IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI ^0^ MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE fo km PRESENT ^ THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS W ,4 MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 438 OF 2016 Between: United India Insurance Co., Ltd., Pr. Office, Tenali trhough its Regional Office, TP-HUB, Hyderabad rep.by its Manager. ...Appellant/R-3 AND 1. D.Durga Rao, S/o. Andriyya R/o. Gollagudem, S.Apparaopet (H), Agiripalli Mandal, Nizvid, Krishna District. 2. D. Joji Babu, S/o. Surga Rao (Physically handicapped) 3. D.China Bujji, D/o. Durga Rao (R-2 & R-3 here in being minors, rep. by thier father natural guardian, R-1 Here in) R-1 to T-3 herein are R/o Gollagudem, S.Apparaopet (H), Agiripalli Mandal, Nizvid, Krishna District. 4. K.Yesudas, W/o. Kanakambaram, Occ: Driver R/o. Gollagudem Colony (not necessary Party) 5. J.Venkata Rao, S/o. Subba Rao Owner of Tractor AP. 24/G-7345 & Tractor AP, 24/G-7346: D.No. 5-60-Davajigudem: Gannavaram (M), Krishna District. ...Respondents Appeal under Section 173 of M.V.ACT against the Judgment and decree dated 02/03/2016 in OP No. 135/13 (old O.P. 293 of 2009) dt. 21- 10-2014 by the Chairperson, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- XV Addl. Dist. Judge, Vijayawada. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the Suit and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Srinivasa Rao 9 Vutia, Advocate, on behalf of the Appellant and Sri V.V.Satish, for Respondents. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: 1. That the MAGMA be and is hereby dismissed. 2. That there be no order as to copy in this Appeal. Sd/- G. HELA NAIDU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTfON OFFICER To. 1. The Chairperson, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- XV Addl. Dist. Judge, Vijayawada. 2. Two CD Copies RAM / ■S HIGH COURT DATED:20/01/2025 DECREE MACMA.No.438 of 2016 DISMISSING THE MACMA AS WITHDRAWN WITHOUT COSTS '1 ¥ IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI 0?^ MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS '^9 * hS MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 438 OF 2016 Appeal under Section 173 of M.V.ACT against the Judgment and decree dated 02/03/2016 in OP No. 135/13 (old O.P. 293 of 2009) dt. 21- 10-2014 by the Chairperson, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- XV Addl. Dist. Judge, Vijayawada. Between: United India Insurance Co., Ltd., Pr. Office, Tenali trhough its Regional Office, TP-HUB, Hyderabad rep.by its Manager. ...Appellant/R-3 AND D.Durga Rao, S/o. Andriyya R/o. Gollagudem, S.Apparaopet (H), Agiripalli Mandal, Nizvid, Krishna District. D. Joji Babu, S/o. Surga Rao (Physically handicapped) D.China Bujji, D/o. Durga Rao (R-2 & R-3 here in being minors, rep. by thier father natural guardian, R-1 Here in) R-1 to T-3 herein are R/o. Gollagudem, S.Apparaopet (H), Agiripalli Mandal, Nizvid, Krishna District. K.Yesudas, W/o. Kanakambaram, Occ; Driver R/o. Gollagudem Colony (not necessary Party) J.Venkata Rao, S/o. Subba Rao Owner of Tractor AP. 24/G-7345 & Tractor AP, 24/G-7346: D.No. 5-60-Davajigudem: Gannavaram (M), Krishna District. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. ...Respondents Counsel for the Appellant: SRI SRINIVASA RAO VUTLA Counsel for the Respondents: SRI V V SATISH The Court made the following Judgment: i THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS M.A.C.M.A.No.438 of 2016 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed against the order, dated 21.10.2014 passed in M.V.O.P.No.135 of 2013 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XV Additional District Judge, Nuzvid (hereinafter called as ‘the Tribunal’). The appellant is the insurer of a Tractor bearing No.AP 24G 7345 and Trailer bearing No.AP 24G 7346 (hereinafter referred to as “crime vehicle”). Respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein are the claimants, who are the husband, son, and 2. daughter of one D.Manikyam (herein after referred to as the deceased). Respondent No.4 herein is the driver of the crime vehicle and Respondent No.5 herein is the owner of the crime vehicle. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter 3. referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. The case of the claimants, in the petition before the 4. Tribunal is that; On 11.04.2007 at about 2:30 PM, while Respondent No.1 had loaded brick stones onto his truck-cum-trailer bearing 2 '■egistration numbers AP 24G 7345 and AP 24G 7346 and Clieruvu to Gannavaram was proceeding from Brahmalingam Agiripallj-Gannavaram on the road, the deceased and one B. Bhagyam unloading labourers, in a rash and boarded the Respondent No.1 manner and, without trailer loading and drove the vehicle observing the lorry control of the vehicle, roadside the tractor and trailer as negligent approaching from the Consequently, the margin, causing the opposite direction, lost vehicle 'veered to the extreme connecting bolt between to loosen. As the the tractor vehicle jolted over the overturned along with Bhagyam, who injuries. Both Hospital, Chinnaoutpalli, succumbed to his ini be the owner of the was registered intimation, the police IPC. uneven roadside terrain, the brick load. The deceased and B. were seated atop the load, fell off and were shifted ,o Dr. Pinnamaneni for treatment. However sustained Siddhartha the deceased Rama Rao injuries on 13.04.2007. One vehicle, lodged said to a report with the police, which Upon receiving the death of law to Section 304-A as Crime No.87 of 2007. altered the section "■ On to the death compensation of Rs. 3 lakhs of deceased, the claimants against Respondent Nos. claimed 1 to 3. 