IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 114 OF 2023 Between: Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Limited., represented by its Manager, Ge Plaza, Airport Road, Yerwada, Pune-411006, Maharashtra State. ...Appellant/Respondent No.2 AND 1. Sapavath @ Sambaavath Balu, S/o.S.Vasthriya, aged 47 years, R/o.4th Lane, Sarada Colony, Guntur City, Guntur District. 2. Sapavath @ Sabhavath Lakshmi, W/o.S.Balu, aged 45 years, R/o.4 Lane, Sarada Colony, Guntur City, Guntur District. th ...Respondents/Petitioners 3. Vadlapalli Srinivasa Reddy, S/o.Said Reddy, aged not known, Sangaram Village, Peddavoora Mandalam, Nalgonda District.(Owner of Tractor bearing No.AP 24 AT 1016 and Trailer No.AP 24 TB 6263). 4. G.Yedukondalu, S/o.Ramulu, E-29, Chinthalpalem, Peddavoora, Nalgonda District. (Driver of the Tractor-Trailer bearing No.AP 24 AT 1016, Trailer No.AP 24 TB 6263). ...Respondents/Respondents 1 and 3 Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the Award and Decree, dated 30-08-2022 passed in MVOP No.681 of 2014 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-lll Additional District Judge, Guntur, Guntur District. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, tt]e Award and Decree of the Trial Court and material papers in the petition and upon hearing arguments of Smt T.V.Sri Devi, Advocate for Appellant, and of Sri K.Rama Krishna Reddy, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 2, and none appeared for Respondent Nos.3 and 4. THIS COURT DOTH ORDER AND 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 appellant/respondent No.2/Insurer be and is hereby directed to pay the awarded sum to the claimants/respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein at first instance, and then recover the same from the owner/insured 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 SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, 1. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-lll Additional District Judge, Guntur, Guntur District. 2. Three CD Copies vna -» HIGH COURT DATED:10/04/2025 DECREE "o A N 9^ MACMA.No.114of 2023 O'! i| «<i JUL 2Cffl mi CO ^s£^SPATC>^ PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS A IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 114 OF 2023 Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the Award and Decree, dated 30-08-2022 passed in MVOP No.681 of 2014 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-lll Additional District Judge, Guntur, Guntur District. Between; Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Limited., represented by its Manager, Ge Plaza, Airport Road, Yerwada, Pune-411006, Maharashtra State. ...Appellant/Respondent No.2 AND 1. Sapavath @ Sambaavath Balu, S/o.S.Vasthriya, aged 47 years, R/o.4 Lane, Sarada Colony, Guntur City, Guntur District. 2. Sapavath @ Sabhavath Lakshmi, W/o.S.Balu, aged 45 years, R/o.4 Lane, Sarada Colony, Guntur City, Guntur District. th ...Respondents/Petitioners 3. Vadlapalli Srinivasa Reddy, S/o.Said Reddy, aged not known, Sangaram Village, Peddavoora Mandalam, Nalgonda District.(Owner of Tractor bearing No.AP 24 AT 1016 and Trailer No.AP 24 TB 6263). S/o.Ramulu, E-29, Chinthalpalem, Nalgonda District. (Driver of the Tractor-Trailer bearing No.AP 24 AT 1016, Trailer No.AP 24 TB 6263). ■ - ff 4. G.Yedukondalu, Peddavoora, ...Respondents/Respondents 1 and 3 lA NO: 3 OF 2023 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 permit the respondent/claimant to withdraw the amount of Rs.5,33,192/- deposited as per the directions of this Court in IA.No.2 of 2023 in MACMA.No.l 14 of 2023. Counsel for the Appellant: SMT. T.V.SRI DEVI Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2:SRI K.RAMA KRISHNA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 & 4:- The Court made the following Judgment: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS r M.A.C.M.A.No.114 of 2023 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-111 Additional District Judge at Guntur (hereinafter called as ‘the Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.681 of 2014 dated 30.08.2022. The appellant is the insurer of the Tractor-cum-Trailer bearing No.AP 24 AT 1016 and AP 24 TB 6263 (hereinafter referred to as “crime vehicle”). The respondent Nos.l and 2, 2. who are parents of one Sapavath @ Sambhavath Muni deceased”), claimants before the (hereinafter called as Tribunal. The respondent Nos.3 and 4 are the owner and driver of the crime vehicle respectively. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter 3. referred to as they arrayed before the tribunal. The case of the claimants, in the petition before the 4. Tribunal is that: i). On 06.03.2014, while the deceased was proceeding on the crime vehicle along with other coolies after loading centering tables and other material, when they reached near ice factory after crossing Hill turning, the driver of the said crime 2 vehicle drove the same in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, resulted the crime vehicle turned turtle, the deceased down in-turn the said deceased and he sustained was shifted to Hill Hospital, declared him as died, ii). The deceased aged about 20 Rs.300/- contributed the and other coolies fell centering tables fell on the severe injuries. Then he where the doctors years used to earn per day by doing coolie works same for the welfare of the family. Being dependents, they claimed and compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- against the of the crime vehicle. owner, insurer and driver The respondent No.2/insurer filed written statement well additional written the petition and pleaded that the 5. as statement denying the averments in respondent driver of the crime vehicle is not holding valid driving license same; that the crime vehicle i to drive the a goods carrying vehicle and IS not meant for passengers, but by the time of incident the deceased was travelling in the crime vehicle as unauthorized passenger, since there is breach of policy conditions, prayed to dismiss the petition against this respondent. The Tribunal settled the following issues for enquiry 6. basing on the material: ‘1.Whether Sabaavathi Muni died in the accident on 06.03.2014 due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the Trailer bearing No.AP 24 TB 6263? 2.Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount, and against whom? and 3.To what relieP” 7. During enquiry, on behalf of the claimants, PWs.l and 2 were examined, Exs.A. 1 to A. 5 were exhibited. On behalf of the respondent No.2, R.Ws.l and 2 were examined and Exs.B.l and X.l to X.4 were marked. 8. 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/3''^ respondent, held that the claimants are entitled for the 4 compensation of Rs.6,33,000/-, with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization against the respondent Nos.l to 3, for the death of the deceased in the accident. 9. It is against the said award; the present appeal preferred by the appellant/insurer. was 10. Heard Smt.T.V.Sri Devi, learned counsel for the appellant/insurer and Sri K.Rama Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.l and 2/claimants. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for 11. the appellant/insurer is that the Tribunal erred in fastened the liability on the insurer when the deceased was travelling in the crime vehicle as unauthorized passenger, since the crime vehicle is meant for only goods carrying, thereby, the 1st respondent/owner violated the terms and conditions of the Ex.B. 1 policy issued in respect of the crime vehicle, as such, prays to consider the present appeal. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the spondent Nos.l and 2/claimants submits that the Tribunal after appreciating the material on record in right perspective to the conclusion that by the date of incident the deceased was travelling in the crime vehicle as coolie, but not unauthorized passenger, thereby, the appellant/insurer is liable to pay compensation to the claimants; that there are no valid grounds urged by the appellant/ insurer to meddle with the well-articulated order of the Tribunal, as such, the 12. re came present appeal has no merits. Now, the short point that arises for determination is whether there is any violation of terms and conditions of the insurer is liable to pay the 13. Ex.B.l policy, if so compensation amount to the claimants/third parties? 14. POINT: It is not in dispute about the death of the deceased in the incident, involvement of crime vehicle, rash and negligent driving of the same by the 3r<i respondent in causing the 6 incident, quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the vehicle was crime validly insured with the 2"^ respondent/insurer by the time of accident under is also a fact that Ex.B.l. It no appeal was preferred by the claimants, owner and driver of the crime vehicle against the findings of the Tribunal. 15. It IS also a fact found from the record by the testimony of R.W.2 coupled with Exs.X.2 to X.4 that the crime vehicle is only meant for goods cariying, but not passengers. Even as per the case of the claimants, while returning to home after attending the work, loading the centring tables and other material trailer, the deceased along with others travelling in the crime vehicle. Thereby, it is categorical from the testimony of P.Ws. 1 and 2 that after completion of work, while they were returning to home, travelling in the crime vehicle the incident occurred. It is not the case of the claimants that the deceased was travelling in the crime vehicle for the in the was purpose of unloading the same at the destination point, as such, he cannot be termed as loading and unloading coolie, authorized passenger