S/o.Mari Raju @ Marraju, 55 years, Driver of Tractor and Trailor, R/o.Kalisipudi, Undi Mandal, West Godavari District. ...Respondent/R-1 7. Angara Ramarao, S/o.Gangayya, Major, Owner of Tractor and Trailor, R/o.D.No.1/36, Kalisipudi, 'Undi Mandal, West Godavari District. ...Respondent/R-2 8. M.Satyanarayana, S/o.Not Known, Major, Owner of tractor, C/o.A.Rama Rao, S/o.Gangayya, Kalisipudi, Undi Mandal, West Godavari District. ...Respondent/R-3 (R-6/Driver not necessary in this appeal) Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, against the Order and Decree, dated 20-03-2012 passed in OP.No.663 of 2009, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-ll Additional District Judge, West Godavari District at Eluru. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Order and Decree of the Trial Court and material papers in the petition and upon hearing arguments of Sri Srinivasa Rao Vutia, Advocate for Appellant, and of Sri Siva Sankara Rao Borra, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 5 and none appeared for Respondent No.7. 1. That the MACMA be and the same hereby is allowed in part; 2. That the Order of the Tribunal be and hereby is set aside to the extent of fastening the liability on appellant/lnsurer; 3. That the appellant be and hereby is directed to pay the compensation so awarded to the claimants, with liberty to recover the same from the owner of the tractor; and I 4. That there be no order as to costs in this Appeal. Sd/- P VINOD KUMAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR \,v //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-ll Additional District Judge, West Godavari District at Eluru. 2. Two CD Copies BSV sree HIGH COURT DATED:12/08/2025 DECREE MACWIA NO. 117 OF 2025 ALLOWING THE MACMA IN PART WITHOUT COSTS APHC011421862013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI TUESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN jyiOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 117 OF 2025 Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, against the Order and Decree, dated 20-03-2012 passed in OP.No.663 of 2009 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-ll Additional District Judge, West Godavari District at Eluru. Between: The United India Insurance Co Ltd, rep by its Divisional Manager, D.O, Papa Saheb Street, R.R Peta, Eluru. ...Appellant/Respondent No.4 AND 1. Jonnala Rajeshwari @ Baby Rajeshwari, W/o.Late Sesharao, 24 R/o.Cherukuwada, Undi Mandal, West Godavari District. 2. Jonnala Bhavani, S/o.Late Sesha Rao, 7 years, R/o.Cherukuwada , Undi Mandal, West Godavari District. 3. Jonnala Naga Vamsi, S/o.Late Sesharao, 6 years, R/o.Cherukuwada, Undi Mandal, West Godavari District. 4. Jonnala Seetha Mahalakshmi, R/o.Cherukuwada, Undi Mandal, West Godavari District. years. W/o.Satyanarayana, 50 years. 5. Jonnala Satyanarayana, S/o.Late Muthyala Rao R/o.Cherukuwada, Undi Mandal, West Godavari District. (R2 & R3 represented by Mother/R1) 55 years, ... Respondents/Claimants 6. Manne Ramarao, S/o.Mari Raju @ Marraju, 55 years, Driver of Tractor and Trailor, R/o.Kalisipudi, Undi Mandal, West Godavari District. ...Respondent/R-1 7. Angara Ramarao, S/o.Gangayya, Major, Owner of Tractor and Trailor, R/o.D.No.1/36, Kalisipudi, Undi Mandal, West Godavari District. ...Respondent/R-2 8. M.Satyanarayana, S/o.Not Known, Major, Owner of tractor, C/o.A.Rama Rao, S/o.Gangayya, Kalisipudi, Undi Mandal, West Godavari District. ...Respondent/R-3 (R-6/Driver not necessary in this appeal) jA NO: 2 OF 2013fMACMAMP 1598 OF 2013) Petition filed 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 proceedings including the execution of decree and award dated 20-03-2012 in OP.No.663 of 2009 on the file of MACT-cum-ll Additional District Judge, West Godavari District at Eluru the above Appeal. Counsel for the Appellant: Sri Srinivasa Rao Vutia Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 5:Sri Siva Sankara Rao Counsel for the Respondent No.7:None appeared Counsel for the Respondent No.8:- The Court made the following: pending disposal of Borra APHC011421862013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH ATAMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] TUESDAY,THE TWELFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 117/2025 Between: 1.THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD. REP BY ITS DIVISIONAI MANAGER, D.O, PAPASAHEB STREET.R.R PETA, ELURU. ...APPELLANT AND 1.JONNALA RAJESHWARI BABY RAJESWARI AND 7 ORS, W/0. LATE SESHARAO, 24 YEARS, 2. JONNALA BHAVANI, S/0. LATE SESHA RAO, 7 YEARS, 3.JONNALANAGAVAMSI, S/0. LATE SESHARAO, 6 YEARS, 4. JONNALA SEETHA MAHALAKSHMI, W/0. SATYANARAYANA, 50 YEARS, 5. JONNALA SATYANARAYANA, S/0. LATE MUTHYALA RAO, 55 YEARS. ALL R/0. CHERUKUWADA, UNIDI MANDAL, W.G DISTRICT. 