IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI MONDAY ,THE FIFTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 151 OF 2019 Between: Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd., Rep. by its Manager Legal, 5th floor, Anjaneya towers, Labipet, Vijayawada ...APPELLANT(S) AND 1. M. Radhakriahnaiah,S/o.Ramaswamy,Aged 45 years,residing at Gunapadu village , chittamuru mandal, Nellore District. 2. M.Chengamma, W/o.Radhakrishnaiah,Aged 40 years,residing at Gunapadu village, Chittamuru mandal, Nellore Dist 3. M.Venkata ramanamma, D/o.Radhakrisnaiah,Aged 15 years,residing at Gunapadu village, Chittamuru mandal, Nellore K.seshu reddy,S/o.Raghava Reddy R/o. Venkannapalem, Vidya Nagar^ Kota Mandal, Nellore District. 4. ...RESPONDENTS Appeal filed under Section173 of M.V.Act praying that the High Court may be pleased to Memorandum of grounds of MA Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against the decree and order passed on 20.09.2018 in MVOP. 572/2014 by the Motor Accidents claims tribunal cum VII Additional District and sessions judge, Gudur, Nellore. Appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the Memorandum of Appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the lower Court and the material evidence on record and upon hearing the arguments of Ms.S.Pranathi for the Appellant and Sri T.D. Phani Kumar for the Respondent No.ltoS and appeared for respondent 4. none This Court doth order and decree as follows: (i) That the appeal is be and hereby dismissed. That there shall be no order as to costs. (ii) SDI- K KASI RAO ACHARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Chairman Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gudur, Nellore District. 2. Three CD Copies YM 4 ^ If HIGH COURT DATED;05/05/2025 DECREE MACMA.No.151 of 2019 THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL IS DISMISSED IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI MONDAY .THE FIFTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 151 OF 2019 Appeal filed under Sectiont73 of M.V.Act praying that the High Court may be pleased to Memorandum of grounds of MA Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against the decree and order passed on 20.09.2018 in MVOP. 572/2014 by the Motor Accidents claims tribunal cum VII Additional District and sessions judge, Gudur, Nellore Between: ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd., Rep. by its Manager, Legal, 5th floor, Anjaneya towers, Labipet, Vijayawada ...APPELLANT(S) AND 1. M. Radhakriahnaiah,S/o.Ramaswamy,Aged 45 years,residing at Gunapadu village , chittamuru mandat, Nellore District. 2. M.Chengamma, W/o.Radhakrishnaiah,Aged40 years,residing at Gunapadu village, Chittamuru mandal, Nellore Dist 3. M.Venkata ramanamma, D/o.Radhakrisnaiah,Aged 15 years,residing at Gunapadu village, Chittamuru mandal, Nellore 4. K.seshu reddy.S/o.Raghava Reddy R/o. Venkan.napalem, Vidya Nagar, Kota Mandal, Nellore District. '• '-S' ...RESPONDENTS lA NO: 2 OF 2019 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 stay the execution of award dated 20.09.2018 in MVOP. 572 of 2014 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum motor accidents claim tribunal cum VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gudur, Nellore Dist Counsel for the Appellant(s):Ms. S PRANATHI Counsel for the Respondents: Sri. T D PANI KUMAR The Court made the following Judgment: 1 APHC010069002019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] MONDAY ,THE FIFTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 151 OF 2019 Between: ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. ...APPELLANT AND M. Radhakriahnaiah and Others ...RESPONDENT{S) Counsel for the Appellant: 1.S PRANATHI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.TDPANI KUMAR 2.CH NAGAMEHAR BABA The Court made the following Judgment:- This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, (in short ‘M.V.Act’), has been filed by the appellant/ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited (in short ‘Insurance Company’), challenging the Award, dated 20.09.2018, passed in M.V.O.P.No.572 of 2014 on the file the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gudur, SPSR Nellore District (in short ‘the Tribunal) wherein learned Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs. 4,83,600/- to the 2 2 petitioner as against the claim of Rs. 5,00,000/- for the death of deceased that occurred in motor accident. 2. The Appellant/ Insurance Company herein is the 2"^ respondent, the respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein are the claimants and 4*^ respondent herein is 1®^ respondent before the Tribunal. 3. For the sake of convenience, both the parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the claim application. 