APHC010303152005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) Friday, the Seventeenth day of October Two Thousand and Twenty Five The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Motor Accident Civil Between: The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. P. Suban Basha and another Counsel for the appellant 1. Srinivasa Rao Katakamsetty Counsel for the respondents 1. T.S.Rayalu 2. P.Nagendra Reddy Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No: 1617 of 2005 Between: M/s.United India Insurance Company Ltd Mr. N.Ramasekhara Reddy (died) and others Counsel for the appellant: 1. Gudi Srinivasu Counsel for the respondents: 1. Srinivas Mantha 2. T.S. Rayalu 3. C.Prakash Reddy IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) Friday, the Seventeenth day of October Two Thousand and Twenty Five Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No: 276 of 2005 , United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Kurnool ...Appellant and and another ...Respondents appellant: Srinivasa Rao Katakamsetty respondents: .Nagendra Reddy Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No: 1617 of 2005 M/s.United India Insurance Company Ltd ...Appellant and Mr. N.Ramasekhara Reddy (died) and others ...Respondents appellant: Counsel for the respondents: [3311] Miscellaneous Appeal No: 276 of 2005 Appellant Respondents Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No: 1617 of 2005 ...Appellant ...Respondents 2 M.A.C.M.As.Nos.276 and 1617 of 2005 M.A.C.M.As. Nos. 276 and 1617 of 2005 COMMON JUDGMENT: These appeals M.A.C.M.As.Nos. 276 and 1617 of 2005 are filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the awards and the decrees dated 11.11.2003 in M.V.O.Ps. Nos. 111 and 112 of 2003 respectively on the file of the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – III Additional District Judge, Kurnool, at Nandyal, mainly fastening liability to pay compensation on the insurance company as well in spite of its defence that the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation as the policy of insurance covered six passengers plus one driver, in all, and that all six claims had been settled. 2. M.V.O.Ps.Nos.111, 112 and 132 of 2003 were filed in respect of the same accident. All the claims were mainly opposed by the insurance company on the ground noted above, among other common grounds, such as, negligence of the driver of the insured vehicle, quantum of compensation, etc. On behalf of the insurance company, its officer was examined as R.W.1 and a copy of policy of insurance as Ex.B.1, and C.Cs. of charge sheets as Exs. X.1 and X.2 were marked. But, documentary evidence of settling six claims relating to the same policy was not placed before the Tribunal. The Tribunal observed that though the insurance company contested the claim on the ground that it is liable only for 6+1 and also all such claims were settled, in view of the decision reported in B.V. Nagaraju Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,1; P. Naguru and Anr. Vs. S. Krishnama Raju and Anr.,2; Kannekanti Varamma Vs. Pali Ramakotaiah3; and Sriram Subrahmanyam Vs. 1 1996 ACJ 1178 2 1996 (4) ALT 630 3 1989 (3) ALT 491 3 M.A.C.M.As.Nos.276 and 1617 of 2005 S. Mohammed Riyaz4, the insurance company was made liable though there was breach of condition that there were more number of passengers than permitted at the time of the accident. 3. The appellant / insurance company contended the same before this Court disowning the liability as contested before the Tribunal. Without adducing any documentary evidence or at least giving the specific verifiable particulars, the appellant contends that it is not liable further to indemnify the insured as it had already satisfied six claims in respect of the policy as per which the liability undertaken is limited to six claims. Along with the appeals also, no such evidence or particulars were placed. Though this Court also gave enough opportunity, no such evidence or particulars were placed. It is a futile attempt to challenge the awards on this ground without establishing the ground. That apart, it is also contended that the insured had not followed the terms and conditions of the policy by entrusting the vehicle to a person carrying more number of persons than the permitted capacity of the vehicle. 4. In B.V. Nagaraju, (supra), it was held as follows: “It is plain from the terms of the Insurance Policy that the insured vehicle was entitled to carry 6 workmen, excluding the driver. If those 6 workmen when travelling in the vehicle, are assumed not to have increased any risk from the point of view of the Insurance Company on occurring of an accident, how could those added persons be said to have contributed to the causing of it is the poser, keeping apart the load it was not carrying. Here it is nobody's case that the driver of the insured vehicle was responsible for the accident. In fact, it was not disputed that the oncoming vehicle had collided head-on against 4 2003 (5) ALD 69 4 M.A.C.M.As.Nos.276 and 1617 of 2005 the insured vehicle, which resulted in the damage. Merely by lifting a persons or two, or even three, by the driver or the cleaner of the vehicle, without the knowledge of owner, cannot be said to be such a fundamental breach that the owner should, in all events, be denied indemnification. The misuse of the vehicle was somewhat irregular though, but not so fundamental in nature so as to put an end to the contract, unless some factors existed which, by themselves, had gone to contribute to the causing of the accident. In the instant case, however, we find no such contributory factor." In P. Naguru (supra), the decision in B.V. Nagaraju (supra) was followed with regard to the alleged breach of condition in the policy about the number of persons travelling in the insured vehicle at the time of the accident. In Sriram Subrahmanyam, (supra) claims arose in respect of injuries suffered or death caused when about 18 persons were travelling in a vehicle met with an accident. The Tribunal held that the accident took place due to negligence of the driver of the vehicle. The insurance company pleaded that they are not liable to pay any compensation for violation of policy conditions as there were nearly 18 persons travelling in the mini-bus. The permit allowed carrying of 7 persons only including the driver in the vehicle. The permit Ex. B.2 clearly shows that the vehicle involved in the accident is a contract carriage. It was permitted to ply on all routes in the State of Andhra Pradesh except those prohibited. Following the decision in B.V. Nagaraju, (supra) and other decisions, the defence of the insurance company was rejected. In Kannekanti Varamma, (supra), the defence taken before the Tribunal is that Section 95(2)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 5 M.A.C.M.As.Nos.276 and 1617 of 2005 provides only for carriage of passengers upto six in number and if any passenger is carried in excess thereof, the insurance company is not liable to pay damages for the death of or bodily injury to the victims and that therefore, there arises no liability. It was found as - “2. … It is undoubted that Clause (a) of sub-section (2) of Section 95 provides the entitlement to carry persons not exceeding six in number excluding the driver and the cleaner. The vehicle admittedly carried more than six persons for loading and unloading purpose. In a similar case, in Raghunath v. Sharadahai (AIR 1986 Bombay 38) it was contended that since the vehicle carried persons in excess of the prescribed limit it is a contravention of the insurance policy and that therefore the insurer is absolved of its liability to pay the compensation. While considering that contention, Sawant, J. speaking for the Bench held: ‘It is true that at the relevant time the truck was carrying about 15 to 18 persons in addition to the goods for the carriage of which alone the permit was issued to ply it. However, it must not be lost sight of that under the said Rule 118, even a goods vehicle is permitted to carry persons though upto seven in number. Those persons include the owner or the hirer of the vehicle. The only condition for carrying such persons is that they have to be carried free of charge. Hence even if a vehicle has a permit only for carrying goods, the carrying of persons is not prohibited absolutely. The evidence on record admittedly shows that the passengers in question were the owners of the goods i.e., the hirers of the vehicle. It is nobody's case that they were charged any fare. The only condition of the permit which was breached was that the 6 M.A.C.M.As.Nos.276 and 1617 of 2005 persons in question were in excess of the number permitted, by the Rule. This was a breach of condition of the permit issued for plying the vehicle. The vehicle was however being used essentially for carrying the goods. It cannot therefore be said that the vehicle was, not being used for the purpose for which the permit was issued. A breach of the condition of the permit is not the same thing as a breach of the purpose for which it is issued. The contravention of one of the other conditions of the permit is not a contravention of the purpose for which the permit is issued. There was therefore no contravention either of clause (b)(i)(a) or of (b)(i)(c) of Section 96(2) which clauses alone are and can be pressed into service on behalf of the insurance company.” I respectfully agree with the above ratio which squarely applies to the facts of this case. In similar circumstances, I have also considered and held the same view. Under those circumstances I have no hesitation to hold that merely because more than six persons have been carried while using the vehicle on the public way, for the purpose for which the permit was issued, it cannot be said that there is a contravention of the covenants of the policy though there is a contravention of the conditions of the statute. If there is any contravention of the conditions, it is always open to the other party to take appropriate action, but that would not be a ground for holding that it is a breach of conditions of the contract of policy of the Insurance. Under those circumstances, I hold that Section 96(2) had no application and Section 95(2)(a) does not prohibit the Court to award the amount as damages.’ 7 M.A.C.M.As.Nos.276 and 1617 of 2005 3. It is next contended that it is necessary that every such person should be covered by a policy without which the Insurance Company is not liable. 1 find no force in the contention. It is not the requirement of law that for every person who meets with death or sustains bodily injury must be covered by a policy. Therefore, this contention also is untenable.” In the light of the above decisions, the Tribunal has not committed any illegality to interfere in these appeals. 5. With regard to the quantum of compensation in M.V.O.P. No.111 of 2003 is concerned, it was contended by the appellant that the Tribunal erred in fixing the disability @10% having given a finding that the claimants failed to produce the disability certificate from the medical board and further that the multiplier of 16 was wrongly adopted by the person aged 19 years (boy) and also in fixing the notional income @18,000/- per annum in the absence of evidence. 6. In M.V.O.P. No.111 of 2003, due to partial permanent disability because of one (1) inch shortening of right leg of about 20 years old claimant as a result of the injury suffered in the accident, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.75,800/-, as against the claim of Rs.2,00,000/-. Rs.28,800/- was decided for future loss of income by observing that daily earning can be Rs.50/- and by applying the multiplier method. Without any finding that the nature of the disability results in future loss of earning capacity or actual earnings, the Tribunal cannot apply multiplier method. However, the amount of compensation so calculated is adequate to compensate for the loss of amenities of life and disfigurement of his body. The rest of the amount is for proved medical expenditure and loss of past income for 8 months, during which 8 M.A.C.M.As.Nos.276 and 1617 of 2005 he was under inpatient treatment, on notional assessment. So, the total amount is not high and no need to interfere. 7. With regard to the quantum of compensation in M.V.O.P. No.112 of 2003 is concerned, the injured filed the petition. After examining him as P.W.1, he died on 29.09.2002. The accident was on 27.07.1998. It was contended by the appellant that the Tribunal erred in awarding the whole amount of Rs.12,00,000/- claimed as compensation by the legal representatives of the deceased without proper appreciation of evidence, both as to cause of death and the amount of salary, and also the multiplier adopted by borrowing from the Schedule – II of the M.V.Act,1988. 8. So, it was contended that without filing post mortem report, it cannot be held that the death of the injured was due to the injuries suffered in the accident as he was alive for 4 years after the accident and therefore, the legal representatives are only entitled to amount towards loss of estate. After an elaborate discussion of the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2, 3, 7 and 9 read with Exs.A2 and 6 and Exs.X1 and 2, the Tribunal held that the injured / claimant No.1 / the deceased died of the injuries sustained in the accident. No infirmity in the appreciation of the evidence. 9. In so far as the salary is concerned, the Tribunal noted that as per the salary slip under Ex.A1, the deceased was drawing Rs.5,182/- per month, but as per the evidence of P.W.8 / Head Master who issued another salary slip marked as Ex.A31, the deceased was drawing Rs.8,498/- per month as on August 2002 and took Rs.8,498/- as his income for the purpose of assessing loss by recording its opinion that future prospects are to be added, later 1/3rd of it shall be deducted for personal expenses of the deceased. Initially, the injured was on leave with pay for one and half months and later, without pay till 15.05.1999 9 M.A.C.M.As.Nos.276 and 1617 of 2005 and thereafter also, he could not attend his job till his death. Under these circumstances, the Tribunal awarded Rs.11,55,728/- (67,984 x 17) and proved medical expenses of Rs.1,12,658/-; Rs.15,000/- for loss of consortium to the wife and; Rs.25,000/- for loss of estate and guidance to three minor children. As the total amount of Rs.13,08,386/- exceeded the claim, the Tribunal limited the amount awarded to Rs.12,00,000/-. On any count, the amount awarded by the Tribunal is not high as contended by the appellant. 10. For the above reasons, there is no merit in the appeals. 11. In the result, both the appeals are dismissed. Interim orders granted earlier, if any, in these appeals, shall stand vacated. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in these appeals, shall stand closed. ___________________ B. S. BHANUMATHI, J Dt.17.10.2025 PNV