APHC011349732007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] Thursday, the Eleventh Day of September Two Thousand and Twenty Five Present The Honourable Ms.Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No: 881 of 2025 Between: Bale Sanjeevigari Sanjeeva Karna ...Appellant and N.Ramalakshumma and another ...Respondents Counsel for the appellant: 1. D.Kodandarami Reddy Counsel for the respondents: 1. Raja Sekhar.P The Court made the following Judgment: 1. This appeal was filed under section 173 of M.V. Act, against the award and the decree dated 04.07.2007 in M.V.O.P.No.508 of 2001 on the file of Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum- II Additional District Judge, Kadapa, Proddatur. 2. The appellant is the claimant and the respondents are the respondents before the Tribunal. 2 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.881 of 2025 3. The case of the claimant, in brief, is as follows: On 07.06.1999 at about 2.30 p.m., while he was travelling along with others in a jeep bearing No. AP 16 K 7010, as its driver drove it in rash and negligent manner, the jeep turned turtle and fell into a pit. As a result, the claimant suffered multiple injuries. He took treatment in a hospital at Kadapa for three months and spent more than Rs.20,000/- He was working in a factory earning Rs.3,000/- p.m. He claimed compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- with interest. 4. The respondent No.1 remained ex parte. The respondent No.2 filed a written statement opposing the claim and further contending that the jeep could not be used for transportation of passengers i.e., for commercial purpose. Further, quantum of compensation claimed under different heads was also disputed as excessive and further stated that the claimant suffered simple injuries. His income was also denied and stated that he was earning Rs.40/- per day. 5. On behalf of the claimant, he himself was examined as P.W.1 (B.S.Karna) and P.W.2 (Dr.G.Venkata Subbaiah) were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.6 (Ex.A.1, attested copy of F.I.R., Ex.A.2, attested copy of wound certificate, Ex.A.3, medical bills, Ex.A.4, disability certificate, Ex.A.5, copy of charge sheet, Ex.A.6, medical certificate) were marked. On behalf of the respondent No.2, R.W.1 (S.Allabakash) was examined and Ex.B.1 (copy of policy) was marked. 6. The Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.25,000/- with proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 7.5 % p.a. from 03.01.2001 i.e., date of restoration of the petition till the date of realization payable by the respondent No.1 only. The claim against the respondent No.2 was dismissed without costs. 3 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.881 of 2025 7. Aggrieved by the same, this appeal was preferred. Notice to the respondent No.1 was dispensed with as she remained ex parte before the Tribunal. The respondent No.2 opposed the appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal erroneously dismissed the claim against the respondent No.2 inspite of observation that premium was paid for the passengers. Insofar as quantum of compensation is concerned, he submitted that the Tribunal ought to have granted high amount of compensation for medical expenses which had been duly established by filing bills for more than Rs.52,000/-, as the claimant examined the doctor who treated him as P.W.2, instead of declining the amount with the observation that without the prescription of the doctor, the bills cannot be totally relied upon. He further submitted that the amount of compensation granted for loss of earnings and disability is less. 8. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submitted that vehicle cannot be used for commercial purpose though premium collected for passengers and that the Tribunal had rightly observed that the jeep had been hired for attending meeting and thereby use of the vehicle was against the terms and conditions of the policy. He further submitted that if this Court is inclined to fasten the liability on the insurance company, ‘pay and recovery’ may be ordered. 9. Evidence establishes that the jeep was hired; that the claimant was travelling in the jeep as such; that it is an admitted fact that premium was paid for passenger; and that as per terms and conditions of the policy, vehicle cannot be used for commercial purpose. Under these circumstances, it is established that it was only a breach of the policy. In such a case, the insurance company can be made liable to pay the claimant compensation amount and later recover it from the insured. As such, the appeal against the respondent No.2 can be allowed making it liable to pay compensation to the claimant and recover the same from the insured. 4 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.881 of 2025 10. Insofar as the amount of compensation is concerned, since the claimant filed mere bills for amount of Rs.52,000/- without corresponding prescriptions, as per the observation of the Tribunal, the claim for such expenses was declined. But, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.5,000/- only for medical expenses. 11. In view of the proof of the injuries suffered by the claimant, such as laceration on the upper lip, contusion on the left side of the fore head and fracture of nasal bone for which treatment was taken, in the light of the evidence of P.W.2, medical expenses shown to the extent of Rs.52,000/- is considered as payable. The rest of the compensation amount granted by the Tribunal does not require any interference. 12. Thus, the appeal is partly allowed by enhancing amount of compensation from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.72,000/- with interest at the rate granted by the Tribunal and for the period from the date of the petition till the date of realization and with proportionate costs payable to the claimant with a direction to the respondent No.2 to first pay amount of compensation to the claimant and then recover same from the respondent No.1 without filing any separate suit. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI Date : 11.09.2025 RSD 5 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.881 of 2025 20 The Honourable Ms Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No: 881 of 2025 Date: 11.09.2025 RSD