4. The brief facts of the case are as follows: On 30.07.2007 the driver of JCB and Manikala Srinivasulu (hereinafter referred as ‘deceased’) took the vehicle to demolish the water tank situated at Panchayat Office, Kota. At 12.50 hours the driver of JCB while demolishing the tank drover the JCB in a rash and negligent manner and without taking precautions demolished the tank due to which the tank suddenly fell on the JCB Cabin. On observing the same, the driver escaped from the cabin door and the deceased, the assistant operator got crushed in the cabin and died on the spot. A case in Crime No. 67 of 2007 has been registered under Section 304-A IPC against the driver of the JCB. 5. Respondent No.2-lnsurance Company filed a detailed counter and opposed the claim of the claimants and submitted that at the time of payment of premium the 1®* respondent gave cheque and obtained policy. Soon after issuance of cheque the respondent presented the same for 3 realization, which was dishonoured. The claim is subject to realization of cheque amount only. As per the terms of agreement the amount was not realized. Hence, the policy issued to the 1 St respondent stands automatically cancelled. The JCB was not insured with respondent/ Insurance company as on the date of accident. The driver of the JCB was not having valid driving license as on the date of accident. Hence, the 2'’'^ respondent is not liable to pay compensation. 6. Respondent No. 1-driver of the ambulance also filed counter contending that the driver of the JCB was possessing valid driving license as on the date of accident. The JCB was also duly insured with 2'^'^ respondent under Policy No.30G8/50922217/00/000 valid from 29.12.2006 to 28.12.2007. The liability of this respondent if any has to be indemnified by 2"'^ respondent as the vehicle was validly insured with the 2"^^ respondent as on the date of accident. 7. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues and additional issues for consideration: 1. Whether the claimants are entitled for compensation ? 2. Whether the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the JCB bearing No. AP 27 L 1890? 3. To what relief? Additional issues: 1. Whether the 2"^ respondenf^paid Rs. 9,89,750/- (wrong mentioned as 9,89,750/- instead^99,750/-) under a cheque i 4 St No. 939391, dated 05.04.2008 drawn on ICICI Bank to the 1 respondent towards vehicle damages in pursuance of Policy No. 3008/50922217/00/000 under claim No. MOT00745783? 2. In pursuance of damages of Rs- 99,750/- paid by the respondent to the 1^^ respondent, the question of realization of cheque, balance in his account and bouncing are not relevant to the present case? 3. Whether the 1^^ respondent has insured his vehicle JCB bearing No. AP 27 L 1890 with the respondent insurance Co., Ltd? 4. Whether the 2P^ respondent insurance company has issued a cheque bearing No. 939391, dated 05.04.2008 for Rs. 99,750/- to the 1^^ respondent towards damages caused to his vehicle bearing No. AP 27 L 1890 in the accident?” 5. Whether the cheque issued by the respondent is realized or not/ 6. Whether the 1^^ respondent paid the premium after bouncing of the cheque before the date of accident to the 2''^ respondent? 7. Whether the 1^^ respondent was having balance in his account as on the date of issuance of cheque? 8. On behalf of the claimants, PWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.M to A4 were got marked. On behalf of the respondents, RWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.BI to B9 were marked. 9. The Tribunal having observed that the 2"'^ respondent is liable to pay the compensation and he cannot escape from the liability on the ground that the cheque issued by the 1®* respondent was bounced. Accordingly, an Award was passed granting an amount of Rs. 4,83,600/-, to the petitioners. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant/lnsuran ce Company preferred this appeal. 5 10. Heard Sri Rahul, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/lnsurance Company and Sri T.D.Phani Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri Ch. Naga Mehar baba, learned counsel for the 4*'^ respondent. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant/lnsurance Company contends that the Tribunal below erroneously granted excess compensation to the claimants. The Tribunal below, without observing the fact that the policy issued to the offending vehicle was not in force as on the date of accident i.e 30.07.2007, as it automatically stands cancelled due to dishonor of the cheque. The 4*^ respondent has obtained a fresh Policy covering risk from 24.08.2007 to 23.08.2008, which the court below is not looked into. The trial court totally ignored Ex.B3 and B4 and erred in concluding that QD is paid and settled under first policy obtained by the insured (that was in force from 29.12.2006 to 28.12.2007 - Policy No. 3008/ 559222217/00/000) though it is categorically mentioned in Ex.B4 that OD is settled under P.No.3008/553106588/00/000) and as such, he prays to allow the appeal filed by the appellant/lnsurance Company by setting aside the award passed by the Tribunal. 12. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents contends that the JCB No. AP 27 L 1890 owned by 1®* respondent was validly insured with the Appellant/ Insurance company, as such the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation. 6 13. Now, this Court has to see as to whether the award of the Tribunal below awarding compensation of Rs. 4,83,600/-, is on reasonable basis. 14. It is the contention of the Appellant/ Insurance company that the cheque issued by the 1®* respondent was bounced. Admittedly, the petitioner paid the premium amount under two cheques, bearing No. 284451 for R. 4,650/- and another cheque bearing No. 731990 for Rs. 10,957/-. Further, insurance policy Ex.BI for the period from 29.12.2006 to 28.12.2007 has been issued by the Appellant/ Insurance company. But the Appellant contended that one of the cheques issued by the 1®* respondent for Rs. 4,650/- was returned, due to insufficient funds. Therefore, policy is not in force and that the Appellant is not liable to pay any compensation, which is not tenable. 15. The owner of the vehicle i.e 1®* respondent was examined as RW-1, who deposed that the JCB is validly insured with the Appellant under Policy Ex.BI and it is also evidence of RW-1 that the appellant/ Insurance company has also paid a sum of Rs. 99,750/- by way of cheque bearing No. 939391, dated 05.04.2008 towards damage caused due to the JCB in the said accident. It is also evidence of RW-2, who is none other than the Manager of the Appellant/ Insurance Company that the company issued policy to the crime vehicle on 30.12.2006 by covering insurance from 29.12.2006 to 28.12.2007 under the policy cited supra by receiving premium by way of cheque subject to realization. 7 16. Duly considering the said facts, the learned Tribunal has held that admittedly the petitioner paid the premium amount under two cheques bearing No. 284451 for Rs. 4,650/- and another cheque for Rs. 10,957/- vide bearing No. 731990. The Appellant/ Insurance company after receiving the premium amount had issued insurance policy Ex.BI for the period from 29.12.2006 to 28.12.2007. 17. The case of the Respondent No.2 is that one of the two cheques issued by the respondents was returned due to insufficient funds was not considered by learned tribunal on the ground that it is the duty cast upon the 2"*^ respondent to inform about bouncing of cheque to the 1®^ respondent/ owner of the vehicle, so as to give an opportunity to pay the said amount. 18. In the present case, a notice was also not issued by the Appellant/ Insurance company to the 1®* respondent / owner of the vehicle informing about the bouncing of the cheque. It is also an admitted fact that Appellant / Insurance company did not serve any notice to 1®' respondent/ owner of the vehicle. Moreover, no cheque return memo was filed by Appellant/ 2"'^ respondent to substantiate his contention that one of the cheques was bounced, the other cheque was honoured. The Appellant/ Insurance company has taken a plea that because of bouncing of the subsequent cheque the policy automatically gets cancelled cannot be accepted as Appellant/ Insuranse^company and ought to have intimated the fact of bouncing the cheque to the 1®* respondent. Since, the 7 8 Appellant/ Insurance company has failed to produce the cheque return memo, the learned Tribunal after considering the statement of account of Ex.B2 filed by the 2^^ respondent has came to conclusion that there is sufficient amount available in the account of 1®* respondent even by 08.02.2007, as such question of bouncing of cheque due to the insufficient funds as on the date of accident does not arise. As such, learned Tribunal has given a finding that in such a case, the 1 respondent was not given fair opportunity even otherwise to pay the amount. The contention raised by the 1®* respondent with regard to cancellation of the police on the ground that the cheque issued by the 1 respondent was bounced was not considered by learned tribunal and further liability was fixed on the 2"^ respondent. St St 19. Having regard to the above and on perusal of the Award passed by the learned Tribunal, this Court is of the considered opinion that the amount of Rs.4,83,600/- awarded by the Tribunal reasonable basis and is sustainable under law, therefore, this Court opined that interference against the Award passed by the learned Tribunal is unwarranted. vyas on 20. Accordingly, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. \ 9 As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. / SDt- K KASI RAO ACHARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR / //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum VII Additional 1. The Chairman District and Sessions Judge, Gudur, Nellore District 2. One CC to Ms. S Pranathi .Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri. T D Pani Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Three CD Copies YM ■ r-'- HIGH COURT DATED:05/05/2025 JUDGMENT+DECREE MACMA.No.151 of 2019 THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL IS DISMISSED