1 TCDS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1258/2019 APHC010407782019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3505] SATURDAY, THE 19th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1258/2019 Between: 1. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMOANY, REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. BRANCH OFFICE, MACHILIPATNAM. ...APPELLANT AND 1. BORRA NARASIMHA RAO, S/O. LATE JAGANADHAM, HINDU, AGED 55 YEARS, COOLIE, R/O. PAINTERS COLONY, VALANDAPALEM, MACHILIPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 2. BORRA NARASIMHA RAO, (DIED) 3. PAMARTHI KUMARI, W/O. LATE NAGEWARA RAO, HINDU, A/A 35 YEARS, R/O. VALANDAPALEM, MACHILIPATNAM. 4. BORRA PRASAD, S/O. RAMA KRISHNA, HINDU. A/A 32 YEARS, DRIVER OF AUTO AP 16 TA 6610, R/O. ULLIPALEM, MACHILIPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 5. PERAM NAGA RAJU, (DIED) 6. PERAM SARAMMA, W/O. LATE NAGARAJU, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, R/O. D.NO. 6-450, PEDASANAGALLU, MUTRASUPALEM, MOVVA, MOVVA MANDAL. 7. PERAM RAMBABU, S/O. LATE VENKATESWARLU, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 6-450, PEDASANAGALLU, MUTRASUPALEM, MOVVA, MOVVA 2 TCDS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1258/2019 8. PERAM DHANALAKSHMI, W/O. RAMBABU, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.6-450, PEDASANAGALLU, MUTRASUPALEM, MOVVA, MOVVA MANDAL ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC before the High Courtto allow this appeal by setting aside the Decree and Order dated 13.08.2019, passed in M.V.O.P.No.14 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal- Cum-X-Addl. District Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam, and dismiss the MVOP No.14 of 2015 filed by the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein / Claim Petitioners against the Appellant herein / Respondent No.3 in the lower court and pass 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 grant stay of all further proceedings dated 13.08.2019, passed in M.V.O.P.No.14 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal- Cum-X-Addl. District Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnarn, including execution proceedings and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2021 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 permit the petitioners 1 and 3 to withdraw the Half of the deposited amount of the award amount by this 1st respondent in the claims Tribunal as per the directions of this Honble court passed in Ia. 1/2019 in MACMA. 1258/2019 dated 12-12-2019 pending disposal of the MACMA. 1258/2019 and pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. A JAYANTHI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. K RAMA KOTESWARA RAO The Court made the following: 3 TCDS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1258/2019 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1258 of 2019 JUDGMENT: The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, filed the instant appeal aggrieved by Order dated 13.08.2019, passed in M.V.O.P.No.14 of 2015 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-X Additional District Judge, Machilipatnam, Krishna District. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to, as they were referred before the Tribunal. 3. The petitioners/claimants filed petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity ‘the MV Act’) and the rules made thereunder, claiming compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- on account of the death of one Mr. Borra Naga Raju, (herein after referred to, as ‘the deceased’) together with interest. The claimants are the parents and sister of the deceased. It is the case of the petitioners, on 29.08.2014, at about 1.00 p.m., the deceased boarded Auto bearing registration No.AP16 TA 6610 at Raithu Bazar, Machilipatnam, to go to Mustakhanpet. 4. When the Auto reached near Social Welfare Boys Hostel, the 1st respondent/driver of the Auto drove the vehicle in rash and negligent manner, and as a result of which, the Auto turned upside down. The passengers including the deceased fell on the road and the deceased was crushed between the road and Auto and died on the spot. A case in Crime No.99 of 4 TCDS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1258/2019 2014 for the offence punishable under Sections 304-A and 337 IPC was registered on the file of Machilipatnam Police Station. Later, the said crime was investigated into under charge sheet in C.C.No.133 of 2015 on the file of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Machilipatnam, was filed against the 1st respondent/driver. 5. It was further case of the petitioners that the deceased was 21 years, as on the date of accident and he was working in gold covering workshop. The deceased used to earn an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month and the same was being contributed towards the welfare of the family. In view of the sudden demise of the deceased, the petitioners approached the Tribunal with the above-mentioned claim petition. 6. The claim was resisted by respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4 by filing their respective counter-affidavits. Respondent Nos.5 and 6 adopted the counter- affidavit filed by the 4th respondent. 