6.MANNE RAMARAO, S/0. MARI RAJU @ MARRAJU, 55 YEARS. DRIVER OF TRACTOR AND TRAIIOR. R/0. KALISIPUDI, UNDI MANDAL, W.G DISTRICT, 7.ANGARA RAMARAO, S/0. GANGAYYA, MAJOR. OWNER OF TRACTOR AND TRAIIOR, R/0. D. NO 1/36, KALISIPUDI,UNDI MANDAL, W.G. DISTRICT. RESP/ R-2 8.M SATYANARAYANA, S/0. NOT KNOWN, MAJOR, OWNER OF TRACTOR C/0. A RAMA RAO,S/0. GANGAYYA, KAIISIPUDI, UNDI MANDAL, W.G. DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be ^ pleased tobegs to prefer this memorandum of appeal being aggrieved by the decree and judgment passed in OP No. 663/2009, dated 20-03-2012, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -cum- MACT Cum II Addl. District Judge, W.G District at Eluru for .the following among other lA NO: 1 OF 2013fMACMAMP 1486 OF 2013 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 condone the delay of 242 days in filing the above MACMA in OP No.663/2009 dated 20.03.2012 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunl cum II Addl.District Judge, West Godavari District at Eluru lA NO: 2 OF 2013(MACMAMP 1598 OF 2013 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 proceedings including the exeuction of decree and award dt. 20-3-2012 in OP.NO.663/2009 on the file of MACT cum II Additional District Judge, W.G.District at Eluru, pending disposal of the above Appeal. lA NO: 2 OF 2015(MACMAMP 33050 OF 2015 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 Counsel for the Appellant: 1. SRINIVASA RAO VUTLA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. SIVA SANKARA RAO BORRA The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: Ii7 OF 2025 JUDGMENT: Insurer preferred present appeal aggrieved by awarding compensation on account of death to the dependents/claimants. The Tribunal by judgment dated 20.03.2012 passed in M.V.O.P. of 2009, awarded compensation of ?5,06,000/- along with at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till No.663 interest realization. The brief facts of the case in a nutshell are as follows; (a) The deceased was sitting beside driver on tractor bearing No.AP 37M 0522 after loading soil in tailor bearing No.AP 37X 4583. The tractor along with trailer proceed to destination, on the due to the rash and negligent driving by driver of tractor in of overtaking RTC bus, both tractor and trailer turned canal, resulting the deceased falling underneath the tractor and sustaining severe injuries. He later succumbed. 2. way. the process turtle into Crime No. 19 of 2018 was registered against driver of for offence under Section 304A IPC and later, on Both tractor and (b) tractor investigation, charge sheet came to be filed. 2 CGR, J MAGMA. No.117of2025 trailer were insured with 4^^ respondent. The deceased claimed to be aged 25 years and was earning as loading and unloading coolie about f3,600/- per month. The deceased wife, two minor children, father and mother instituted present claim under Section 166 of M.V.Act for compensation of f6,00,000/- along with interest. \ (c) Respondents 1 to 3, who are driver of tractor, owner of trailer and tractor respectively remained ex parte. 4**^ respondent Insurance Company filed counter, inter alia, denying the manner in which accident occurred, besides, contending that the deceased was unauthorized passenger on tractor, therefore, it amounted to violation of conditions of policy, liability can be fastened on it. It also disputed the quantum of compensation claimed. Therefore, no (d) In support of the claim, wife of deceased got examined as RW.1, independent eyewitnesses as RWs.2 and 3 and got marked Exs.AI to A6, XI to X3. For respondent insurer, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and marked Exs.BI and B2. (e) The Tribunal based on pleadings and evidence on record, framed following issues: 3 CGR, J MAGMA. No.117 of 2025 1. Whether the deceased - Jonnala Sesha Rao, died on 24.01.2008 in a motor vehicle accident due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor and trailer bearing Nos.AP 37M 0522 and AP 37X 4583, driver by its driver - 1®* respondent? 2. What was the age and income of the deceased? 3. Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents? 4. To what relief? The 1®* issue relating to the negligence came to be decided in favour of claimants based on the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and (f) Exs.AI to A6 that the driver of tractor was responsible for the accident and but for his rash and negligent act, the same could not have occurred. Having come to the said conclusion. Tribunal proceeded to decide the 2"^^ issue of income, though claim made that deceased was earning f3,600/- per month, in the absence of any material to substantiate the same, it had adopted minimum wages as fixed for employment generation programmes of Government of India and assessed f3,000/- per month as Lastly, coming to 3"'^ issue as to who would be responsible for paying the compensation, though 4*'' respondent took stand that as deceased was unauthorized passenger and was earnings. 4 CGR J magma. No. 117 of 2025 that there was clear violation of even and 3, who are owners of tractor policy condition, the Tribunal fastened liability on 4'^ respondent along with respondents 2 and trailer. (g) Assailing the same, present appeal is filed 3. Heard Sri Srinivasa appellant and Sri Siva Hao Vutia, learned Sankar Rao Borra appearing for respondents/claimants. counsel for learned counsel. 4. Learned counsel for appellant mainly assailed the order of Tribunal on the ground of fixing liability. He contended that as the with driver on tractor, the policy and provided for only one seat deceased was sitting along as well as the tractor seat, the same therefore that too driver amounted to violation of no liability could have been conditions of policy, fastened against it. It was only the owner of tractor, who alone is liable to clearly erred in fastening the owner of the tractor and pay compensation. Therefore, the Tribunal liability on insurer also besides trailer. 5- Opposing the aforesaid respondents/claimants travelling along with contention, learned contended that tractor goods carrying vehicle, it cannot be said that i counsel for as deceased was accompanied by trailer, which iIS insurer is not liable 5 CGR, J MAGMA. No. 117 of 2025 for payment of compensation and further, he tried to support the findings recorded by the Tribunal in the impugned order. Perused the record and considered the rival submissions 6. made by both parties. The only issue that falls for consideration before this Court to whether the person travelling in tractor sitting beside driver can be construed to be an unauthorized passenger in breach of policy condition disentitling them to claim compensation against insurer of tractor. 7. IS as In order to answer the said issue, the facts that are not in dispute in the present case need not be noted. As per the claim before Tribunal, it is the case of claimants that on 24.01.2008, the deceased was engaged in loading and unloading of soil into trailer of tractor bearing No.AP 37M 0522. The said trailer was carried by tractor bearing No.AP 37X 4583. After loading the trailer, he sat by the side of driver seat on the tractor and proceeded for delivery of the soil and en route, the accident Even the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3, who are 8. occurred, eyewitnesses also stated that the deceased was sitting by the side of driver on tractor when the incident occurred. Ex.AI - FIR, Ex.A2 - M.V.I. Report, Ex.A4 - Charge Sheet also corroborated 6 CGR, J magma. No.117 of 2025 with the said version, deceased was sitting beside the driver Therefore, it is not in dispute that the on tractor, separately. When the same is \ Tractor and trailer are independent and insured 3dmitted and also the pleaded case of claimants, now it has to be seen whether person who is sitting on the tractor other than driving seat he could be considered on as unauthorized passenger and the same tantamount to violation of policy condition and if so, whether the insurer is to be held liable for paying compensation. 9. The said aspect came to be Shivaraj v. Rajendra and another^ claimant therein driver of tractor, in big mud stone resulting sustaining grievous injuries. He was considered by Apex Court in It was also a case where was a coolie and was travelling in tractor, and the a rash and negligent manner, dashed against in tractor turning turtle and thereby assessed permanent When plea was raised, view that as the claimant therein physical disability to the extent of 60%. the High Court had taken travelled as a passenger, the same condition since the tractor in breach of policy was insured for agricultural was purpose exonerated insurance company from liability for the loss of injuries suffered. The said view came to be reversed by Hon'ble Apex Court and not for carrying goods, therefore to the extent (2018) 10 see 432 7 CGR, J MAGMA. No. 117 of 2025 that the insurance company should pay compensation amount to the appellant/claimant with liberty to recover the same from the tractor owner. Paragraphs 10 and 11 of the said order reads as under; “10. The High Court, however, found in favour of Respondent 2 (insurer) that the appellant travelled in the tractor as a passenger which was in breach of the policy condition, for the tractor was insured for agriculture purposes and not for carrying goods. The evidence on record unambiguously pointed out that neither was any trailer insured nor was any trailer attached to the tractor. Thus, it would follow that the appellant travelled in the tractor as a passenger, even though the tractor could accommodate only one person, namely, the driver. As a result, the Insurance Company (Respondent 2) was not liable for the loss or injuries suffered by the appellant or to indemnify the owner of the tractor. That conclusion reached by the High Court, in our opinion, is unexceptionable in the fact situation of the present case. 11. At the same time, however, in the facts of the present case the High Court ought to have directed the insurance company to pay the compensation amount to the appellant claimant with liberty to recover the same from the tractor owner, in view of the consistent view taken in that regard by this Court in National Insurance Co. I 8 CGR, J MAGMA. No.117of2025 Ltd. V. Swaran Singh^, Mangla Ram V. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.^, Rani v. National Insurance Co. Lfd/and including Manuara Khatun y. Rajesh Kumar Singh^. In other words, the High Court should have allowed the appeal preferred by Respondent 2. The appellant may, therefore, succeed in getting relief of direction to Respondent 2 insurance company to pay the compensation amount to the appellant with liberty recover the same from the tractor owner. Respondent 1.’ partly to 10. Later, yet again in V.Renganathan and Ors. V. The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited and others®, the Hon’ble Apex Court had an occasion to consider similar issue and held in Paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 as under: 5. We find no fault with the finding of the High liable for the payment of compensation in view of the judgment of 3-Judges Bench of this Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Court that the Insurance Company could not be held V. Asha and Ors. reported in MANU/SC/1105/2002 : 2003 (2) SCC 223. However at the same time, we find that in view of the settled position, the High Court ought to have partly allowed the may gainfully refer to the observations of this Court in similar facts at paragraph Nos. 10 and 11 of the judgment of appeal. We ^ (2004) 3 SCC 297 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 733 ... ;pSJsl8icc49I: ^^ • MANU/Scmosoo/I"'^’ ^ 9 CGR, J MAGMA. No. 117 of 2025 this Court in Shivaraj v. Rajendra and Anr. reported in MANU/SC/0945/2018: 2018(10) SCC 432. As already observed, the facts in the present case are similar to the facts in the case of Shivaraj V. Rajendra and Anr. (supra). 6. In the present case also, the High Court ought to have partly allowed the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company and ought to have directed it to pay the amount of compensation to the Appellants and granted liberty to recoverthe same from the tractorowner.” 7. 11. in view of aforesaid judgment and dictum laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court and considering the facts of the present case that the deceased was sitting beside the driver on tractor, which clearly amounted to unauthorized passenger in violation of policy condition, no liability could be fastened on the insurer. However, as held by Hon’ble Apex Court, the insurer has to pay the compensation amount awarded and recover the same from the owner of the tractor. 12. As regards reliability of F.I.R. and charge-sheet and other documents collected by investigating agency in the process of investigation and enquiry into the crimes registered on account of the Motor Accidents Cases, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mangia // 10 CGR, J magma. No.117 of 2025 Ram V. Oriental Insurance Co. documents, in particular charge sheet, pnma facie points towards me drivers compiicity in driving vehicle negligently and rashly even if the accused the same may be of of motor accident Ltd.^ held that aforesaid and were to be acquitted in the criminal cases, no effect on assessment of liability in respect cases by the Tribunal. The said vi be expressed considering the judgment View came to rendered by the Hon’ble V. Joaquim Xavier Crux^ Apex Court in Dulcina Fernandes which held that plea of negligence on the part of driver of offending vehicle decided by the Tribunal as set up by claimants was required to be on the touch stone of preponderance of probability and certainly reasonable doubt. The said vi reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court i Mohammed Shafi^. not by standard of proof beyond view has later been followed and in Mathew Alexander v. Even recently in ICICI Lombard General V. Rajani Saho'o, the Insurance Co. Ltd. judgments has been reiterated. exposition in aforesaid / "(2018) 5 see 656 ®(2013) 10 see 646 ®(2023) 13 see 510 ’“(2025) 2 see 599 11 CGR, J MAGMA. No.117 of 2025 Accordingly, this MAGMA is partly allowed by setting aside the order of the Tribunal to the extent of fastening liability on 13. appellant/insurer, however, the appellant is directed to pay the compensation so awarded to the claimants with liberty to recover the same from the owner of the tractor. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending consideration, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- P VINOD KUMAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-ll Additional District Judge, West Godavari District at Eluru. (With records) 2. One CC to Sri Srinivasa Rao Vutia, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri Siva Sankara Rao Borra, Advocate [OPUC] 4. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court of AP at Amaravati. 5. Two CD Copies BSV sree high court DATED:12/08/2025 JUDGMENT & DECREE MACMA no. 117 OF 2025 5 (I t SEP 2025 Current Section . ^ allowing the MACMA WITHOUT COSTS IN PART