IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAV WEDNESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 39 OF 2022 Between: 1. Dasari Anjamma, W/o.Late Venkatarao, aged about 46 years R/o.Pernamitta, Santhanuthalapadu Mandal, Prakasam District. 2. Dasari @ Kurala Prasanna, W/o.Venkata Subbarao, aged about 29 years, D/o.(Late) Venkatarao, R/o.Gundlapalli, Maddipadu Mandal, Prakasam District. 3. Dasari @ Choppara Prathima, W/o.Nagar Raju, aged about 27 years, D/o.Late Venkatarao, R/o.Yetukuru Donka, 4th Line, Gandhi Nagar, Guntur Town and District. ...Appellants/Petitioners No.1 to 3. AND 1. Vallepu Anjaneyulu, S/o.Venkateswarlu, aged about 37 years, R/o.Pernamitta, Santhanuthalapadu Mandal, Prakasam District. (Driver of Tractor A.P 27 N 5356 and Trailor 5357) 1 V aged about 51 years, Santhanuthalapdu Mandal, Prakasam District (Owner Venkatarao, S/o.Subbarao, 2. Tanneru R/o.Pernamitta, of Tractor A.P 27 N 5356 and Trailor 5357) ERGO General Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by its Manager, 6th Floor, Leela Business Part, Andheri Kural Road, Andheri (East), No.231820055356 1900 000, Valid from 3. HDFC Mumbai-400059, (Policy 02-08-2013 to 01-08-2014) ...Respondents/Respondents Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, praying that the High Court may be pleased to allow this MAGMA and set aside the Order and Decree, dated 02-01-2019 passed in OP No.47 of 2014 on the file of VII Additional District Judge Court, Ongole, Prakasam District. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Award and Decree petition and upon Appeliants, and of Sri N.Madhava Rao, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri Gudi Srinivasu, Advocate for Respondent No.3. of the Trial Court and material papers in the hearing arguments of Sri P.Pavan Kumar, Advocate for THIS COURT DOTH ORDER AND DECREE: MAGMA be and the same is hereby allowed in part; 1. That the 2. That the Order of the Tribunal be and is hereby modified to the extent that the respondent No.3/lnsurer be and is hereby directed to pay the the ciaimants/appellants at first instance, and then awarded sum to recover the same from the 2 respondent/owner by filing execution nd petition; 3. That the rest of the Order passed by the Tribunal be remain intact. and f 4. That there be no order as to costs in this Appeal. Sd/- SHAIK MOHD. RAFI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, 1. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VII Additional District Judge, Prakasam District at Ongole. 2. Three CD Copies vna 1 HIGH COURT DATED:09/04/2025 DECREE MACMA.No.39 of 2022 01 JUL 2025 I sj^uiTontSectiQO^' m PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS II. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 39 OF 2022 Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, praying that the High Court may be pleased to allow this MAGMA and set aside the Order and Decree, dated 02-01-2019 passed in OP No.47 of 2014 on the file of VII Additional District Judge Court, Ongole, Prakasam District. Between: 1. Dasari Anjamma, W/o.Late Venkatarao, aged about 46 years, R/o.Pernamitta, Santhanuthalapadu Mandal, Prakasam District. 2. Dasari @ Kurala Prasanna, W/o.Venkata Subbarao, aged about 29 years, D/o.(Late) Venkatarao, R/o.Gundlapalli, Maddipadu Mandal, Prakasam District. 3. Dasari @ Choppara Prathima, W/o.Nagar Raju, aged about 27 years, D/o.Late Venkatarao, R/o.Yetukuru Donka, 4th Line, Gandhi Nagar, Guntur Town and District. ...Appellants/Petitioners No.1 to 3. AND 1. Vallepu Anjaneyulu, S/o.Venkateswarlu, aged about 37 years, R/o.Pernamitta, Santhanuthalapadu Mandal, Prakasam District. (Driver of Tractor A.P 27 N 5356 and Trailor 5357) Tanneru Venkatarao, S/o.Subbarao, aged about 51 years, R/o.Pernamitta, Santhanuthalapdu Mandal, Prakasam District (Owner of Tractor A.P 27 N 5356 and Trailor 5357) 2. HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by its Manager, 6th Floor, Leela Business Part, Andheri Kural Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400059, (Policy No.231820055356 1900 000, Valid from 02-08-2013 to 01-08-2014) 3. ...Respondents/Respondents Counsel for the Appellants: Sri Pavan Kumar Pasupuleti Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2:Sri N.Madhava Rao Counsel for the Respondent No.3:Sri Gudi Srinivasu The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS M.A.C.M.A.No.39 of 2022 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order of the Chairman Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Vll Additional District Judge at Ongole (hereinafter called as ‘the Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.47 of 2014 dated 02.01.2019. The