APHC010068952019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] MONDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 150/2019 Between: 1. THE BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,, REP BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATOR, GE PLAZA, AIRPORT ROAD, YERWADA, PUNE ...APPELLANT AND 1. THANGIRALA VENKATESWARA RAO, R/O. MADHYANNAPUVARIGUDEM, T..NARASPUR MANDAL, W.G.DIST 2. THANGIRLA NAGAMANI, R/O. MADHYANNAPUVARIGUDEM, T..NARASPUR MANDAL, W.G.DIST 3. THANGIRALA CHINA MANGAMMA, R/O. MADHYANNAPUVARIGUDEM, T..NARASPUR MANDAL, W.G.DIST 4. KUNDULA RAMA MOHAN RAO, DIED 5. GARLAPATI CHANDRAVATHI, DIED 2 VS,J MACMA_150_2019 6. KUNDULA VISHNU PRIYA, R/O. MADHYANNAPURVARIGUDEM, T.NARASAPUR MANDAL, W.G.DIST ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be pleased topleased to set aside the order passed in MVOp. 97/2015 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims tribunal cum Principal District Judge, W.G.Dist dated 19th october, 2018 IA NO: 1 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 Pleased to condone the delay of 40 days in filing the MACMA against the judgment and award in MVOp. 97/2015 on the file of the court of the chairman, motor accidents claims tribunal, cum Prl. district judge, W.G.Dist, Eluru, dated 19-10- 2018 IA 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 Pleased to grant stay of operation of decree and order in MVOp. 97/2015 on the file of the court of the chairman, motor accidents claims tribunal, cum Prl. district judge, W.G.Dist, Eluru, dated 19-10-2018 Counsel for the Appellant: 1. NARESH BYRAPANENI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. P N MURTHY The Court made the following: 3 VS,J MACMA_150_2019 JUDGMENT: The Insurance Company filed the present appeal aggrieved by the impugned award dated 19.10.2018 passed in M.V.O.P.No.97 of 2015 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-Principal District Judge, Eluru whereby the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.7,36,000/- towards total compensation to the claimants as against the claim of Rs.12,00,000/- for the death of the deceased Tangirala Srinivasa Rao @ Srinu @ Bala Yesu @ Yerrodu. 2) For the sake of convenience, both the parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the claim application. 3) The claimants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.12,00,000/- for the death of the deceased Tangirala Srinivasa Rao @ Srinu @ Bala Yesu @ Yerrodu, (herein after referred to as “deceased”) who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 19.04.2014. Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are parents and petitioner No.3 is unmarried sister of the deceased. 4) The brief averments of the claim petition are as follows: On 19.04.2014, during morning hours, the deceased and other co-coolies namely Pachigolla Vinodu, Patra Maresu boarded the tractor and trailer bearing Nos.F/R AP 37UK TR 6906 and AP 37 BA 0156 at Madhyannapuvarigudem, in order to load stones at Surampudi Gattu, and at about 11.30 a.m., when they reached near 100 number Ramannapalem village, the driver of the tractor drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, and as a result, the 4 VS,J MACMA_150_2019 deceased fell down, and back wheels of the trailer ran over the deceased and the deceased sustained multiple grievous injuries, on all vital parts of his body. Immediately after the accident, he was shifted to Government Hospital, Chintalapudi, and the doctors declared that the injured was brought dead. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor and trailer bearing Nos.F/R AP 37UK TR 6906 and AP 37 BA 0156, by its driver i.e. respondent No.1 and a case in crime No.76 of 2014 of T.Narsapuram Police Station was registered under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code (for short “I.P.C.”) against respondent No.1. 5) Respondent No.1 is driver-cum-owner of tractor bearing No.F/R.AP 37 UK TR 6906, respondent No.2 is owner of trailer bearing No.AP 37 BA 0156 and respondent No.3 is insurer of the tractor bearing No. F/R.AP 37 UK TR 6906, as such they are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. During pendency of the claim petition, respondent Nos.1 and 2 died, and as per the orders in I.A.No.1164/2017 dated 08.08.2017, respondent No.4 was added as legal representative of respondent Nos.1 and 2. 6) Respondent No.3 – Insurance Company filed its counter contending that the tractor and trailer bearing Nos.F/R AP 37UK TR 6906 and AP 37 BA 0156 is a goods carriage vehicle, and the deceased travelled in the same as unauthorized passenger, respondent No.1 had no driving license as on the date of accident, and respondent No.1 willfully and knowingly violated the terms and conditions of the policy, and as such, respondent No.3 is not liable to pay compensation. Further, the compensation claimed by the petitioners is highly excessive, and requested to dismiss the petition. 5 VS,J MACMA_150_2019 7) Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: (1) Whether the deceased Tangirala Srinivasa Rao @ Srinu @ Bala Yesu @ Yerrodu died in a motor accident occurred on 19.04.2014 due to rash and negligent driving of tractor bearing No.F/R AP 37UK TR 6906 and trailer bearing No.AP 37 BA 0156 by its driver/1st respondent? (2) What is the age and income of the deceased? (3) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents? (4) To what relief? 8) During the course of enquiry, on behalf of the claimants, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.9 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, R.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B.1 and B.6 and Exs.X.1 to X.4 were marked. 