APHC010107142019 SMB IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.269 of 2019 Between: New India Assurance Company Limited, 1®* Floor, Triveni Buildings, Fort Road, Rep by its Branch Manager, Machilipatnam, Krishna District. ...Appellant/3"‘* Respondent AND 1. Maddula Pamu Kondaiah, Aged about 38 years, Advocate, R/o. Nidumolu Village, Movva Mandal, Krishna District. ...Respondent/Cliamant 2. Boddu Sarath, S/o, Veera Swamy, Hindu, Aged about 20 years. Rider of Motor Cycle Bearing No.AP 16 AU 1747, R/o.Ramanaidu Pet, Machilipatnam, Krishna District. 3. S Venkata Sai Rama Lingeswara Rao, Owner of Motorcycle bearing No. AP 16AU 1747, D.No.14-268-1, Edepalli, Machilipatnam, Krishna District. ...Respondents/Respondents Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the Judgment and decree dated 11-12-2018 made in M.V.O.P.No. 6 of 2013 on the file of Motor Vehicle Accidents Tribunal- cum -I Additional District Judge. Machilipatnam, Krishna District. This appeal coming on Petition, the Order and Decree of the Trial Court and the material papers in the Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Amancharla Satish Babu, Advocate for the Appellant and of Sri N Ravi Prasad, Advocate for Respondent No.1 and of Sri G Narasimha Rao, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 & 3. This Court doth Order and decree as follows: 1. That the appeal be and is hereby allowed in part; That the 3'"^ respondent must first pay the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal to the petitioner: That after doing so. it is legally entitled to file a recovery case or execution petition against the 2"^^ respondent in order to get the money back; 4. That there be no order as to costs in this appeal. for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of 2. 3. Sd/- A VENUGOPALA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To The Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents Tribunal- cum -I Additional District Judge, Machilipatnam, Krishna District. Two CD Copies 1. 2. TK VNA HIGH COURT DATED: 17/06/2025 DECREE MACMA No.269 of 2019 g 11 JUL 5025 z ^ Current Section ^ PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS APHC010107142019 SMB IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI I. TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE '1 O P' PRESENT I"-.- K MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.269 of 2019 HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the Judgment and decree dated 11-12-2018 made in M.V.O.P.No. 6 of 2013 the file of Motor Vehicle Accidents Tribunal- cum -I Additional District Judge, Machilipatnam, Krishna District. on Between: New India Assurance Company Limited, 1®' Floor, Triveni Buildings, Fort Road, Rep by its Branch Manager, Machilipatnam, Krishna District. ...Appellant/3''‘^ Respondent AND Maddula Pamu Kondaiah, Aged about 38 years. Advocate, R/o. Nidumolu Village, Movva Mandal, Krishna District. 1. ...Respondent/Cliamant Boddu Sarath, S/o, Veera Swamy, Hindu, Aged about 20 years. Rider of Motor Cycle Bearing No.AP 16 AU 1747, R/o.Ramanaidu Pet, Machilipatnam, Krishna District. S Venkata Sai Rama Lingeswara Rao, Owner of Motorcycle bearing No. AP 16AU 1747, D.No.14-268-1, Edepalli, Machilipatnam, Krishna District. 2. 3. ...Respondents/Respondents lA 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 to 4|ay the operation of the Judgment and decree dated 11-12-2018 made in l\/f V.O.P.No. 6 of 2013 on the file of The Motor Vehicle Accidents Tribunal- cum^l Additional District Judge, Machilipatnam, Krishna District. Counsel for the Petitioner Counsel for Respondent No.1 Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 & 3: Sri G Narasimha Rao The Court made the following: : Sri Amancharia Satish Babu : Sri N Ravi Prasad V 1 VS,J l\/IACMA_269 2019 APHC010107142019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) SMS [3333] I. TUESDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 269/2019 Between: New India Assurance Company Limited ...APPELLANT AND Maddula Pamu Kondaiah and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant: 1.AMANCHARLA SATISH BABU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.NARASIMHA RAO GUDISEVA 2.N RAVI PRASAD The Court made the following: 2 VS,J • MACMA_269_2019 JUDGMENT:- The appellant/insurance company, filed the present appeal challenging the award passed in M.V.O.P.No.6 of 2013 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum l-Additional District Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam, dated 11.12.2018 whereby and whereunder, the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs. 1,45,000/- to the 1®* respondent herein as against the claim of Rs.1,50,000/-, on account of the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident that occurred on 02.01.2012. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. The 1 St respondent is the claimant/petitioner, 2'^^ and 3'^'^ respondents are the rider and owner of the motor cycle bearing AP 16 AU 1747, respectively. The claimant filed the claim petition before the Tribunal under Sections 140 and166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rules 455 and 475 of A.P.M.V. Rules, seeking compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- on account of the injuries received by the petitioner in a motor accident that occurred on 02.01.2012 at about 03.30p.m., near Ganapathi vilas at Buttaipet, Machilipatnam. On the fateful day, at about 03.30 p.m., while the petitioner along with one N. Venkata Subba Rao, was about to proceed to Bar Association, Machilipatnam from Ganapathi Vilas at Buttaipet, Machilipatnam, the 1®’ respondent, who was driving the motorcycle bearing registered No.AP 16 AU 1747 which is owned by the 2 respondent, in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the backside of the motorcycle of the petitioner, as a result of which, the petitioner fell down on the road and sustained injuries on the wrist of his right hand. Thereafter, he was immediately shifted to Viswa Chakra Orthopedic Hospital and subsequently, a case was registered against the 1®‘ respondent in Cr.No.2 of 2012 under Section 338 of IPC. In the said 3. nd 3 VS,J MACMA 269 2019 hospital, as the petitioner sustained fracture injury on his right hand wrist, he underwent treatment as in-patient for a period of 15 days and after his discharge from the hospital, he underwent further treatment for a period of two months. As such, the petitioner claimed a sum of Rs.60,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs.50,000/- towards monitory loss, Rs.2,000/- for transportation, Rs.20,000/- towards pain and sufferings and Rs.50,000/- towards permanent partial disability. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed their individual counter affidavits stating that the accident took place due to the contributory negligence of the petitioner as well as respondent Nos.1 and 2. It was further stated that as the offending vehicle was insured with the 3 respondent insurance company, the petitioner is entitled to obtain compensation from the officials of the 3'^^ respondent. The 3”^^ respondent has also filed a counter affidavit before the Tribunal contending that the 1®' respondent is not possessing a valid driving license at the time of accident and that the amount claimed by the petitioner is excessive and exorbitant. Thus, it contended that it is not liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial. 1) Whether the accident resulted out of contributory negligence of petitioner as alleged by the f respondent? 2) Whether the petitioner and R. 1 are having valid and effective driving licences at the time of accident? 3) Whether the claim is excessive? 4) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation as prayed for? If so, to what amount and from which respondents? 5) To what relief? 4. rd 5. 6. 4 VS,J MACMA_269_2019 During the course of trial, in support of his case, the petitioner himself was examined as P,W.1 and Exs.M to A5 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, R.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Ex.B1 was marked. 7. The Tribunal, relying upon the oral evidence adduced by P.Ws.1 and 2 and R.W.1 to 3, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1®‘ respondent and as the vehicle is owned by the 2"^ respondent and is insured with the 3 respondent company, all the respondents were made liable to pay compensation to the petitioner jointly and severally. 8. rd The Tribunal, after perusing the entire evidence and all the material paper available before it, has awarded an amount of Rs.60,000/- towards grievous injury, Rs. 10,000/- for another simple injury, Rs.30,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs.20,000/- each towards permanent partial disability and towards pain and suffering, Rs.5,000/- towards transport charges. In total, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.1,45,000/- to the petitioner. Challenging the same, the 3'"'^ respondent/insurance company, has filed the present appeal. 9. 10. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and as well as the respondents. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant contends that the 1®^ respondent did not possess any valid license for driving the offending vehicle, as such, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation and as such argued that the award needs to be interfered by this Court. He further contended that the Tribunal could at least have applied the doctrine of ‘pay and recover’. 11. 5 VS,J , MACMA_269_2019 On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondents contended that the Tribunal has rightly held the liability on all the respondents and the same need not be interfered. Hence requested to dismiss the appeal. 12. It is not in dispute that the accident had occurred on 02.01.2012 at 03.30 p.m., near Ganapathi Vilas at Buttaipet, Machilipatnam. The petitioner, in the claim petition has claimed a total compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/-. The Tribunal, after going through the entire evidence coupled with Exs.AI to A5 has come to a conclusion that the petitioner has sustained fracture injury on his right hand wrist for which he underwent treatment for 15 days. As such, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.60,000/- towards grievous injury. As the Doctor, who treated the petitioner certified that the petitioner sustained another simple injury, the petitioner was awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000/-. Basing on the medical bills produced by the petitioner for a sum of Rs.30,000/-, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards medical expenses. As the petitioner sustained loss of income for a period of three months and was put to mental agony, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards pain and suffering. Further, Rs.5,000/- was awarded to him towards transport charges. Though the petitioner claimed that he suffered permanent partial disability, as no documentary evidence was adduced, the Tribunal, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the injuries sustained by him, awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards permanent partial disability for the injuries sustained by him. In total, the Tribunal has awarded a total amount of Rs. 1,45,000/- againstthe claimed amount of Rs.1,50,000/-. Having regard to the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the amount of Rs.1,45,000/- awarded by the 13. 6 VS,J MACMA 269 2019 Tribunal was on reasonable basis and is sustainable under law, which needs no interference. While considering the fact that the crime vehicle was owned by the 2'^'^ respondent who entrusted the same to the 1®' respondent to drive at the time of accident and as the same was insured with the 3 respondent company vide policy No.62080231110100000207 and is valid from 14.04.2011 to 13.04.2012 which covers the date of accident i.e 02.01.2012, the Tribunal has made the respondent Nos.1 to 3 jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation of Rs.1,45,000/- along with subsequent interest and costs. The main contention of the appellant/3 respondent is that the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner. 14. rd rd The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in National Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Swaran Singh\ held that the insurer had to indemnify the compensation amount payable to the third party and the insurance company may recover the same from the insured. Doctrine of ‘pay and recover’ was considered by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment wherein it has examined the liability of the insurance company in cases of breach of policy condition due to disqualifications of the drier or invalid driving licence of the driver and held that in case of third party risks, the insurer has to indemnify the compensation amount to the third party and the insurance company may recover the same from the insured. Following the aforesaid principles of law, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shamanna and another Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and others^, held as under; 15. ^ (2004) 3 see 297:2004 See (eri) 733 ^ (2018) 9 see 650 \ 1 VSJ MACMA 269 2019 Since the reference to the larger Bench in Parvathneni case has been disposed of by keeping the questions of law open to be decided in an appropriate case, presently the decision in Swaran Singh case followed in Laxmi Narain Dhut and other cases hold the field. The award passed by the Tribunal directing the insurance company to pay the compensation amount awarded to the claimants and thereafter, recover the same from the owner of the vehicle In question, is in accordance with the judgment passed by this Court In Swaran Singh and Laxmi Narain Dhut cases. While so, in our view, the High Court ought not to have interfered with the award passed by the Tribunal directing the first respondent to pay and recover from the owner of the vehicle..." 16. When it comes to deciding whether the insurance company is responsible for paying compensation, an important rule applies whether there has been a serious or fundamental violation of the terms of the insurance policy by the vehicle owner, if so, the insurance company can be relieved from its obligation to pay. Thus, it is clear that in certain situations, the insurer is not legally bound to cover the damages or losses caused by the insured vehicle. However, there is an exception to this general rule, especially in cases involving third-party victims who have suffered serious harm. When a third-party claimant, someone who is not part of the insurance contract but is affected by the accident suffers severe injuries or becomes permanently disabled, the Courts have . consistently followed a balanced approach. In such cases, the courts apply the "pay and recover" principle. Under this principle, even if the insurance company is not directly liable due to a breach of policy, it is still required to pay the compensation amount to the injured third-party victim first. After making this payment, the insurance company has the right to recover the money from the vehicle owner who was actually at fault or who violated the policy conditions. This approach ensures that the injured victim receives timely 17. 8 0^ VS,J . MACMA 269 2019 relief and at the same time protects the insurance company’s right to recover the amount from the party responsible for the breach. Therefore, while this Court agrees that the 3'^'^ respondent-insurance company is not required to indemnify or financially protect the 2^^ respondent, it also holds that this is a fit case to apply the "pay and recover" principle. As a result, the 3’’'^ respondent must first pay the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal to the petitioner. After doing so, it is legally entitled to file a recovery case or execution petition against the 2"^ respondent in order to get the money back. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part. There shall be no order as to costs. 18. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- A VENUGOPALA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents Tribunal- cum -I Additional District Judge, Machilipatnam, Krishna District, (with records if any) 2. One CC to Sri Amancharla Satish Babu, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri Narasimha Rao Gudiseva, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri N Ravi Prasad, Advocate [OPUC] 5. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi. (to dispatch the trial court records) 6. Two CD Copies TK vna HIGH COURT DATED:17/06/2025 JUDGMENT + DECREE MACMA No.269 of 2019 Qf andh^^ * 11 JUL 2BS O -3^ ^ Current Sectton €o: PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS