APHC010026371999 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) Tuesday, the Fifth day of August The Honourable Ms.Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Between: New India Assurance Co. Ltd., and Alluru Sanjeevarayudu and Counsel for the appellant: 1. Naresh Byrapaneni Counsel for the respondent Nil . The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed 1988, against the award and M.V.O.P.No.109 of 1997 Accidents Claims Tribunal 02. The appellant is the respondent No.2. The respondents No.1 and 2 are the petitioners / claimants. Respondent No.3 is the respondent No.1 before the Tribunal. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) Tuesday, the Fifth day of August, Two Thousand and Twenty Present The Honourable Ms.Justice B.S.Bhanumathi C.M.A.No.575 of 1999 India Assurance Co. Ltd., ...Appellant Alluru Sanjeevarayudu and others ...Respondents ppellant: aresh Byrapaneni espondents: The Court made the following: is filed under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles award and the decree dated 23.06.1 7 on the file of the Court of the Motor Vehicles cidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Cuddapah. The appellant is the respondent No.2. The respondents No.1 and 2 are the petitioners / claimants. Respondent No.3 is the respondent No.1 before the Tribunal. [3311] wenty Five ppellant espondents ehicles Act, 1998 in Vehicles The appellant is the respondent No.2. The respondents No.1 and 2 are the petitioners / claimants. Respondent No.3 is the respondent 2 BSB,J C.M.A.No.575 of 1999 03. The case of the claimants is briefly, as follows: The claimants filed the petition under section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act in respect of the death of Alluru Sanjeevarayudu who died in accident occurred on 15.08.1996 while travelling on tractor bearing No. AP 04 T 0575 and trailer bearing No.AP OUT -0576. 04. The claimants filed another application under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act in respect of the death of the same party, vide M.V.O.P.No. 108 of 1997 before the same Tribunal. 05. M.V.O.P.No.109 of 1997 filed under section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act was decided on 23.06.1998 awarding compensation of Rs.50,000/- payable by the respondents No.1 and 2 jointly and severally together with interest @ 12 % p.a., from the date of petition till the date of payment. 06. M.V.O.P.No.108 of 1997 filed under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act was decided on 27.08.2001 holding that the claimants are entitled to a total amount of compensation of Rs.1,24,000/-, since already claimed compensation of amount of Rs.50,000/- under section 140 of the M.V.Act, an amount of Rs.74,000/- with proportionate costs and interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization was ordered. 07. Aggrieved by the award in M.V.O.P.No.109 of 1997, this appeal vide C.M.A.No.575 of 1999 was filed. 08. Aggrieved by the award and decree dated 27.08.2001 in M.V.O.P.No.108 of 1997, M.A.C.M.A.No.1794 of 2006 was filed. 3 BSB,J C.M.A.No.575 of 1999 09. Heard Sri P.L.V.S.Prasad, the learned counsel representing the learned counsel for the appellant. 10. Both the appeals were not tagged together. As such, M.A.C.M.A.No.1794 of 2006 was heard and decided on 17.07.2025 holding that the Insurance Company is not liable as the deceased was travelling on the mud guard of the tractor and the policy does not cover risk to the person travelling on the tractor as the seating capacity of the tractor was one only. Further, since the insurance company / appellant deposited half of the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and the claimants were permitted to withdraw the same, without furnishing any security as the appellant was found not liable to pay compensation, the appellant was permitted to recover the amount from the insured without filing any separate suit, by filing the proceedings in execution. The respondents / claimants were held to be entitled to recover the balance amount of half of the compensation from the owner of the tractor. 11. In M.A.C.M.A.No.1794 of 2006, the respondents No.1 and 2 / claimants were represented by an advocate and order was passed on merits. However, in the present appeal, though notices were served on the respondents No.1 and 2 / claimants they have not appeared, the respondent No.3 is not a necessary party. 12. In view of the order passed in M.A.C.M.A.No.1794 of 2006 on merits after hearing the respondents / claimants, since legal aspect involved in both the appeals is one and the same, this appeal is also decided holding the same view. 13. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in terms of the order in M.A.C.M.A.No.1794 of 2006 dated 17.07.2025. 4 BSB,J C.M.A.No.575 of 1999 As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the appeal shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI Date: 05.08.2025 GRL 5 BSB,J C.M.A.No.575 of 1999 261 HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI M.A.C.M.A.No:575 of 1999 Date: 05.08.2025 GRL