9) Taking into consideration the said oral and documentary evidence, while answering issue No.1 the Tribunal held that the deceased sustained injuries in the accident in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 19.04.2014 due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor and trailer bearing Nos.F/R AP 37UK TR 6906 and AP 37 BA 0156 and succumbed to the injuries. 10) Issue Nos.2 and 3 also answered in favour of the claimants and held that respondent Nos.3 and 4 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation amount to the claimants and awarded Rs.7,36,000/- under different heads towards compensation. 6 VS,J MACMA_150_2019 11) Learned standing counsel for the appellant – insurance company contended that the deceased has travelled in the tractor and trailer bearing Nos.F/R AP 37UK TR 6906 and AP 37 BA 0156 as unauthorized passenger and there is no provision to carry other persons except driver on a tractor. It is further contended that as the deceased has travelled in the tractor on the date of accident as unauthorized passenger, the claimants are not entitled for any compensation, and requested to set aside the award passed by the Tribunal below. 12) The learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 - claimants contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper, which needs no interference, and requested to dismiss the appeal filed by the insurance company. 13) Having heard the submissions made by the learned counsel representing both parties and on perusal of the material available on record, the point that arises for consideration is as follows “Whether the appellant – insurance company is liable to pay compensation of Rs.7,36,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal? 14) I have carefully analyzed the entire evidence on record. P.W.1 – father of the deceased reiterated the contentions urged in the petition, however he is not an eyewitness to the accident. P.W.2 deposed that on 19.04.2014, during morning hours, he boarded the tractor and trailer bearing No.AP 37 UK TR 6906 and AP 37 BA 0156 at Madhyannapuvarigudem alogn with the deceased, in order to load stones at Surampudi Gattu, and at about 11.30 a.m., when the tractor reached Ramannapalem village, driver of the Tractor and trailer 7 VS,J MACMA_150_2019 drove the same, in a rash and negligent manner, and as a result, deceased fell down from the trailer and back wheels of the trailer ran over the deceased, and he sustained multiple grievous injuries, on all vital parts of his body and succumbed to the said injuries, and the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor and trailer bearing Nos.AP 37UK TR 6906 and AP 37 BA 0156, by its driver i.e. respondent No.1. 15) It is the case of respondent No.3 that the deceased was travelling as an unauthorized passenger by sitting in the trailer and died due to his own negligence. 16) Further, Ex.A.1 – copy of F.I.R and Ex.A.5 – copy of Charge Sheet disclosed that after investigation police filed charge sheet against respondent No.1. Therefore, basing on the evidence of P.W.2 and Exs.A.1 and A.5, the Tribunal rightly came to the conclusion that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1. 17) Admittedly, there is no evidence on record to show that the deceased was engaged as a coolie by the owner of the tractor to unload stones at the time of accident. Special premium was not collected to cover the risk of coolie. Further, the seating capacity of the tractor is only „one‟ and as the deceased was travelling as an unauthorized passenger by sitting in the trailer, the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. 18) At this juncture, it is pertinent to quote Rule 252 of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, in this case, which reads as follows: 8 VS,J MACMA_150_2019 “252. Carrying of persons in goods vehicle carriage:- (1) No person shall be carried in the cab of a goods vehicle beyond the number for which there is seating accommodation at the rate of 284 nukuneters measure along the seat, excluding the space reserved for the driver for each person and not more than Seven persons in all shall be carried in any goods vehicle. (2) No persons shall be carried in a goods vehicle upon the goods or otherwise in such a manner that such person is in danger of falling from the vehicle and in no case shall any person be carried in a goods vehicles, in such a manner that any part of his person when he is in sitting position is at a height exceeding 3 meters from the surface which the vehicle rests. (3) No person other than a person connected to the conveyance of goods shall travel in a goods vehicle. (4) Notwithstanding the provision of sub-rule (1) the Regional Transport Authority or the State Transport Authority, may subject to such conditions as it thinks fit allow a large number of persons to be carried in a goods vehicles; (5) Nothing in this rule shall be deemed to authorize the carriage of any person for hire or reward on any goods vehicle, unless there is in force in respect of the vehicle a permit authorizing the use of the vehicle for such purpose, and save in accordance with the provisions of such permit.” 9 VS,J MACMA_150_2019 19) According to the above Rule, persons shall not be carried more than the prescribed capacity and it is not just violation of terms of policy, but, if a person is allowed to travel in a goods vehicle beyond the permitted seating capacity, the insurance company is not at all liable and therefore, it cannot be fastened with liability of paying the compensation to the claimants and recovering the same from the owner as was held by this High Court in case of Vachala Vs. V.R. Kumar1, wherein the decision at paragraphs No.4 and 5 reads as follows: “4. Ex. B.2, true extract of the „B‟ register relating to the offending vehicle, shows that it originally was a open (hackney) carriage (Auto Rickshaw Cab) having seating capacity of „Four in all and by the proceedings in R. No. 7713/A5/93 dated 20.4.1993, the following alterations were made with effect from 20.4.1993. „(1) Class of Vehicle - L.M.V. goods vehicle; (2) Seating Capacity - one; (3) D.L.W : 330 Kgs; and (4) R.L.W. - F.A.W.