IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAVATI TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF APRIL i TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE I PRESENT ^ THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS jyiOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 63 OF 2022 ( ■m. 5S-. I >■ ■ Between: Limited, Rep. By its Authorised amatory D No.40-1-21-3, 4 Floor Surya towers, Near Hotel Khandari M.O.Road, Vijayawada. ...Appellant/3"'' Respondent AND 1. Anumalasetty Hari Prasad Rao, S/o.Venkateswara Rao, Aged 44 years Hindu, R/o.Near Jandachettu center. Trunk Road, Kavali Town PSN ’ Nellore District. S/o Sreeramulu, Hindu, Aged 30 years, R/o.D.No.3-184 B C.Colony, Chinnarevalli, Balanagar, Mahaboob Nagar District (Driver of lorry bearing No.A.P. 22 TA 5709) ' u’ S/o.fVluthyalu, Aged 40 years, Hindu, R/o.D.No.6-57 2^TA^5709)^^^^^*^^ Nagar District, (Owner of vehicle bearing No. A.P. ...Respondents/Respondents Appeal under Section 173 of M.V.Act, against the Judgment and decree dated 23/08/2021 in M.V.O.P.No.80 of 2016 of the Chairperson, Motor Vehicle Accidents Additional District Judge, Ongole. on the file of the Court Claims Tribunal-cum I This appeal coming on forbearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court papers in the Suit and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Gudi Srinivasa for Sri P. Ramanjaneyulu, Advocate, Nuthalapati Krishna Murthy, for Respondents. and the material on behalf of the Appellant and Sri This Court Doth ORDER and DECREE that the Decree ^ Court be and hereby is confirmed and this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Dismissed and this Court Doth further Order and Decree that there be order as to Costs in this Civil of the Lower IS no Miscellaneous Appeal. Sd/- U. SRIDEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To. Wotor Vehicle Accidents Additional District Judge, Ongoie. 2. Two CD Copies Claims Tribunal-cum-l RAM HIGH COURT DATED:22/04/2025 DECREE ^0 4 JUL 2025 ] MACMA.No.63 of 2022 O DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 63 OF 2022 Appeal under Section 173 of M.V.Act, against the Judgment and decree dated 23/08/2021 in M.V.O.P.No.SO of 2016 on the file of the Court of the Chairperson, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum I Additional District Judge, Ongole. Between: Reliance GeneraS Insurance Company Limited, Rep. By its Authorised Signatory, D.No.40-1-21-3, 4^^ Floor Surya towers. Near Hotel Khandari, M.G.Road, Vijayawada. ...Appellant/3'^^ Respondent AND Anumalasetty Hari Prasad Rao, S/o.Venkateswara Rao, Aged 44 years, Hindu, R/o.Near Jandachettu center, Trunk Road, Kavali Town, PSN Nellore District. Kotia Raju, S/o.Sreeramulu, Hindu, Aged 30 years, R/o.D.No.3-184 , B.C.Colony, Chinnarevalli, Balanagar, Mahaboob Nagar District (Driver of lorry bearing No.A.P. 22 TA 5709) Praveen Jejjayla, S/o.Muthyalu, Aged 40 years, Hindu, R/o.D.No.6-57, Amangal, Mahaboob Nagar District, (Owner of vehicle bearing No A P 22 TA 5709) 1. 2. 3. ...Respondents/Respondents lA NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition 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 grant STAY of all further proceedings pursuant to the decree and Judgment dated the 23"^ day of August, 2021 passed in M.V.O.P.No.80 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum I Additional District Judge, Ongole, including . '.fj^ndini disposal of the main M.A.C.M.A. execution proceedings, Counsel for the Appellant: SRI GUDI SRINIVAS FOR SRI P RAMANJANEYULU Counsel for the Respondents: SRI NUTHALAPATI KRISHNA MURTHY The Court made the following order: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS M.A.C.M.A.No.63 of 2022 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge at Ongole (hereinafter called as ‘the Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.80 of 2016 dated 23.08.2021. 2. The appellant is the insurer of the Mini Lorry bearing No.AP 22 TA 5709 (hereinafter referred to as “crime lorry”). The respondent No.l is the claimant before the Tribunal. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 are the driver and owner of the said crime lorry respectively. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as they arrayed before the tribunal. The case of the claimant, in the petition before the Tribunal is that; 3. 