IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI MONDAY,THE SEVENTHDAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSANDAND TWENTYFIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 89 OF 2022 Between: 1. Bontha Koteswaramma W/o.Late Ramaiah, aged 47 years, R/o.Merigapudi Village, Pbirangipuram Mandal Guntur District (Narasaraopet DMC). 2. Bontha Naga Raju, S/o.Late Ramaiah, aged 31 years, R/o.Merigapudi Village, Phirangipuram Mandal, Guntur District (Narasaraopet DMC). 3. Bontha Eswara Rao, S/o.Late Ramaiah, aged 29 years, R/o.Merigapudi Village, Phirangipuram Mandal. Guntur District (Narasaraopet DMC). 4. Bontha Eswaramma, D/o.Late Ramaih, aged 27 years, R/o.Merigapudi Village, Phirangipuram Mandal, Guntur District (Narasaraopet DMC). ...Petitioners/Appellants AND 1. R.Naga Raju Naik, S/o.Sakru Naik, (Driver of the Auto Rickshaw bearing No.AP 07 W 6337) R/o.D.No.1-424, Merikapudi Village, Phirangipuram Mandal, Guntur District. 2. Reliance General Insurance,, Rep. by its Divisional Manager Near Surya Towers, Near Hotel Kandhari, M.G.Road, Vijayawada -10, Cover note. 200700864367. 9 3. B.Prasad Rao, S/o.Anjaneyjulu (Owner-Cum-Policy Holder of the Auto Rickshaw bearing No. AP 07 W 6337), R/o.D.No. 1-4-122, Chilakaluripet ■ Post and Mandal, Guntur District. v.” ...Respondents/Respondents !■ r ^ A.-' Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the Order, dated 31-12-2009 passed in MVOP No.849 of 2008 by the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IX Additional District Judge (FTC), Guntur. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court and material papers in the petition and upon hearing arguments of Sri R.Sanjeev Reddy, Advocate representing Sri A.Rajendra Babu, Advocate for Appellants, and of Sri N.Ramakrishna, Advocate for Respondent No.2 and none appeared for Respondent No.1. THIS COURTDOTH ORDERAND DECREE: 1. That the MACMA be and the same is hereby allowed in part; 2. That the Order of 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/appellants at first instance, and then recover the same from the 3'*^ respondent/owner by filing execution petition; 3. That the rest of the Order passed by the Tribunal be remain intact; and 4. That there be no order as to costs in this Appeal. SD/- SHAIK MOHD. RAFI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IX Additional District Judge (FTC), Guntur, Guntur District. 2. Two CD Copies t HIGH COURT DATED:07/04/2025 * 02AU6 2n?5 % DECREE 09, Current Section . MACMA.No.89 of 2022 ALLOWING THE MAGMA PARTLY WITHOUT COSTS ■5 •A hA IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA MONDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT the honourable SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS jWOTOR ACCIDENT Civil Migrir, , Appeal filed under Section Order dated 31-12-2009 passed in MVOP No.849 of 2008 by the Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal Guntur. PRADESH AT AMARAVATI OF APRIL appeal NO: 89 OF 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the Motor -cum-IX Additional District Judge (FTC), Between: 1 • Bontha Koteswaramma R/o.Merigapudi Village, (Narasaraopet DMC). 2. Bontha Naga Raju, S/o.Late I Village, Phirangipuram Mandal 3. Bontha Eswara Rao, S/o.Late Village, Phirangipuram Mandal 4. Bontha Eswaramma, r Village, Phirangipuram Mandal, W/o.Late Ramaiah, Phirangipuram Mandal aged 47 years, Guntur District Ramaiah, aged 31 years, R/o.Merigapudi Guntur District (Narasaraopet DMC). Ramaiah, aged 29 years, R/o.Merigapudi Guntur District (Narasaraopet DMC). D/o.Late Ramaih, aged 27 years, R/o.Merigapudi Guntur District (Narasaraopet DMC). ...Petitioners/Appellants AND T R.Naga Raju Naik, bearing No.AP 07 Phirangipuram Mandal, Guntur S/o.Sakru Naik, (Driver of the Auto Rickshaw I Merikapudi Village, W 6337) R/o.D. No. 1-424 District. 2. Reliance General Insurance, Rep. by its Divisional Manager, Neari Surya Towers, Near Hotel Kandhari, M.G.Road, Vijayawada -10, Cover note. 200700864367. 3. B.Prasad Rao, S/o.Anjaneyulu (Owner-Cum-Policy Holder of the Auto Rickshaw bearing No. AP 07 W 6337), R/o.D.No. 1-4-122, Chilakaluripet Post and Mandal, Guntur District. ^ -k ...Respondents/Respondents Counsel for the Appellants: Sri R.Sanjeev Reddy, Advocate representing Sri A.Rajendra Babu Counsel for the Respondent No.1 :None appeared Counsel for the Respondent No.2:Sri N.Ramakrishna Counsel for the Respondent No.3:- The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS M.A.C.M.A.No.89 of 2022 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IX Additional District Judge (FTC) at Guntur (hereinafter called as ‘the Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.849 of 2008 dated 31.12.2009. 2. The appellants, who are wife and children of one Bontha Ramaiah (hereinafter called as “deceased”) are the claimant before the Tribunal. The respondent Nos.l to 3 are the driver. insurer and owner of the Auto Rickshaw bearing No.AP 07W 6337 (hereinafter referred to as “crime auto”) respectively. The case of the claimants, in the petition before the 3. Tribunal is that: i). On 26.04.2008 at about 08.45 a.m., while the deceased was proceeding in the crime auto from Marigapudi to Varagani, when they reached opposite to Venkata Rangam Ginning Mill, Varagani Village, Pedanandipadu Mandal of Guntur District, the 1®^ respondent driven the said auto in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, resulted the auto turned turtle and the deceased received fatal injuries. & 2 While undergoing treatment, on the same day, he was succumbed to injuries, ii). Deceased used to earn Rs.5,000/- per month and contributed the same for the welfare of the family. Being dependents, they claimed compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- against the driver, insurer, and owner of the crime auto. 4. The respondent No. 1/driver filed written denying the averments in the petition and pleaded that the was validly insured with the 2^^ respondent; that this respondent is having valid driving license to drive the crime auto, thereby, this respondent is not liable to compensation to the claimants. The respondent No.2/insurer filed written statement denying the averments in the petition and pleaded that the driver of the crime auto is not having valid driving license to drive the same; that the crime auto is not having valid permit; that the compensation claimed by the claimants is excessive, thereby, prays to dismiss the petition against this respondent. statement crime auto pay any 5. \ ■ 3 the following issues for enquiry The Tribunal settled 6. basing on the material: “1.Whether the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Auto Rickshaw bearing No.AP 07W 6337? entitled for the amount and from which of 2 .Whether the petitioners compensation, if so, what . the respondents? and 3.To what relief?” are behalf of the claimant, PWs.l and 2 exhibited. On behalf of the examined as R.W.l and During enquiry, on examined, Exs.A.l to A.5 were 7. were its official was respondent No.2 Exs.B.l and B.2 were marked. to the material, the Tribunal, having come occurred due to the rash and by the respondent, held entitled for the compensation from the date of On the conclusion that the accident negligent driving of the crime auto that the claimants are 8. of Rs.3,13,000/-, with interest at 8% per annum realization against the respondent Nos.l petition till the date of and 3 only, for the death of the deceased in the accident. The 4 claim against respondent Nos.2 is dismissed due to violation of terms and conditions of Ex.B.l policy. It is against the said award; the present appeal preferred by the appellants/claimants. Heard Sri R.Sanjeev Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri A.Rajendra Babu, appellants/claimants and Sri N.Ramakrishna, learned counsel for the respondent No.2/insurer. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants/claimants is that the Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim against the 2'^'^ respondent/insurer, when Ex.B.l policy is in force by the time of incident, since the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1 respondent. In support of the above contention, he relied the pronouncement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Manuara Khatun v. Rajesh Kumar Singh^. Per contra, learned counsel for the 2^^ respondent/insurer submits that the Tribunal after elaborate 9. was 10. learned counsel for the 11. St upon 12. (2017) 4 see 796 5 consideration of the matter rightly found that there is violation and conditions of Ex.B.l policy by allowing twelve in the crime auto, wherein there is only seating capacity of three plus one, thereby, the present appeal has merits. of terms passengers no the short point that arises for determination is “whether the insurer is liable to pay the compensation amount to the claimants/third parties when there is violation of terms and conditions of Ex.B.l policy?” 