( Jts 'P IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARA T-Cm It FRIDAY. THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY-FIVE CO O PRESENT HONOURABLE SWIT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1211 of 2019 Between: Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, Represented by its Branch Manager, Branch Office at No.19-3-13(M), 3^^^ floor, Ranigunta Road, Tirupati, Chittoor District. ...Appellant/2"*' Respondent AND 1. T.Venkatesulu, S/o. Late. T. Bakkaiah, Hindu, aged about 45 years Coolie, Residing at Keelapudi ST Colony, Pichatur Mandal, Chittoor District. 2. T. Govindamma, W/o . T. Venkatesulu, Hindu, aged about 40 years. House wife, residing at Keelapudi ST Colony, Pichatur Mandal, Chittoor District. ...Respondents/Petitioners 3. P.R.Vadivelu Chetty, S/o. Ramadasu Chetty, Age not known to the petitioners. Residing at D.No.t-3, Ramagiri Village and Post, Pichatur Mandal, Chittoor District. ...Respondent/Respondent Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, aggrieved by the judgment and Decree passed in M.V.O.P.No.121 of 2013 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal- cum- IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati, Dated 07*'^ day of November, 2016. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal- Dated 07*^ day of November, 2016. cum- IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati, This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of Petition, the Order and Decree of the Trial Court and the the Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Gudi Srinivasu for the Appellants and of Sri Ch Venkat Raman, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 & 2 and none appeared for Respondent No.3. This Court doth Order and decree as follows: 1. That the appeal be and is hereby disposed of; 2. That the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal hereby confirmed; 3. That the appeal be and is hereby disposed of by directing the appellant/insurance to pay the compensation and then amount from the owner of the vehicle. 4. That there be no order as to costs in this appeal. material papers in Advocate be and is recover the SD/- M.SRINIVAS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER Tribunal- cum- IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati, Chittoor District. 2. Three CD Copies To TK HIGH COURT DATED; 25/04/2025 DECREE MACMA.No.1211 of 2019 § 0 3 JUL 2025 § !70 DISPOSING OF THE MACMA IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAV FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1211 of 2019 Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, aggrieved by the judgment and Decree passed in M.V.O.P.No.121 of 2013 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal- cum- IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati, Dated 07*'' day of November, 2016. Between: Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, Represented by its Branch Manager, Branch Office at No. 19-3-13(M), 3'^* floor, Ranigunta Road, Tirupati, Chittoor District. ...Appellant/2"'* Respondent AND 1. T.Venkatesulu, S/o. Late. T. Bakkaiah, Hindu, aged about 45 years. Coolie, Residing at Keelapudi ST Colony, Pichatur Mandal, Chittoor District. 2. T. Govindamma, W/o . T. Venkatesulu, Hindu, aged about 40 House wife, residing at Keelapudi ST Colony, Pichatur Mandal, Chittoor District. years. ...Respondents/Petitioners 3. P.R.Vadivelu Chetty, S/o. Ramadasu Chetty, Age not known to the petitioners. Residing at D.No.1-3, Ramagiri Village and Post, Pichatur Mandal, Chittoor District. ...Respondent/Respondent lA NO: 2 OF 2019 Petition under Order XLI Rule 5 & under Section 151 of 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 operation of the decree and Judgment in M.V.O.P.No.121 of 2013 on the file of The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati, dated 07**^ day of November, 2016, pending disposal of the main M.A.C.M.A. cum Counsel for the Appellant Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 2: Sri Ch Venkat Raman Counsel for Respondent No.3 The Court made the following: : Sri Gudi Srinivasu : None Appeared APHC010392742019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] ■JZ-W FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1211/2019 Between; Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd ...APPELLANT AND ...RESPONDENT(S) T Venkatesulu and others Counsel for the Appellant; 1.GUDI SRINIVASU Counsel for the Respondent(S); 1.CH VENKAT RAMAN The Court made the following; 2 VS,J MACMANo.1211 of 2019 JUDGMENT; The Insurance Company filed the present appeal against the order and decree 07.11.2016 in M.V.O.P.No.121 of 2013 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati whereby and whereunder the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.5,11,500/- (Rupees Five lakhs eleven thousand five hundred only) to the petitioners/respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein as against the claim of Rs.6,00,000/-, on account of the death of the deceased T.EIumalai in a motor accident that occurred on 23.08.2012. 02. For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is as follows; 03. On 23.08.2012 at about 4.45 a.m., T.EIumalai (deceased), who was working as a coolie under the 1®‘ respondent, was travelling in the Tractor- cum-Trailer bearing Registration Nos.AP 04 S 7479 and AP 04 S 7480, and when the said vehicle reached near Araniyar tank, Keelapudi Village, Pitchatur Mandal, on old Pitchatur-Koppedu road, the driver of the said vehicle drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, without taking due care and caution, as a result of which the said Tractor-cum-Trailer turned turtle and the deceased Elumalai fell down and sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. Seeking compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- for the death of the deceased in the 3 VS,J MACMANo.1211of2019 ’ said accident, the petitioners, who are the parents of the deceased, fiied the claim petition against the owner and insurer of the crime vehicle. Before the Tribunal, the respondent-owner of the vehicle remained 04. ex parte. The 2'^'^ respondent filed counter-affidavit resisting the claim of the 05. petitioners. It was contended that the petitioners are not the original legal-heirs of the deceased and that their relationship with the deceased was invented only to have wrongful gain. It was further contended that the driver who drove the tractor-and-trailer on the date of incident was not having valid driving licence to drive such type of vehicle and there was also no valid permit or fitness certificate to ply the said vehicle and, hence, the respondent-owner of the vehicle alone is liable to pay the compensation. It was further contended that the compensation claimed by the petitioners is highly excessive and exorbitant and hence, it was prayed to dismiss the claim petition. Basing on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for 06. trial; “1. Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of Tractor-cum-Traiier bearing Registration Nos.AP 04 S 7479 and AP 04 S 7480 of respondent by its driver and whether the deceased (T.EIumalai) died due to the injuries sustained in the accident? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitJed to compensation and if so to what amount and from whom? 3. To what relief? 4 VS,J MACMANo.1211 of 2019 On behalf of the petitioners/claimants, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and 07. nd respondent, R.W.s 1 and 2 Exs.AI to A5 were marked. On behalf of the 2 were examined and Ex.B1 was marked. Exs.XI to X4 were also marked. After hearing both parties and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition against respondent Nos.1 and 2, awarding compensation of Rs.5,11,500/- with interest @7% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of deposit and directed respondents No.1 and 2 to deposit the said amount of 08. compensation within one month from the date of the award. The compensation awarded was equally proportioned between the petitioners and they were given liberty to withdraw Rs.1,25,000/- each and the balance amount was directed to be kept in fixed deposit in any Nationalized Bank for a period of two years. Aggrieved by the said award, the respondent No.2/lnsurance Company preferred this appeal contending that the tractor-cum-trailer in which the deceased travelled, was a goods vehicle and the seating capacity of the said vehicle is only one i.e., the driver and despite the same, the deceased 09. travelled in the said vehicle as an unauthorized passenger. Thus, there was violation of the conditions of the policy and as no premium has been paid for any passenger other than the driver, the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation. The quantum of compensation awarded to the petitioners was also questioned on the ground that it is exorbitant and excessive. It is, therefore, prayed to allow the qppeal. 5 VS,j MACMA No.1211 of 2019 On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants/respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein has supported the impugned award and prayed to dismiss the appeal. 10. 11. Though notice was served on the respondent/owner of the offending vehicle, there is no representation on his behalf. 12. Now the point for consideration is; Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference? POINT: 13. The main contention raised by the Insurance Company deceased was an unauthorized is that the passenger of the crime vehicle, which is a goods vehicle, and the seating capacity of the said tractor-cum-trailer is only i.e., the driver and no premium has been paid to cover the risk of any passenger other than the driver and hence, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. one 14. However, it is to be noted that in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh & Ors.,^ the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that if the insurer successfully proves a breach of policy condition, the insurance company may still be directed to pay compensation to the claimants and then recover the amount from the insured (owner of the vehicle). This ensures that the rights of the third-party victim are protected and it was emphasized that insurance policies are statutorily required to protect third parties, and even in ^ (2004) 3 see 297 6 VS,J MACMA No.1211 of 2019 of breach by the insured, the insurer’s liability towards third-party cases victims does not vanish immediately. In the case on hand, the evidence adduced by the claimants before the Tribunal would substantially prove that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tractor-cum-Trailer, wherein the deceased was travelling in the capacity of coolie along with the driver of the said vehicle. In view of the same and in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to supra, the contention of the appellant that it cannot be directed to pay the compensation cannot be accepted. 15. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, it can be seen from the impugned award that P.W.1, mother of the deceased, has categorically deposed that the deceased was working as a coolie and earning not less than Rs.110/- per day. In the absence of specific proof of income, the Tribunal deemed it just and proper to fix the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.100/- per day i.e., 100 X 30 = Rs.3000/- per month, which comes to Rs.36,000/- (3000 X 12) per annum, which, in the opinion of this Court, is proper and needs no interference. As the deceased was a bachelor, aged about 20 years, the Tribunal deducted 50% of his income towards personal expenditure and applying the relevant multiplier of ‘18’ applicable to the age of the petitioner i.e., 20 years as recorded in the post-mortem certificate, arrived at Rs.3,24,000/- as his contribution to his family, and as the deceased was below 40 years old, an addition of 50% of the amount, i.e., Rs.1,62,000/-, was rightly awarded towards future prospects, as per the dpnision of the Hon’ble 16. 7 VS,J MACMA No.1211 of 2019 Apex Court in Sar/a Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation^. Further, the Tribunal awarded Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.500/- towards damage to clothing, Rs.20,000/- towards loss of estate, which totally comes to In all, the compensation Rs.25,500/-, which cannot be found fault with. awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and cannot be said to be excessive or on higher side. This Court finds no error in the order of the Tribunal granting the said compensation to the petitioner. In view of the above discussion, while confirming the quantum of 17. compensation awarded by the Tribunal, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of this appeal by directing the appellant/insurance to pay the compensation and then recover the amount from the owner of the vehicle. With the above direction, this appeal is disposed of. No costs. 18. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- M.SRINIVAS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER 1 • The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal- cum- IV Additional Dktrirt Judge, Tirupati, Chittoor District, (with records if any) 2. One CC to Sri Gudi Srinivasu, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri Ch Venkat Raman, Advocate [OPUC] 4. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court of Andhra Amaravathi. (to dispatch the trial court records) 5. Three CD Copies To Pradesh at TK HIGH COURT DATED; 25/04/2025 JUDGMENT + DECREE MACMA.No.1211 of 2019 S 0 3 JUL 2025 5 DISPOSING OF THE MAGMA