4. i). On 04.09.2015 at about 11.00 a.m., while the claimant proceeding on his motorcycle bearing No.AP 07AJ 1296, when he reached the outskirts of Pelluru Village, the Dt respondent driver of the crime lorry drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motorcycle of the claimant, resulted he sustained grievous injuries all over the body. Then, he 2 was shifted to Sanghamitra Hospital at Ongole, where he underwent surgeries. He also taken BIRDS Hospital at Tirupathi. Due to the said incident, he sustained disability and amount for the treatment taken by him. ii). He claimed compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- against the driver, owner, and insurer of the crime lorry. The respondent No.2/owner of the crime lorry filed was adopted by the Dt respondent/driver, denying the averments in the petition and pleaded that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of claimant, but not Dt respondent; that the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties; that the compensation claimed by the claimant is excessive, thereby, prayed to dismiss the claim against these respondents. 6. The respondent No.3/insurer of the crime lorry filed counter denying the averments in the petition and pleaded that the 1st respondent has no HGV driving license to drive the crime lorry, as such, 2"^ respondent violated the terms and conditions treatment in spent a considerable 5. counter, which the of policy issued in respect of the same; that the crime lorry is having valid permit and fitness; that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the claimant; that the compensation claimed by the claimant is excessive, thereby, prayed to dismiss the claim against this respondent. The Tribunal settled the following issues and additional for enquiry basing on the material: “1.Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in a road accident which took place on 04.09.2015, at 11.00 A.M. at Pelluru outskirts due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of Mini Lorry bearing Registration No.AP 22TA 5709? 2.Whether the driver of the Mini Lorry bearing No.AP 22 TA 5709 is having valid and effective diving license at the time of accident? 3.Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? 4.Whether the petitioner is entitled to the compensation and if so, for what amount and against whom? and 5.To what relief?” During enquiry, on behalf of the claimant, P.Ws.l to 6 were examined, Exs.A.l to A.6 were exhibited. On behalf of the not 7. issues 8. 4 respondent No.3, R.Ws.l and 2 B.3, X.l and X.2 were marked. On the material, conclusion that the accident negligent riding of the 1 were examined and Exs.B.l to 9. the Tribunal, having occurred due to the rash and respondent, held that claimant is come to the entitled for the compensation of Rs. 19,59,324/-, with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization against the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, for the injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident. However, directed the respondent No.3/insurer to pay the said compensation at first instance and then recover of the same from the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. It IS against the said award; the present appeal preferred by the appellant/insurer of the crime lorry. Heard Sri P.Ramanjaneyulu, learned 10. was 11. counsel for the appellant/insurer and Sri Nuthalapati Krishna Murthy, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 /claimant. Now, the point that arise for determination is “whether the Tribunal committed 12. in ordering pay and recovery error 5 against the appellant/insurer in the absenee of valid driving lieense to the driver of the crime lorry, when Ex.B.l policy issued in respect of the crime lorry is in force by the date of incident?' 13. POINT: It is not in dispute that the claimant sustained injuries in the accident, the involvement of the crime lorry, and that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent. The quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and the fact that Ex.B.l policy issued in respect of the crime lorry was in force as on the date of the incident are also not disputed. Furthermore, it is not in dispute that no appeal was preferred by the claimant, the driver, or the owner of the crime lorry against the findings of the Tribunal. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the 14. appellant is that in the absence of valid driving license to the l^t respondent in driving the crime lorry, the Tribunal erred in ordering pay and recovery against the appellant/insurer. i 6 15. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimant submits that the Tribunal after considering the material that on record rightly ordered pay and recovery against the insurer, which requires no interference of this Court. It is an undisputed fact in view of the testimony of R.W.2 coupled with Ex.X.l, it is categorical that the 1st respondent driver of the crime lorry is not possessing valid license to drive the same, thereby, violated the terms of Ex.B. 1 policy. To decide the above point, it is relevant to refer to certain 16. 17. pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, particularly i Shamanna in V. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, wherein it was held that where the driver did not possess a valid driving license and there was a breach of policy conditions, a 'pay and recover' order can be passed in cases involving third-party risks. In light of this, it is our considered view that the High Court ought not to have interfered with the award passed by the Tribunal, which directed the first respondent to pay the compensation and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. It is also 7 required to refer another Three Judge Bench pronouncement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Singh Ram v. Nirmala^, wherein it was categorically held at paragraph Nos.8 and 9 that; “8.In the present case it is necessary to note, as observed by the Tribunal, that the owner did not depose in evidence and stayed away from the witness box. He produced a license which was found to be fake. Another license which he sought to produce had already expired before the accident and was not renewed within the prescribed period. It was renewed well after two years had expired. The appellant as owner had failed to take reasonable care (proposition (vii) of Swaran Singh) (AIR 2004 SC 1531) since he could not have been unmindful of facts which were within his knowledge. 9.In the circumstances, the direction by the Tribunal, confirmed by the High Court, to pay and recover cannot be faulted. The appeal is accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.” 18. Furthermore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Manuara Khatun v. Rajesh Kumar Singh?, by referring and relying 1 AIR 2018 SC 1290 2 (2017) 4 see 796 8 on its earlier pronouncement in Company Limited v. Saju P.PauP, paragraph Nos. 15 and 21 that: National Insurance categorically observed at 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 “pay and recover. principle of 21. In view of the foregoing discussion, view that the direction to United India Company (Respondent No. 3) - they being the i of the offending vehicle which was found involved i: causing accident due to negligence of its driver needs to be issued directing them (United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Respondent No.3) to first pay the awarded sum to the appellants (claimants) and then to the paid awarded sum from the owner of the offending vehicle (Tata Sumo) Respondent No.l in execution proceedings arising in this veiy case as per the law laid down in Para 26 of Saju P. Paul’s case quoted supra. we are of the Insurance insurer in recover (emphasis supplied) 3 (2013) 2 see 41 9 Having regard to the above authoritative precedents 19. and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, since the Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial piece of legislation and the policy issued in respect of the crime lorry was in force at the time of the incident, a direction can be issued against the insurer of the crime lorry to pay the awarded sum to the claimant in the first instance and thereafter recover the same from respondent Nos. 1 and 2 - the driver and the owner of the vehicle. As stated above, the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime lorry by the 1 st respondent, which resulted in the incident. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly ordered 'pay and recover' against the appellant/insurer, which warrants no interference. It is needless to mention that the Tribunal, after 20. considering the material on record, rightly calculated and awarded the compensation to which the claimant is entitled. and the same is not in dispute. my 10 21. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that no valid grounds urged by the appellant to interfere with the findings arrived by the Tribunal in all aspects, as there is no need to disturb the well-articulated order passed by the Tribunal, the appeal preferred by the appellant is liable for dismissal. Thus, the point is answered accordingly. In the result, M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed. There shall be order as to costs. 22. no Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, stand closed. Sd/- U. SRIDEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER ISdifenf’DisWct Tribunal-cum-l 2. One CC to Sri P Ramanjaneyuiu, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri Nuthalapati Krishna Murthy, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies To. RAM \ HIGH COURT DATED;22/04/202S JUDGMENT MACMA.No.63 of 2022 RTAMDgS ^ 0 UUL 2025 )g Tsjcjirrwtsecii^jc, DISMISSING THE MAGMA WITHOUT COSTS