14. POINT: The fact of the deceased’s death in the incident, the involvement of the crime auto, and the rash and negligent driving by the 1st respondent in causing the incident are not dispute. The quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is also undisputed. It is further established that the crime vehicle was validly insured with the 2nd respondent/insurer at the time of the accident, as evidenced by Ex.B.l. Additionally, it admitted fact that no appeal was preferred by the driver. 13. Now, in IS an 6 insurer of the crime auto against the findings of the owner, or Tribunal. It is also categorically proved before the Tribunal from the contents of Ex.A.2 charge sheet that there are twelve passengers including driver travelling in the crime auto by the time of incident. It is also not in dispute that as per Ex.B.l policy the seating capacity of the crime auto is three plus one only. Thereby, there is violation of terms and conditions of Ex.B.l 15. policy. Now, it is relevant to refer the categorical observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Manuara Khatun case (referred to supra), by referring and relying pronouncement in National Insurance Company Limited v. Saju P.PauP, at paragraph Nos. 15 and 21 that: 16. on its earlier This Court keeping in view the benevolent 15 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 m 2 (2013) 2 see 41 , 7 the principle of proceedings by applying the same pay and recover. of the 21. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are United India Insurance that the direction to view Company (Respondent No offending vehicle which was 3) - they being the insurer found involved in of its driver needs of the causing accident due to negligence be issued directing them (United India Insurance the awarded to Co. Ltd. Respondent No.3) to first pay appellants (claimants) and then to recover of the offending sum to the paid awarded sum from the owner Sumo) Respondent No.l in the execution the law vehicle (Tata proceedings arising in this very laid down in Para 26 of Saju P. Paul’s case quoted (emphasis supplied) case as per supra. above categorical precedents, in view , since it is benevolent Having regard to the and circumstances of the case and Ex.B.l policy issued in respect of the crime aut be issued 17. of the facts legislation is in force by the time against the insurer of the crime the claimants at first instance insured/owner/3rf respondent, because as of incident, a direction can vehicle to pay the awarded sum to from the 8 supra the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime auto by the l^t respondent/driver, resulted death of the deceased. 18. It is needless to say that the Tribunal by considering material on record rightly calculated and awarded entitled by the claimants, which is not in dispute. In view of the above discussion, the order Tribunal warrants interference only regarding liability the compensation 19. passed by the to pay the compensation by the insurer at first instance and then the same from the recover owner of crime auto. Thus, this point is answered accordingly. 20. In the result, M.A.C.M.A. is allowed in part by modifying the order to the Tribunal No.2/insurer is directed to to the extent that the respondent pay the awarded sum to the claimants/appellants at first instance and then recover the same from the O'-d respondent/owner by filing execution petition. The rest of the order passed by the Tribunal shall remain intact. There shall be no order as to costs. 9 Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, stand closed. SOI- SHAIK MOHD. RAFI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To. 1. The Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accidents Additional District Judge (FTC), Guntur, Guntur District. (With records) ,. 2. One CC to Sri A.Rajendra Babu, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri N.Ramakrishna, Advocate [OPUC] 4. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court of AP at Amaravati. 5. Two CD Copies Claims Tribunal-cum-IX BSV HIGH COURT DATED:07/04/2025 JUDGMENT AND DECREE MACMA.No.89 of 2022 ALLOWING THE MAGMA PARTLY WITHOUT COSTS