)r IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. SRINIVAS jyiOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1272 OF 2017 Between: 7R '^y ij? Divisional Manager, Divisional Ann,!;, ^ Garlapati Complex, All Baigh Street, Near Annapurna Theatre, Governorpet, Vijayawada. ...APPELLANT AND 1. Kasireddy Balaguravamma @ Bhagyamma, W/o. Venkata Subba Reddy, Hindu, aged 54 years, R/o Nallapadu Village, Guntur Rural Guntur District. 2. A. Venkata Ramudu, S/o Ramakrishna, aged Major, R/o H No 4-1M Chinna Malkapuram Village, Dhone Mandal, Kurnool District, Kurnool JCJC. (Driver of the lorry bearing No.AP.16.TY.8418) Maddilety, S/o Pedda Ramudu, aged Major, R/o H.No 1/48-1, Cl^nn^a Malkapuram Village, Dhone Mandal, Kurnool District, Kurnool JCJC. (Owner of the lorry bearing No.AP.16.TY.8418) ...RESPONDENTS Appeal under Section 173 of M.V.Act against the Judgment and Decree dated.08.09.2016 in M.V.O.P. No.986 of 2015 on the file of the Court of the Chairperson, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum-IV Addl. District Judge, Guntur. 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 Smt. S.A.V, Ratnam for the Appellant and of Sri G.V.S. Meher Kumar for the Respondent No.1 and Sri K.V.R. Krishna Sharma for Respondent No.3. f The Court doth order and Decree as follows : - 1. That the MAGMA be and is here by Dismissed. 4 2. That there be no order as to costs in this Appeal. 4 -f Sd/- M. SRINIVAS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR V-. v>' //TRUE COPY// SECTI (^^FFICER To, 1. The Chairman MACT -cum- IV Addl. District Judge, Guntur. 2. Three C.D. Copies. Cnr * ■ ' >• HIGH COURT DATED:08/01/2025 DECREE MACWIA.No.1272 of 2017 DISMISSING THE MACMA IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY. THE EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. SRINIVAS MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1272 OF 2017 Appeal under Section 173 of M.V.Act, against the Judgment and Decree dated.08.09.2016 in M.V.O.P. No.986 of 2015 on the file of the Court of the Chairperson, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum-IV Addl. District Judge, Guntur. Between: National Insurance Company Ltd., Rep. by its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, D.No.27-12-76, 2"^ Floor, Garlapati Complex, All Baigh Street, Near Annapurna Theatre, Governorpet, Vijayawada. ...APPELLANT AND Kasireddy Balaguravamma @ Bhagyamma, W/o. Venkata Subba Reddy, Hindu, aged 54 years, R/o Nallapadu Village, Guntur Rural, Guntur District. A. Venkata Ramudu, S/o Ramakrishna, aged Major, R/o H.No.4-1M, Chinna Malkapuram Village, Dhone Mandal, Kurnool District, Kurnool JCJC. (Driver of the lorry bearing No.AP.16.TY.8418) Ottivalla Chinna Maddilety, S/o Pedda Ramudu, aged Major, R/o H.No. I /48-1, Chinna Malkapuram Village, Dhone Mandal, Kurnool District, Kurnool JCJC. (Owner of the lorry bearing No.AP.16.TY.8418) 1. 2. 3. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: SMT. S. A. V. RATNAM Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : SRI G.V.S. MEHER KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : SRI K.V.R. KRISHNA SHARMA The Court made the following Order: 4. J THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS M.A.C.M.A.No.1272 of 2017 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed against the order, dated 08.09.2015 passed in M.V.O.P.No.986 of 2015 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV District Judge, Guntur (hereinafter called as ‘the Tribunal’). The appellant is the insurer of the lorry bearing 2. No. AP 16 TY 8418 (hereinafter referred to as “crime vehicle”). The Respondent No.1 herein is the claimant, who is the wife of the Venkata Subba Reddy (herein after referred to as the deceased). Respondent No.2 herein is the driver of the crime vehicle and Respondent No.3 herein is the owner of the lorry bearing No.AP 16TY 8418. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter 3. referred to as they arrayed before the Tribunal. The case of the claimant, in the petition before the Tribunal 4. is that: The deceased, Vasireddy Venkata Subba Reddy, a resident of Allamvaripalem Village, Phirangipuram Mandal, was engaged in Muta Mastry work for apartment construction on a daily wage basis. On 27.09.2015, at about 4:40 a.m., the deceased, along with another coolie, Veeravally Murali Krishna, commenced their "fc. 2 from their village to Phirangipuram with the intention of journey proceeding to Guntur city. They reached the bus stop and were walking from Sattenapalli Bus Centre towards Gandhi Statue Centre along the left side margin of the road in the direction of Guntur. At approximately 5:00 a.m., after crossing the Sattenapalli Bus Centre, a lorry bearing registration No. AP 16 TY 8418. owned by Respondent No.2 and driven by Respondent No.1, Narasaraopet towards Guntur at high speed. The came from driver drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner without blowing the horn and hit the deceased, Vasireddy Venkata Subba result of the impact, the deceased Reddy, from behind. As a suffered grievous crush injuries from the waist to the head and multiple other injuries, leading to instantaneous death at the later shifted to the Government Hospital scene. His body was Narasaraopet, where a post-mortem examination was conducted, of the said death, the claimant has filed the ii) Arising out present claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- from the respondents. 5. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed written statement denying averments of the petition and further submits that the driver of the crime vehicle is having valid driving license and the crime vehicle was insured with the Respondent No.3 and the said policy the 3 was in force at the time of the accident and hence, the Respondent No.3 is liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. It is further submitted that the compensation claimed by the petitioner is excessive and that the petitioner never made any claim from the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 and sought for dismissal of the petition. 