7. The 1st respondent inter-alia contended that he was not responsible for the accident and he was driving the Auto by taking due care and caution. It was further contended that he was having valid driving licence as on the date of accident and if at all any compensation was to be paid, the 3rd respondent alone is liable to pay the same. 8. The 3rd respondent/Insurance Company filed counter-affidavit and additional counter-affidavit. While denying the averments made in the claim 5 TCDS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1258/2019 petition, it was contended that the deceased sat beside the driver of the Auto and therefore, he has to be treated as unauthorized passenger. It was further contended that, as the deceased was sitting beside the driver, it caused inconvenience, thereby the accident was occurred. Therefore, the deceased was also responsible for the occurrence of accident. Inter-alia, it was also contended that the 1st respondent/driver of the Auto had no valid driving licence. It was further stated that the compensation claimed by the petitioners was excessive. With the above pleadings, the 3rd respondent prayed to dismiss the appeal. 9. In order to prove the case of the petitioners, the 1st petitioner who is the father of the deceased was examined as PW.1. Smt. Jagannadham Seshukumari, was examined as PW.2, who was eyewitness of the accident. The petitioners also marked documents in Exs.A1 to A4. 10. On the other hand, the respondents have examined employee of the Insurance Company as RW.1, Head constable Machilipatnam Police Station was examined as RW.2 and Junior Assistant from Regional Transport Authority, Machilipatnam, was examined as RW.3. Further, respondents have marked copy of the policy in Ex.B1. Apart from the same, Exs.X1 to X3, were marked through the witnesses on behalf of the respondents. Considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal by order under challenge awarded an amount of Rs.6,92,000/- towards compensation under 6 TCDS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1258/2019 various conventional heads. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred. 11. Heard Sri Ravi Teja, learned counsel representing Smt. A. Jayanthi, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri K. Rama Koteswara Rao, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 3. Respondent Nos.2 and 5 died as per cause title. Though notices were served on respondent Nos.4, 6 to 8, there is no appearance for them. 12. Perused the material available on record. 13. During course of the hearing, learned counsel for the appellant did disputed with regard to the income fixed by the Tribunal, while awarding compensation. It was specifically contended that as on the date of accident, the 1st respondent/driver of the Auto had no valid driving licence. In order to substantiate the same, Junior Assistant from the Office of Regional Transport Authority was examined as RW.3. Through RW.3, Ex.X3 abstract of the driving licence pertaining to the said office has been marked. 14. Further, he would submit that RW.3 has categorically deposed that as per Ex.A3, respondent No.1/driver of the Auto obtained driving licence on 13.02.2006 for Motorcycle with gear. He also obtained Light Motor Vehicle vide DL.No.374/K/MTM/2006, vide badge No.8301. By placing reliance on the RW.3 evidence and more particularly on Ex.X1, he would submit that Light Motor Vehicle driving licence of respondent No.1 was valid from 06.03.2007 to 7 TCDS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1258/2019 05.03.2010 and thereafter, the 1st respondent did not renew the licence to drive light Motorcycle vehicle, which is required for driving the passenger Auto. Though RW.1 was cross-examined at length, nothing was elicited to disprove his evidence. 15. While holding that the respondent No.1 was not having valid driving licence as on the date of accident, the Tribunal had categorically observed that the insurer cannot be allowed to avoid liability towards insured merely because there is violation of conditions of the policy and held that respondent Nos.1, 3 to 6 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. 16. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the Tribunal, having held that there was no valid driving licence for respondent No.1, ought to have granted liberty to the appellant/Insurance Company to recover the amount from respondent Nos.4 to 6. 17. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the claimants would submit that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was just and fair and the same need not be interfere with. Notices were served on respondent Nos.4 to 6, but despite the same, there is no appearance for them. On perusal of the order under challenge, it is clear that the Tribunal after considering the evidence of RW.3 and by placing reliance on Ex.X3, had held that as on the date of accident, the driver of the Auto was not having valid driving licence inasmuch as Light Motor Vehicle driving licence obtained by him was valid from 06.03.2007 to 05.03.2010. In the instant case, the 8 TCDS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1258/2019 accident occurred on 29.08.2014 and admittedly as on the date of accident, he had no valid driving licence. 18. In such circumstances, though the Tribunal had directed the Insurance Company to pay compensation, the Tribunal ought to have granted liberty to the Insurance Company to recover the same from the respondent Nos.4 to 6. This Court finds sufficient force in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, especially in the light of the findings recorded by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the present appeal is disposed of by granting liberty to the Insurance Company/appellant to recover the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from the respondent Nos.4 to 6. 19. In the result, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of to the extent indicated above. It is needless to mention that the appellant is directed to deposit the total amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal together with interest within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and later, the same may be recovered from respondent Nos.4 to 6 in accordance with law. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________ JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR Date.19.09.2026 CVD