appellants, who are wife and daughters of one Dasari 2. Venkata Rao (hereinafter called as “deceased”) are the claimants before the Tribunal. The respondent Nos.l to 3 are the driver, owner and insurer of the Tractor-cum-Trailer bearing No.AP 27N 5356 and AP 27N 5357 (hereinafter referred to as “crime vehicle”) respectively. The case of the claimants, in the petition before the 3. Tribunal is that: i). On 11.09.2023 at about 04.30 p.m., while the deceased along with others proceeding in the crime vehicle for immersion of Ganesh idol, when they reached near Buckingham canal, Ongole-Kothapatnam road, the driver of the crime vehicle driven the same in a rash and negligent manner, due to ups and own of the trailer, the deceased fell down, sustained multiple injuries and died on the spot. 2 ii). Deceased used to earn Rs. 12,000/- per month as painter and contributed the same for the welfare of the family. Being dependents, they claimed of Rs.7,00,000/- against the driver, of the crime vehicle. compensation owner and insurer 4. The respondent No.3/insurer filed written statement denying the averments in the petition and pleaded that the crime vehicle is a goods carriage meant for carrying goods, but not passengers; that the seating capacity of the crime vehicle is only one i.e., driver; that the respondent Nos.l and 2 should not allow the deceased to proceed in the crime vehicle as passenger; since there is breach of policy conditions, prayed to dismiss the petition against this respondent. 5. The Tribunal settled the following issues for basing on the material: enquiry 1.Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Tractor AP 27N 5356 and Trailer AP 27N 5357 to the petitioner is accident was occurred at about on 11.09.2013 at 16.30 hours Its near 3 Buckingham canal, Ongole-Kothapatnam Road due to the rash and negligent driving of the Respondent? 2. Whether the Petitioners are entitled for any compensation? If so, to what amount and from whim? and 3.To what relief?” During enquiry, on behalf of the claimants, PWs.l and 2 examined, Exs.A.l to A.5 were exhibited. On behalf of the respondent No.3, R.Ws.l and 2 were examined and Exs.B.l and X. 1 to X.3 were marked. On the material, the Tribunal,, having come to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle by its driver/1 respondent, held that the claimants are entitled for the compensation of Rs.6,70,000/-, with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization against the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 only, for the death of the deceased in the accident. The claim against respondent No.3 is dismissed due to violation of terms and conditions of Ex.B.l policy. 6. were 7. St 4 8. It is against the said award; the preferred by the appellants/claimants. Heard Sri P. Pavan present appeal was 9. Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants and Sri for the respondent No.3/insurer The only contention Gudi Srinivasu, learned counsel 10. raised by the learned counsel for the appellants/claimants is that the Tribunal erred i the claim dismissing in against the 3='^ respondent/insurer, when Ex.B.l force by the time of incident, since the accident occurred due to the rash respondent. In policy is in and negligent driving of the 1st support of the above contention, he relied the pronouncements of Hon’ble Rajendra\ V.Renganathan upon Supreme Court in ShivaraJ v. V. The Branch Manager, United and Manuara Khatun v. India Insurance Company Limited^ Rajesh Kumar Singh^. 11. Per contra, learned counsel for the submits that the Tribunal after 3rd respondent/insurer elaborate consideration of the Mir 2018 SC 4252 on 11.10.2022 5 matter rightly found that there is violation of terms and conditions of Ex.B.l policy by allowing the deceased as passenger in the crime vehicle, wherein there is no seating capacity for the passengers, thereby, the present appeal has no merits. Now, the short point that arises for determination is 12. 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?’ 13. POINT: It is not in dispute about the death of the deceased in the incident, involvement of crime vehicle, rash and negligent respondent in causing the driving of the same by the 1 incident, quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, St the the crime vehicle was validly insured with respondent/insurer by the time of accident under Ex.B.l. It is also a fact that no appeal was preferred by the driver, owner and insurer of the crime vehicle against the findings of the Tribunal. / 6 14. It IS also categorically proved before the Tribunal from testimony of R.W.2 coupled with Exs.X.2 and X.3 extracts of crime vehicle that the the B-Register crime vehicle has seating capacity of one i.e., driver only and it is not meant for carrying passengers, thereby, the respondent No.2/owner violated the terms and conditions of Ex.B. 1 policy issued in respect of the crime vehicle by allowing the deceased to travel in the crime vehicle by the date of incident. 15. Now, it is relevant to refer the categorical observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ShivaraJ case (referred to supra), which is referred and relied upon by the Apex Court in V.Renganathan case (referred to supra), which are follows; as “9. The High Court, however, found in favour of respondent No.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 7 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 No.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. 10. 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 claimant (appellant) 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. Ltd. Vs. Swarna Singh 86 Ors.l, Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.2, Rani 86 Ors. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. 86 Ors.3 and including Manuara Khatun and Others Vs. Rajesh Kumar Singh And Others.4 In other words, the High Court should have partly allowed the appeal preferred by the respondent No.2. The appellant may, therefore, succeed in getting relief of direction to respondent No.2 Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount to the 1 8 (2004) 3 see 297 2 (2018) 5 See 656 SCALE 310 4 (2017) 4 SCC liberty to recover the (respondent No.l).” Furthermore, it is pertinent to refer the observation made by the Honhle Supreme Court in Manuara Khatun (referred to supra), by referring pronouncement in National Insurance Saju P.Paut^, at paragraph Nos. 15 and 3 2018 (9) 796 appellant with same from the tractor owner 16. case and relying on its earlier Company Limited V. 21 that: 15 This Court keeping i 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 in 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 offending vehicle which was found involved in causing accident due to negligence of its driver needs U2013)2SCC41 9 be issued directing them (United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Respondent No.3) to first pay the awarded sum to to the appellants (claimants) and then to recover the paid awarded sum from the owner of the offending vehicle (Tata Sumo) Respondent No.l m execution per the law proceedings arising in this very case laid down in Para 26 of Saju P. Paul’s case quoted as (emphasis supplied) supra. Having regard to the above categorical precedents since it is benevolent respect of the crime direction can be vehicle to pay the m view 17. of the facts and circumstances of the case legislation and Ex.B.l policy issued in vehicle is in force by the time of incident, a issued against the insurer of the crime the claimants at first instance and then recover awarded sum to from the insured/owner/2'^'^ respondent, because accident occurred only due to the rash and by the as the same stated supra the 1st vehicle the crime negligent driving of respondent/driver, resulted death of the deceased, that the Tribunal by considering the It is needless to say record rightly calculated and awarded compensation entitled by the claimants, which is not in dispute. 18. material on 10 19. In view of the above discussion, Tribunal warrants interference compensation by the insurer at first i the same from the answered accordingly. the order passed by the only regarding liability to pay the - instance and then owner of crime vehicle. Thus, this point is recover 20. In the result, M.A.C.M.A. is allowed i the order to the Tribunal No.3/insurer is directed to claimants/appellants same from the 2^^^ petition. The rest of the order part by modifying m to the extent that the respondent pay the awarded at first instance and then sum to the recover the respondent/owner by filing execution passed by the Tribunal shall remain intact. There shall be no order as to costs. Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, stand closed. Sd/- SHAIK MOHD. RAFI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VII Additional District Judge, Prakasam District at Ongole. (With records) 2. One CC to Sri Pavan Kumar Pasupuleti, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri N.Madhava Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri Gudi Srinivasu, Advocate [OPUC] 5. The Section Officer, V.R Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. 6. Three CD Copies BSV HIGH COURT DATED:09/04/2025 JUDGMENT AND DECREE STANoa? MACMA.No.39 of 2022 if 01 JUL 2025 GO «2\ PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS