APHC010403262005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Thursday, the thirtieth day of October, two thousand and twenty five The Honourable Between: The Oriental Insurance Company Limited and D.Parvathi and others Counsel for the appellant: 1. S. A. V. Ratnam Counsel for the respondent 1. K. Asad Ahamed 2. Srinivas Dammalapati The Court made the IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) the thirtieth day of October, two thousand and twenty five Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi M.A.C.M.A. No.485 of 2005 The Oriental Insurance Company Limited thers ...Respondents ppellant: espondents: Asad Ahamed Srinivas Dammalapati The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3311] the thirtieth day of October, two thousand and twenty five Bhanumathi ...Appellant Respondents 2 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.485 of 2005 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award and the decree, dated 14.09.2024, in M.O.P.No.1261 of 2000 before the Chairman of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- III Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam. 2. The appellant is the respondent No.4 before the Tribunal, the respondents Nos.1 to 5 are the claimants, and the respondents Nos.6 to 9 are the respondents Nos.1 to 3 and 5 before the Tribunal. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are arrayed as before the Tribunal. 3. The claimants filed petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- for the death of D.Sivaji in an accident. 4. The case of the claimant, in brief, is as follows: On 22.09.1999, the deceased was going on a scooter as pillion rider. When the scooter reached Gajuwaka junction, a tractor-trailer bearing No. 2650 and AAV 7275 respectively, coming from behind, hit the scooter. As a result, the deceased fell down and was ran over by the trailer and he died on the spot. The tractor-trailer further dashed the motor cyclist resulting in his death and finally, the tractor-trailer dashed iron grill barricade and turned turtle. The SHO, Gajuwaka Police station registered a case in Cr.No.127 of 1999 under Section 304-A and 337 of I.P.C. against the respondent No.1 who was driving the tractor-trailer. 5. The respondents Nos.1 to 3 and 5 remained ex-parte. The respondent No.4, insurer of the trailer, contested the claim, mainly stating that the accident occurred as the tractor ran over the deceased and therefore, being insurer of the trailer alone, the respondent No.4 is 3 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.485 of 2005 not liable. The claimants relied on the documentary evidence relating to criminal case and also oral evidence of P.W.1, who is said to be eye witness to the accident and a resident of Gajuwaka. The insurance company contended that the evidence of P.W.2 is not reliable as he had not been shown as witness in the charge sheet. Rejecting the contention of the insurance company, the Tribunal believed the evidence of P.W.2, who stated that the deceased had been run over by the tires of the trailer. By referring to the decision in Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Smt. Harbans Kaur and others1, wherein it was held that merely because a witness was not examined by the police or cited by the police in the charge sheet, his evidence cannot be thrown out, the tribunal considered the evidence of P.W.2. In addition thereto, the Tribunal referred to the contents of the Ex.A.1 / F.I.R. wherein it was mentioned that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent No.1 and the tractor-trailer ran over the deceased. On cumulative reading of the evidence of P.W.2 and Ex.A1 (sic.), the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor-trailer i.e., the respondent No.1 and the deceased died due to such rash and negligence. Accordingly, the Tribunal fastened the liability to pay compensation of Rs.1,87,000/- with interest and costs against the respondents Nos.1 to 4. 6. Aggrieved by the award and the decree, this appeal was filed by the respondent No.4, mainly contending that it is not liable to pay compensation as was contended before the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the finding of the Tribunal that the accident was caused as the deceased had been run over by the tractor and trailer is erroneous and the Tribunal ought to have held that the 1 1983 ACJ 110 4 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.485 of 2005 deceased had been run over by the tractor alone. She further submitted that the evidence of P.W.2 is unbelievable. She further submitted that as the accident was not caused due to the involvement of the trailer which was insured by the appellant, no liability can be fastened. In this regard, she placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the Dhondubai Vs. Hanmantappa Bandappa Gandigude2 wherein it was held that it is a settled law that when tractor and trailer are involved in an accident, as both vehicles are required to be insured, the liability of the insurance company which insured only the tractor cannot be fastened liability in respect of the involvement of trailer, however, by exercising jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Brij Mohan and Ors3, the insurance company was directed to pay the amount and recover from the owner of the vehicle. 7. In spite of giving ample opportunity, since there is no representation for the respondents, the appeal is decided after hearing the arguments of the appellant. 8. The main contention of the appellant is that the deceased received fatal injuries as the tractor ran over him and not the wheel of the trailer which was insured by the appellant. It is a fact which shall be decided basing on the evidence on record. The eyewitnesses examined by the claimants categorically stated that the wheel of the trailer had run over the deceased and there is no contra evidence placed by the insurance company either by calling the driver of the tractor-trailer as a witness or by any other means by which the credibility of the evidence of P.W.2 is shaken. As rightly observed by the Tribunal, 2 Civil Appeal Nos.5459-5460 of 2023, dated 28.08.2023: 2023 SCC OnLIne SC 2387 3 (2007) 7 SCC 56 5 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.485 of 2005 merely because P.W.2 is not a witness stated in the charge sheet, his evidence is not rendered suspicious even otherwise remains credit worthy. Thus, the Tribunal rightly believed the evidence of P.W.2 as per whose evidence, the vehicle insured by the appellant caused fatal injuries. Therefore, the liability of the appellant cannot be disowned. 9. The Tribunal ought to have been more specific that the deceased was run over by the trailer instead of using broad expression “tractor trailer”. However, in view of the foregoing discussion, it cannot be the sole ground to set aside the award and decree. 10. Though in the grounds of appeal, it was contended that the owner of the trailer was indemnified under the policy only if the trailer was used along with the tractor bearing No.ABP 3252, but used it along with the tractor bearing No.APL 2650 and so, there is no liability on the part of the insurance company, since no such point was raised before the Tribunal and moreover, it is found that the fatal injuries were received by use of the insured vehicle / trailer, there is no merit in the said contention. 11. The quantum of compensation has not been challenged in any of the grounds of appeal. Moreover, the Tribunal, after properly appreciating the evidence on record, granted adequate amount of compensation. The rate of interest is also just and reasonable. As such, there is no merit in the appeal. 12. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ B.S.BHANUMATHI, J 30-10-2025 RSD / RAR