6. Respondent No.3 filed written statement denying the averments of the petition and further submits that the petitioner never made any compensation against the Respondent No.2 either in writing or orally as mentioned in the application and the petitioner is not entitled to any interest and that there was no rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP 16 TY 8418 at the time of the alleged accident. That the driver of the lorry in question has no valid and effective driving license to drive the vehicle and the alleged vehicle has no valid RC, permit, and fitness certificate at the time of the accident which is an infringement of specified conditions of the insurance policy. It is further submitted that the owner of the lorry i.e., Respondent No.2 intentionally and willfully allowed the driver to drove the lorry though the Respondent No.2 is well aware that he is not having valid and effective driving license to drove the lorry and as such the Respondent No.2 violated the terms and conditions of the 4 policy and the provisions of M.V.Act and that the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the deceased and that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and that the compensation claimed by the petitioner is highly excessive and sought for dismissal of the petition. was 7. was 7. The tribunal settled the following issues for enquiry basing on the material: “1. Whether the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP 16 TY 8418? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and against whom? 3. To what relief?" 8. During enquiry, on behalf of the claimant, PWs.1 and 2 are examined and got marked Exs.AI to A5. On behalf of the Respondents, R.Ws.1 and 2 are examined and got marked Exs.BI and B2 and got marked Exs.XI to X6. 9. On considering the material on record, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- to the claimants with interest and costs against the respondents. 10. It is against the said order; the present appeal was preferred by the appellant/Respondent No.3-Insurer.. 5 11. Heard Sri S.A.V.Ratnam, learned counsel for the appellant/insurer and Sri G.V.S.Mehar Kumar, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 1/Claimant. 12. Now, the point that arises for determination is “whether the award passed by the Tribunal is on correct lines are liable to set aside, if so, to what extent?' 13. POINT: It is not in dispute about the death of the deceased in a road accident and that the claimants are entitled for compensation. It is also known that the claimants did not prefer any appeal against the compensation which was awarded for enhancement. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company is that the driver of the crime vehicle had no heavy vehicle driving license but drove the crime vehicle with a light motor vehicle license, which is nothing but violation of the terms and conditions of the policy as per Section 5 of the Motor Vehicles Act, thereby to exonerate the appellant/insurerfrom liability. 14. 6 On the other hand, the learned counsel for Respondent No.1/claimant, Sri G.V.S.Mehar Kumar, submits that the tribunal. 15. After considering all the facts, documents and legal propositions settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court, ordered 16. compensation on recovery basis from the respondent Nos.1 and 2. The order does require any modification. Admittedly, the deceased is a third party and the crime vehicle was insured at the time of the accident which is evident from Ex.BI Policy. May be true, the driver of the crime vehicle lorry bearing No.AP 16 TY 8418 was having only light motor vehicle license, but simply because, he was not having heavy motor vehicle license, the insurance company cannot be absolved as the policy is in force and policy is also insured for the third party also. Furthermore the Motor Vehicles Act and case law settled in K. Vara Lakshmi and others Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited^ Swaran Singh’s case and Manuara Khatun & others Vs. Rajesh Kumar Singh & others^, wherein The Hon’ble Apex Court by following the judgment of coordinate Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Manager, National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Saju RPaul & another^ examined the issue of '2015 ACJ 2232 2 2017(4) see 796 2 2013 (2) see 41 7 «*■' context in Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act and held that the insurer is responsible for paying the claim to the claimant and may then recover the amount from the owner of the crime vehicle Considering the material on record and the facts and 17. circumstances of the case and settled positions, the tribunal rightly directed the compensation from the appellant/insurer and to first pay the award amount to the claimant and then recover the payment from the owner of the crime. Therefore, this Court finds no merits in the appeal preferred by the insurer. Thus viewing from any angle, this Court does not find fault 18. with the conclusion arrived by the Tribunal. Accordingly, this Court is of considered opinion that the award passed by the The point is answered Tribunal warrants no interference. accordingly. There shall be no In the result, the appeal is dismissed. 19. 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/- M. SRINIVAS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Chairman MACT Cum IV AddI records) District Judge, Guntur. (With 2. One CC to Smt. S. A. V. 3. One CC to Sri G.V.S. Ratnam, Advocate [OPUC] Meher Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri K.V.R. Krishna Sharma Advocate [OPUC] High Court of A.P. 5. The Section Officer, V.R. Section 6. Three C.D. Copies. Cnr HIGH COURT DATED:08/01/2025 i 12 AUG 2025 JUDGMENT ^ Current Section . MACMA.No.1272 of 2017 DISMISSING THE MACMA