APHC011391982016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN MOTOR ACCIDENTS CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.271 of 2023 Between: 1. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, MAIN ROAD, KAKINADA. ...APPELLANT AND 1. KOVVURI BHUVANA, W/o.LATE K.SATYANARAYANA, 28 YRS. 2. KOWURI VEERA LAKSHMI, D/O.LATE K.SATYANARAYANA, 5 YRS., 3. KOVVURI NAGAMANI, W/O.SAMABASIVAREDDY, 50 YRS., R-2 BEING MINOR REP. BY R-1/MOTHER. ALL ARE R/O.D.NO.1-138/2, MANDAVARI VEEDHI, G.MAMIDALA VILLAGE, PEDAPUDI MANDAL, E.G.DIST. 4. KARRI VENKATA REDDY, S/O. K.SATYANARAYANA REDDY, 40 YRS., TRACTOR OWNER, D.NO.16-57, LAXMINARASAPURAM, G.MAMIDALA VILLAGE, PEDAPUDI MANDAL, E.G.DIST. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Appellant: 1. SRINIVASA RAO VUTLA 2 CGR,J M.A.C.M.A.No.271 of 2023 Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. The Court made the following: 3 CGR,J M.A.C.M.A.No.271 of 2023 J U D G M E N T: The present Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, „the Act‟), assailing the judgment and decree dated 18.08.2015 passed in M.V.O.P.No.67 of 2012 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge‟s Court, East Godavari District, Kakinada. 2. Parties will be referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal, for the sake of convenience. 3. Brief facts of the case are as follows: (i) This is a case of death and claim has been instituted by wife, minor daughter and mother of late Kovvuri Satyanarayana Reddy (hereinafter referred to as „deceased‟), under Section 163-A of the Act, claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- along with interest, on account of death of the deceased in a motor accident occurred on 18.11.2010. By the impugned judgment, the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.4,62,000/- to the claimants, along with costs and interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization. (ii) The deceased was stated to be driver of tractor. On the fateful day i.e., on 18.11.2010, he was proceeding on tractor and 4 CGR,J M.A.C.M.A.No.271 of 2023 trailer with load of paddy from G. Mamidada Village to Sirus Overseas Private Limited Company, and when the vehicle reached the destination, due to uneven road, the tractor and trailer turned turtle, as a result of which the deceased fell down and the tractor wheel ran over his head, resulting in his instantaneous death. The incident was reported to police and Crime No.363 of 2010 was registered for offence under Section 304-A I.P.C. The deceased was stated to be aged 29 years and earning Rs.6,000/- per month. Accordingly, the claim has been instituted. (iii) The 1st respondent is the owner of the tractor-trailer. He filed counter, admitting the occurrence of the accident, however, he denied the liability. It was stated that the 1st respondent had insured both tractor and trailer with the 2nd respondent. (iv) The 2nd respondent filed written statement, denying the manner in which the accident occurred. It was pleaded that the accident occurred due to negligence of the deceased himself while driving the tractor and that the compensation claimed was highly excessive. It was also contended that both tractor and trailer were not insured with the 2nd respondent. (v) Based on the aforesaid pleadings, the Tribunal framed following issues: 5 CGR,J M.A.C.M.A.No.271 of 2023 “1. Whether the accident occurred in the manner stated in the petition by using the Tractor bearing registration No.AP 5M 4175 along with trailer bearing No.AP 5 TU 9328, resulting the death of the deceased? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? 3. To what relief?” (vi) On behalf of claimants, the 1st claimant i.e., the deceased‟s wife and an eye-witness to the incident were examined as P.Ws.1 and 2 respectively and Exs.A1 to A4 & Ex.X1 were marked. On behalf of respondents, owner of the tractor, an officer of insurer and also an officer from Transport Department were examined as R.Ws.1 to 3 respectively and Ex.B1-insurance policy was marked. (vii) The Tribunal, after assessing both oral and documentary evidence on record, has come to conclusion that the accident has occurred while the deceased was proceeding on tractor along with trailer and that though the insurer has taken a stand that the deceased did not possess valid driving licence, in the absence of any evidence in that regard, the Tribunal concluded that the said plea has not been conclusively established. Taking into consideration the age of the deceased as 29 years, as shown in postmortem certificate, and assessing the income of deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month, and also 6 CGR,J M.A.C.M.A.No.271 of 2023 considering the amounts to be awarded under conventional heads, the Tribunal has determined the total compensation to be Rs.4,62,000/-, payable with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. (viii) Assailing the same, the present appeal is preferred by the insurer. 4. Heard Sri Srinivasa Rao Vutla, learned counsel for appellant. Despite service of notice on respondents/claimants, none appears for them. 5. Learned counsel for appellant contended that the Tribunal has miserably failed to appreciate that the deceased did not possess valid and effective driving licence, which amounted to violation of policy conditions and, hence, it ought not to have fastened liability on the appellant. He further contended that only the trailer was insured but not the tractor and as the accident has occurred on account of tractor running over the deceased, no liability ought to have been fastened on the appellant/insurer. 6. The point that arises for consideration in the present appeal is - “Whether the finding of the Tribunal, fastening liability on the appellant-insurer to pay compensation to the claimants for the death of the deceased, suffers from any perversity, thereby warranting interference in this appeal?” 7 CGR,J M.A.C.M.A.No.271 of 2023 7. The claimants have claimed that the accident occurred on 18.11.2010 while the deceased was proceeding on tractor along with trailer loaded with paddy, to deliver the same at Sirus Overseas Private Limited Company. Due to uneven condition of the road, the vehicle lost control and turned turtle, as a result of which the deceased fell down and the tractor wheel ran over him, causing his death on the spot. To establish the aforesaid aspect, P.W.2, an eye- witness to the incident, was examined, besides marking Ex.A1-F.I.R., Ex.A2-Postmortem Report, Ex.A3-Inquest Report and Ex.A4-Final Report. 8. The Tribunal, considering the aforesaid evidence, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred in the manner described in the claim petition. Since the claim was made under Section 163-A of the Act, the Tribunal proceeded to examine the aspect of determination of compensation, as it does not require proof of negligence, except for the occurrence of the accident. 9. It is the contention of the insurer that though the occurrence of the accident is admitted and negligence is not in dispute, since the deceased did not possess valid driving licence and only the trailer was insured but not the tractor, the insurer ought not to have been fastened with liability. Since the insurer has taken the stand that the deceased did not possess valid and effective driving licence, the 8 CGR,J M.A.C.M.A.No.271 of 2023 burden lies upon it to establish the said aspect. To prove the same, the owner of tractor and an officer from RTA were examined as R.Ws.1 and 3. However, the Tribunal found that their evidence did not conclusively establish that the deceased did not possess valid driving licence. In the evidence of R.W.3, it was deposed that the computer system maintained at their office did not indicate the existence of driving licence in the name of the deceased. However, the Tribunal found that such a mere statement alone was not sufficient, as the existence of driving licence ought to have been verified not only from the computer system but also from the records maintained by the officials. The aforesaid finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal does not suffer from any perversity; therefore, this Court is not inclined to take a different view. Since the insurer failed to establish the factum of the deceased not possessing a valid driving licence, it cannot be exonerated from the liability to pay compensation. 10. Coming to the other plea that the insurer is not liable to pay compensation as only the trailer is insured and not the tractor, though the policy covers only the trailer, it is important to examine how the accident occurred. The trailer initially lost control, as a result of which the tractor and trailer turned turtle and the deceased was crushed by the tractor. Since the trailer was being pulled by the tractor, both 9 CGR,J M.A.C.M.A.No.271 of 2023 were inseparable and as the accident occurred while using the trailer and in the course of carrying paddy load, the aforesaid plea does not merit acceptance. 11. In view of above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the finding of the Tribunal, fastening liability on the appellant-insurer to pay compensation to the claimants for the death of the deceased, does not suffer from any perversity, and no interference is warranted in this appeal. 12. Accordingly, this Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is hereby dismissed. The appellant-insurer is directed to deposit the balance amount of compensation as determined and awarded by the Tribunal under the impugned judgment, after deducting the amount, if any, already paid, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. On such deposit being made, respondent Nos.1 to 3/claimants are permitted to withdraw their respective shares in terms of the impugned judgment. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN Date: 22.09.2025 IBL 10 CGR,J M.A.C.M.A.No.271 of 2023 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN M.A.C.M.A.No.271 of 2023 Dt: 22.09.2025 IBL