APHC011374782014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] TUESDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NOs.793 and 789 OF 2025 Between: 1. KOLUSU DHANA LAKSHMI, W/O SRINIVASA RAO AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, RESIDENT OF NEPPALI, KANKIPADU MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 2. KOLUSU GEETHAVANI, D/O SMIVASA RAO AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, RESIDENT OF NEPPALI, KANKIPADU MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 3. KOLUSU HARENDRA, S/O SRINIVASA RAO AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, RESIDENT OF NEPPALI, KANKIPADU MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 4. KOLUSU BHEEMA RAJU, S/O VEERA SWAMY AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, RESIDENT OF NEPPALI, KANKIPADU MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT(S) AND 1. G SURI BABU VJA KRISHNA DIST AND ANR, S/O GANGA RAJU AGED ABOUT NOT KNOWN, RESIDENT OF D.NO.70-9-11, SANTHI NAGAR, PATAMATA, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 2. THE NEW INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD, REP BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE. BANDAR ROAD VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be pleased toaggrieved by the decree and Judgment passed O.P.No.908 of 2006 dated 10-04-2014 on the file of court of Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum XII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District IA NO: 1 OF 2014(MACMAMP 4824 OF 2014 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 condone the delay of 70 days in filing MACMA against the Judgment and decree dated 10-04-2014 in O.P.No.908 of 2006 on the file of court of Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum XII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District and to pass Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. P PRABHAKAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NOs.793 and 789 OF 2025 COMMON JUDGMENT: Both these appeals since arise out of same accident, one being a case of death and other injury, independent claims came to be preferred before the tribunal and the same were allowed by granting compensation to the claimants, however, as liability came to be fastened only on the owner of one of the offending vehicles by exonerating the insurer, both these appeals have been preferred. Therefore, they are being decided by common judgment. 2. First Appeal i.e., MACMA No.793 of 2025 arises out of order dated 10.04.2014 passed in MVOP. No.908 of 2006 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – XII Additional District Judge, Krishna at Vijayawada and second appeal i.e., MACMA No.789 of 2025 arises out of order dated 10.04.2014 passed in MVOP No.58 of 2007 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – XII Additional District Judge, Krishna at Vijayawada. 3. The deceased, along with his wife and three other relatives, was proceeding in auto bearing No.AP 16Y 1950 (first auto) from 2 CGR, J MACMA. Nos.793 & 789 of 2025 Neppali to Vijayawada. On midway, the said auto collided with another auto bearing No.AP 16TV 4914 (second auto), which was driven and owned by 1st respondent. Because of the said collision, the deceased fell down and sustained head injury and later, after being shifted to Government Hospital, he succumbed to injuries. In the very same accident, one of the persons injured is the claimant in second appeal. 4. The deceased stated to be eking out as lorry driver and earning ₹5,000/- per month besides ₹150/- per day as batta, therefore, wife and two children and mother laid the claim in first appeal. The other injured person, since sustained injuries, laid claim in second appeal. He also made a claim for two lakhs towards medical expenditure and other non-pecuniary heads. 5. In both cases, the driver -cum- owner of second auto remained ex parte. The insurer of said auto filed written statement denying the manner in which accident occurred and that the driver was not alone responsible and negligent in causing the accident, he did not possess valid and effective driving license to drive transport vehicle, besides disputing the income, avocation, age and the quantum of compensation claimed. 3 CGR, J MACMA. Nos.793 & 789 of 2025 6. The Tribunal has framed following issues in both these appeals: 1) MACMA No.793 of 2025: (i) Whether the deceased Kolusu Srinivasa Rao died in a motor vehicle accident on 21.01.2006 at 10.00 pm due to rash and negligent driving of crime vehicle bearing No.AP 16TV 4914? (ii) If so, what is the correct age and income of the deceased by the date of accident? (iii) Whether petitioners are entitled to the compensation as prayed for? If so, from whom and for what amount? (iv) To what relief? 2) MACMA No.789 of 2025: (i) Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident that took place on Bandar between Prodduturu to Konatanampadu at 10.00 pm on 21.01.2006 due to rash and negligent driving of crime vehicle bearing No.AP 16TV 4914? (ii) If so, whether petitioner is entitled to the compensation as prayed for? If so, from whom? (iii) To what relief? 7. As the claims arise out of same accident, more or less, the evidence with respect to occurrence of accident, registration, investigation and also the certificate of registration of second auto, 4 CGR, J MACMA. Nos.793 & 789 of 2025 insurance policy and driving license of the driver -cum- owner of second auto, are brought on record by way of common exhibits. To prove the case of claimants, in first appeal, wife of deceased was examined as P.W.1 and eyewitness and co-passenger as P.W.2, and got marked Exs.A1 to A9. On behalf of 2nd respondent, administrative officer of Insurer’s office was examined as R.W.1 and Junior Assistant in RTA office was examined as R.W.2 and marked Exs.B1 and B2 and Exs.X1 and X2. Similarly, in second case, claimant himself was examined as P.W.1. Incidentally, he also deposed as P.W.2 in the first appeal. Exs.A1 to A8 were marked. For respondents, same persons and same exhibits were marked as that of in the first appeal. 8. The Tribunal after considering both oral and documentary evidence on record has answered first issue, which is common in both appeals, in affirmative holding that the accident has occurred because of the rash and negligent driving of drivers of both autos, as it was a case of head on collision and both drivers contributed equally towards negligence, resultantly, occurring in death of deceased in first appeal and injuries in the second appeal. The tribunal proceeded to decide the compensation based on evidence available on record and ultimately awarded compensation of 5 CGR, J MACMA. Nos.793 & 789 of 2025 ₹6,00,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum in first appeal and ₹49,500/- along with interest @ 7.5% in the second appeal. However, while coming to the aspect of liability, the tribunal having found that the 1st respondent – owner -cum- driver of the second auto, which was goods auto, did not possess valid and effective driving license for the purpose of driving light motor vehicle (LMV) – transport, since violated terms and conditions of policy, exonerated insurer from the liability. Therefore, the claimants have preferred both these appeals only to the extent of challenging the orders of tribunal insofar as exonerating the insurer from the liability. 9. Heard Sri P.Prabhakara Rao, learned counsel for appellants and Sri C.Prakash Reddy, learned counsel for respondent insurer. 10. Learned counsel for appellants made common submissions in both these appeals. He has contended that since the 1st respondent admittedly held valid driving license for LMV as on the date of accident, the tribunal ought not to have completely exonerated the insurer from liability, rather, it ought to have applied the principle of pay and recovery, as the victims of the accident, being third party, have a statutory right to recover the compensation from the insurer. He further contended that insurer’s 6 CGR, J MACMA. Nos.793 & 789 of 2025 liability cannot be disowned on the ground of not having license to drive transport vehicle. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on following judgments. 1. Judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in S.Iyyapan v. United India Insurance Company Limited and another1 2. Judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Ashok Gangadhar Maratha v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited2 3. Constitutional Bench Judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Limited v. Rambha Devi and others3 11. (a) Per contra, learned counsel for the insurer vehemently opposed the appeals and tried to support the findings and conclusion reached by the tribunal. While supporting the impugned order, learned counsel contended that since the deceased in first appeal was admittedly sitting beside the driver of auto and the tribunal has specifically rendered finding that there is equal negligence on the part of both drivers of autos, as deceased knowingly travelled sitting along with the driver clearly tantamount to contributory negligence even on his part, and as a self-tortfeasor, he is disentitled to claim any compensation against the insurer. In 1 (2013) 7 SCC 62 2 (1999) 6 SCC 620 3 (2025) 3 SCC 95 7 CGR, J MACMA. Nos.793 & 789 of 2025 support of said submission, reliance has been placed on the following judgment of High Court of Karnataka in G.Nagarathna and others v. G.Manjunatha and another4. He also submitted that Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.22411 of 2025, preferred against judgment of Karnataka High Court ended in dismissal, thereby, the view expressed by High Court stands clearly endorsed. (b) He further contended that since there is a violation of conditions of policy, the question of applying pay and recovery would not arise, and even otherwise, the principle of pay and recovery cannot be applied mandatorily rather it is a discretion of the tribunal considering the facts and circumstances of the particular case, hence rightly it declined to apply the said principle, which cannot be found fault with. To support the same, reliance has been placed on judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bhuwan Singh v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Another5. 12. Perused the record and considered rival submissions. 4 Judgment dated 23.11.2024 in Miscellaneous First Appeal No.2850/2017 (MV-D) 5 (2009) 5 SCC 136 8 CGR, J MACMA. Nos.793 & 789 of 2025 13. The question that arises for consideration of this Court is whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the tribunal was justified in exonerating insurer from any liability on account of the driver – cum- owner of one of the offending autos having not possessed valid and effective driving license to drive transport vehicle and otherwise, having driving license to drive non-transport vehicle. 14. The accident occurred because of collision between first auto, in which the deceased and injured were travelling, and the second auto. The second auto apparently is a goods transport auto. The claimants contended that since the victims of accident are third parties to the policy issued to the second auto and the insurer of it is liable for payment of compensation. In support of their claim, certificate of registration of second auto has been marked and also driving license of owner -cum- driver of the said auto has also been marked. A glance at these two documents would go to show that the said auto has been registered as light motor vehicle having gross vehicle weight of 1060 kgs. The license issued to the 1st respondent goes to show that he was permitted to drive LMV – non transport as on the date of accident. However, it appears, he had also been granted license to drive LMV–Transport 9 CGR, J MACMA. Nos.793 & 789 of 2025 as well, but only after the occurrence of the accident. Respondent insurer, in order to establish the fact that the driver of second auto did not possess driving license to drive LMV – Transport vehicle, has got examined Junior Assistant from RTA office as R.W.2 and marked Ex.X2, which is a replica of the driving license, which has already been marked by the claimants. 1st respondent remained ex parte before tribunal and so also in the present appeals. Yet another significant factor to be noted is that the respondent Insurer has not taken any effective steps to summon him to elicit as to whether he possessed any other license. The Tribunal, based on aforesaid evidence, has come to conclusion that since the driving license marked by both claimants as well as the insurer and also spoken of by Junior Assistant from RTA only entitles to drive LMV – non transport, the same tantamount to not having a valid driving license to operate LMV - transport vehicle. Therefore, though the compensation came to be determined, insofar as recovery is concerned, the insurer has been exonerated. 15. Recently, the Constitutional Bench of Hon’ble Apex Court in Bajaj Alliance General Insurance case had an occasion to deal with issue as to whether a driver holding a license for light motor vehicle (LMV) under Section 10(2)(d) for vehicles with a gross 10 CGR, J MACMA. Nos.793 & 789 of 2025 vehicle weight under 7500 Kg is entitled to operate the transport vehicle without needing additional authorisation under Section 10(2)(e). Answering the said issue, it has been held as follows: “63. The classes of “medium goods vehicle”, “medium passenger vehicle”, “heavy goods vehicles”, and “heavy passenger vehicles” as earlier noted in the table, were subsumed under the class of “transport vehicle”. It can logically be inferred that the term “transport vehicle” primarily targets vehicles exceeding 7500 kg, for the purpose of licence regime. The intention of the legislature was to simplify the licensing framework for larger commercial vehicles and at the same time not interdict an LMV licence- holder to also drive a transport vehicle. 181.1. A driver holding a licence for light motor vehicle (LMV) class, under Section 10(2)(d) for vehicles with a gross vehicle weight under 7500 kg, is permitted to operate a “transport vehicle” without needing additional authorisation under Section 10(2)(e) of the MV Act specifically for the “transport vehicle” class. For licensing purposes, LMVs and transport vehicles are not entirely separate classes. An overlap exists between the two. The special eligibility requirements will however continue to apply for, inter alia, e- carts, e-rickshaws, and vehicles carrying hazardous goods. 181.2. The second part of Section 3(1), which emphasises the necessity of a specific requirement to drive a “transport vehicle”, does not supersede the definition of LMV provided in Section 2(21) of the MV Act.” 11 CGR, J MACMA. Nos.793 & 789 of 2025 16. Since the Hon’ble Apex Court has now, after reviewing the scheme of the Act, clearly enunciated that a license holder for LMV class is permitted to operate even a transport vehicle without any need of additional authorisation, in the facts and circumstances of this case, inasmuch as it is admitted position of either side that 1st respondent possessed valid license to drive light motor vehicle, however, it was only non-transport vehicle, it cannot now be said that the same amounted to violation of conditions of policy. Hon’ble Apex Court was only interpreting the interplay between Sections 10(2)(d) and Section 10(2)(e). 17. In view of the said judgment, this Court has no other go except to conclude that finding recorded by Tribunal that driving license held by 1st respondent would not be valid and effective and thereby, it amounted to violation of terms and conditions of policy for exonerating the liability on insurer can no longer sustain. As rightly contended by learned counsel for appellants, the victims of accident, being third parties to the insurer, have a statutory right to recover the compensation from it. 18. Learned counsel for respondent insurer, though tried to persuade this Court that there is equally contributory negligence on the part of the deceased in first case, who was sitting beside the 12 CGR, J MACMA. Nos.793 & 789 of 2025 driver of first auto when the accident has occurred, which would disentitle him to claim compensation as self-tortfeasor, this Court is not persuaded by the said submission. This is for the reason that he was merely a co-passenger and not in control or had any say in navigating the auto. Even the judgment cited by him in support of the said submission in Nagarathna’s case, the deceased himself was driving at the time of accident, therefore, the court has come to conclusion that he being a self-tortfeasor, his heirs were not entitled to claim compensation. The said judgment is clearly not applicable to the facts of the present case. Insofar as the judgment referred in Bhuwan Singh’s case, it was also a case of an accident, wherein the driver of tractor did not possess valid and effective license, rather even the existing learner's license expired, therefore, the Hon’ble Apex Court upheld the view taken by the tribunal in not extending the principle of pay and recovery. 19. Since in the present case, admittedly, the 1st respondent did possess driving license for LMV – non transport as on the date of accident, since the Constitutional Bench judgment referred supra has ruled that even person having driving license of LMV is entitled to drive transport vehicle as well, it can no longer now be said that there is a violation of terms of conditions of policy. 13 CGR, J MACMA. Nos.793 & 789 of 2025 20. In view of the above observations and opinion expressed above, these appeals stand allowed by modifying the order of tribunal to the extent of directing even insurer to pay the compensation as awarded in terms of the orders dated 10.04.2014 passed in MVOP. Nos.908 of 2006 and MVOP. No.58 of 2007 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – XII Additional District Judge, Krishna at Vijayawada. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration, if any, in this case shall stand closed. _______________________ CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J 07.10.2025 SS