3 Respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained ex parte. Respondent 5. No.3 filed written statement denying the petition averments and contended that the petitioners have to prove the earning of the deceased and that she worked as loading and unloading coolie who used to travel in tractor-cum-trailer. It is also to establish that the deceased was engaged as coolie by the respondent Nos.1 and 2. The deceased was an unauthorized passenger, so also the other passenger namely B. Bhagyam and that the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 violated the terms and conditions of the policy. The petitioners have to prove that the respondent No.1 had valid driving license at the time of accident and that the vehicle was insured with respondent No.3. No information was received from the police or from respondent Nos.1 and 2 immediately after the accident. The compensation claimed is highly excessive, arbitrary, and unjust, therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed with costs. The Tribunal settled the following issues for enquiry basing 6. on the material: “1. Whether the deceased D.Manikyam died in a motor vehicle accident on 11.04.2007 due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 of Tractor-Trailer bearing No.AP 24G 7345 and AP 24G 7346 as claimed? 4 2. If so, what is the correct age and income of deceased by the date of accident ? Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation as prayed for? If so, from whom and to what amount? 4. To what relief?” 3. During enquiry, on behalf of the claimants, PW.1 examined and got marked Exs.AI to A6. On behalf of the Respondents, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and got marked Ex.B1 and got marked Exs.XI and X2. 7. was 8. On the material, the Tribunal having come to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of driver of Tractor-cum-Trailer held that the petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.2,07,500/- with interest and costs against the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 jointly and severally. 9. It is against the said order the present appeal was preferred by the appellant/Respondent No.3-lnsurer. Heard Sri Vutia Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the appellant/insurer and Sri Y. Nagendra representing Sri V.V.Satish, learned counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3/Claimants. 10. learned counsel 5 11. Now, the only point that arises for determination is “whether the award passed by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside, if so, to what extent?' 12. POINT: It is not in dispute about the death of the deceased in a road accident and that the claimants are awarded compensation of Rs.2,07,500/- and that the claimants did not prefer any appeal for enhancement of compensation. 13. The learned counsel for the appellant/insurer, Sri Vutia Srinivasa Rao, contended that the policy obtained by the owner of the Tractor-Trailer is an “Act Only” policy, and hence, the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation. It was argued that the Tribunal erred in directing the insurer to indemnify the owner. In response, the learned counsel for the claimants submitted that, as per Ex.BI—the insurance policy—an amount of Rs.200/- was paid towards third-party premium for covering loading and unloading workmen. Therefore, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that the insurer has no liability does not merit acceptance. 14. Upon hearing both sides and on perusal of the material on record, it is not in dispute that the accident occurred on 13.04.2007 resulting in the death of one B. Bhagyam. The 6 appellant’s contention that it is not liable to pay compensation the ground that the policy is only an “Act Policy" stands negated by the evidence on record. The insurance company examined Sri K.A. Purnachandra Rao, Assistant Regional Manager, who stated that the policy was an Act policy and that, therefore was not liable. However, during cross-examination, the said witness admitted that the policy was in force as on the date of the accident and that Ex.B1 shows that third-party premium had been paid by the owner of the Tractor-Trailer, establishes that coverage for loading/unloading workers effect. on the insurer This admission was in 15. Further, during cross-examination, R.W.1—the driver of the Tractor-cum-Trailer—admitted that the deceased was engaged as a coolie for loading and unloading purposes. A perusal of Ex.B1 confirms that a specific premium of Rs.200/- was paid by the owner for coverage of such risks. In the present case as additional premium is paid towards coverage of employees engaged in loading and unloading, the insurer is liable to indemnify the insured. Accordingly, this Court holds that the insurance company is liable to pay compensation to the claimants for the death of the deceased in the accident. 7 fNs 16. For these reasons stated above, this Court finds no merits in the appeal, and as such, this Court is of the considered opinion that the award passed by the Tribunal warrants no interference. This point is answered accordingly. 17. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Interim orders granted earlier if any, shall stand vacated. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- G. HELA NAIDU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ^^I^FICER //TRUE COPY// SECTI To, 1. The Chairperson, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- XV Addl. Dist. Judge, Vijayawada, (with records if any) 2. The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. 3. One CC to Sri Srinivasa Rao Vutia, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri V V Satish, Advocafe [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies RAM n HIGH COURT DATED:20/01/2025 JUDGMENT+DECREE MACMA.No.438 of 2016 DISMISSING THE MACMA AS WITHDRAWN WITHOUT COSTS