-300 Kgs and R.A.W-600 Kgs.‟ Therefore, it is clear that the seating capacity of the offending vehicle is only one i.e., the driver alone can travel in the vehicle. The offending vehicle being a light motor goods vehicle with seating capacity for one i.e., driver, question of anybody else either it be the owner of the goods, or his authorized representative, being allowed to travel therein cannot arise in view of Rule 252(5) A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, made in pursuance of the power given under the Act. When carrying of passengers in the offending vehicle is not allowed by the Act, 1 2004 (5) ALD 30 10 VS,J MACMA_150_2019 question of insurer covering the risk of owner of the goods or an authorized representative of the owner of the goods travelling along with the goods in the offending vehicle does not arise. 5. The next contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that carrying of passenger in the offending vehicle at best amounts to the driver committing a breach of the terms and conditions of the policy and, so, the insurer has to pay the compensation to the appellants and recover the amount so paid from the owner, cannot be accepted because carrying of passengers in the offending vehicle is contrary to the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder and since the policy issued by second respondent does not even cover the risk of passenger in the offending vehicle. If the insurer covers the risk of some persons and lays down some conditions for its being made liable in respect of those persons, and if the insured violates some of those conditions, then there may be some force in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants. When the insurer did not undertake to cover the risk of passengers in the offending vehicle, question of its being made liable in respect of the risk of such passenger does not arise.” 20) Learned standing counsel for the appellant – Insurance Company has brought to the notice of this Court that in a similar case-MACMA No.1794 of 2006, where the driver of the tractor drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and due to sudden jerk, the deceased therein, who was sitting on the tractor fell down and the trailer ran over him resulting in grievous injuries and later, succumbed to the injuries at the Government Hospital, this Court directed the claimants to recover the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from the owner of the tractor, and requested this Court to pass similar order in this case also. 11 VS,J MACMA_150_2019 21) The operative portion of the order passed in MACMA No.1794 of 2006 is as follows: “However, since the appellant deposited half of the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and the claimants were permitted to withdraw the same, without furnishing any security, the appellant since not liable to pay any compensation as decided in the above case, it can recover the amount from the insured without filing any separate suit, but by filing proceedings in execution. The respondents/claimants are still entitled to recover the balance half of the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from the owner of the tractor.” 22) In the present case also, the deceased travelled in the offending vehicle as an unauthorized passenger. Since half of the amount was already deposited by the appellant – insurance company as per the interim order of stay passed by this Court in the appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the same amount may be permitted to be recovered from the owner of the insured vehicle. It was also submitted by him that the claimants may recover the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal from the owner of the tractor and trailer irrespective of the liability against the insurer. 23) Permitting the passenger to travel in a goods vehicle is a violation of terms of policy, therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 24) It is the contention of the claimants that the deceased travelled in the trailer as coolie. Per contra, by marking Ex.B.1 – copy of insurance policy, the appellant - insurance company established that the policy does not cover the risk of coolies, who travel on it. In the light of the above said decision of this High Court, it cannot be treated 12 VS,J MACMA_150_2019 as mere violation of terms of policy and it shall be regarded as policy does not cover the risk of the deceased. 25) As a similar issue has already been decided by this Court vide order dated 17.07.2025 in M.A.C.M.A.No.1794 of 2006, the present appeal can be allowed under similar lines. 26) However, since the appellant deposited half of the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and the claimants were permitted to withdraw the same, without furnishing any security, and as the appellant is not liable to pay any compensation as decided in the above case, it can recover the amount from the insured without filing any separate suit, but by filing execution proceedings. The respondents / claimants are still entitled to recover the balance half of the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from the owner of Tractor and Trailer bearing Nos.AP 37UK TR 6906 and AP 37 BA 0156. 27) With the above directions, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. 28) Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed ________________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA 01.09.2025 Ksp