in^ the w 7 crime vehicle, even as per the case of the claimants the deceased was travelling in the crime vehicle after completion of work and while returning to home. Therefore, it is categorically proved before the Tribunal that there is violation of terms and conditions of Ex.B. 1 policy issued in respect of the crime vehicle by allowing the passengers in a goods earrying vehicle. Now, it is relevant to refer the categorical observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ShivaraJ v. Rajendra^, which is referred and relied upon by the Apex Court in V.Renganathan v. The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited^, which are as follows: “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 traetor. Thus, it 16. ' AIR 2018 SC 4252 2 Civil Appeal No.7179 of 2022 decided on 11.10.2022 8 would follow that the appellant travelled in the tractor as passenger, even though the tractor could accommodate only driver. one person namely the the Insurance Company (respondent No.2) was not liable for the loss As a result, 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 i that regard by this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Swarna in Singh & Ors.l, Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.2, Rani 85 Ors. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. 86 Ors.3 and including Manuara Khatun Others Vs. Rajesh Kumar Singh And Others.4 other words, the High Court should have and In 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 ). 9 (2004) 3 see 297 2 (2018) 5 See 656 3 2018 (9) SeALE 310 4 (2017) 4 See 796 appellant with liberty to recover the same from the tractor owner (respondent No. 1).” Furthermore, it is pertinent to refer the observation made by the Hon’hie Supreme eourt in Manuara Khatun v. Rajesh Kumar Singh^, by referring and relying on its earlier pronouncement in National Insurance Company Limited v. Saju P.Paut^, at paragraph Nos. 15 and 21 that: 17. 15 This Court keeping in 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 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 3(20^7^,4 300 796 H2013) i S00 41 s. ■ 10 causing accident due to negligence of its driver to be issued directing them (United India Co. Ltd. Respondent No.3) to first pay the awarded sum to the appellants (claimants) and then the paid awarded needs Insurance to recover sum from the owner of the offending No.l in execution very case as per the law 's case quoted (emphasis supplied) vehicle (Tata Sumo) Respondent proceedings arising in this laid down in Para 26 of Saju P. Paul supra. 18. Having regard to the above view of the facts and circumstances of the benevolent legislation and Ex.B.l categorical precedents, in case, since it is policy issued in respect of the crime vehicle is in force by the time of iincident, a against the insurer of the crime direction can be issued vehicle to pay the awarded sum to the claimants at first instance and then recover the insured/owner/1st respondent, because accident occurred only due to the rash and of the crime vehicle by the 3rd death of the deceased. from the same as stated supra the negligent driving respondent/driver, resulted 11 It is needless to say that the Tribunal by following the 19. renowned pronouncements of HonlDle Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation^ and National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay SethP, calculated the compensation entitled by the claimants and awarded just compensation, thereby, this Court has no reason to interfere with the said calculations and conclusion arrived by the Tribunal. In view of the above discussion, the order passed by the 20. Tribunal warrants interference only regarding liability to pay the compensation by the insurer at first instance and then recover the same from the owner of crime vehicle. Thus, this point is answered accordingly. In the result, M.A.C.M.A. is allowed in part by modifying the order to the Tribunal to the extent that the appellant/respondent No.2/insurer is directed to pay the awarded sum to the claimants/respondent Nos.l and 2 21. 5 AIR 2009 Supreme Court 3104 6 2017 (6) ALT 60 (SC) 12 herein at first instance and then recover the same from the owner/insured by filing execution petition. The rest of the order 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 ^SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, 1. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-lll Additional District Judge, Guntur, Guntur District. (With records) 2. One CC to Smt T.V.Sri Devi, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri K.Rama Krishna Reddy. Advocate [OPUC] 4. The Section Officer, V.R Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. 5. Three CD Copies BSV vna 1 HIGH COURT DATED:10/04/2025 JUDGMENT AND DECREE MACMA.No.114 of 2023 PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS