APHC010141252023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 281/2023 Between: 1. SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, E-8, EPIP,RIICO. INDUSTRIAL AREA. SITAPURA. JAIPUR. RAJASTHAN. INDIA. ...APPELLANT AND 1. PUTTA DASTAGIRAMMA VANGANURU DASTAGIRAMMA, W/O. LATE PUTTA OBULESH. AGE 23 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, (WIFE OF DECEASED).D.NO.1-184-5, PRAKASH NAGAR. YERRAGUNTLA VILLAGE AND MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT, NOW ALL ARE RESIDING AT D.NO.26/4/186-A. KANNELURU, JAMMALAMADUGU TOWN AND MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT. 2. PUTTA VENKATA, DHIRAJ S/O.LATE PUTTA OBULESH, AGE ABOUT 01 YEAR. (SON OF DECEASED)D.NO.1-184-5, PRAKASH NAGAR. YERRAGUNTLA VILLAGE AND MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT, NOW ALL ARE RESIDING AT D.NO.26/4/186-A. KANNELURU, JAMMALAMADUGU TOWN AND MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT. RESPONDENT NO.2 IS MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER NAMELY PUTTA DASTAGIRAMMA @ VANGANURU DASTAGIRAMMA RESPONDENT NO.1 HEREIN. 3. PUTTA RAMAIAH, S/O. LATE P.PEDDA GURRAPPA AGE 65 YEARS. (FATHER OF DECEASED) D.NO.1-184-5, PRAKASH NAGAR. YERRAGUNTLA VILLAGE AND MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT, NOW ALL ARE RESIDING AT D.NO.26/4/186-A. KANNELURU, JAMMALAMADUGU TOWN AND MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT. 4. KURUVA ACHANNA, S/O.RAMUDU. AGE 33 YEARS, DRIVER. R/O. MABBUCHINTHALAPALLI VILLAGE, VEMULA MANDAL, NOW AT N.T.R COLONY. EMMIGANUR TOWN AND MANDAL. KURNOOL 2 VS,J MACMA No.281 of 2023 DISTRICT (DRIVER OF THE CRIME VEHICLE). BAPATHI BALA VENKATA REDDY, S/O.B. SANJEEVA REDDY, AGED NOT KNOWN, BUT MAJOR, OWNER OF THE TRACTOR AND TRAILER BEARING NO. AP 04 V 7123 AND AP 04 V 7124, R/O. D.NO. 140-131, KRANTHI NAGAR, YERRAGUNTLA VILLAGE AND MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT (OWNER OF THE CRIME VEHICLE 5. BAPATHI BALA VENKATA REDDY, S/O.B. SANJEEVA REDDY, AGED NOT KNOWN, BUT MAJOR, OWNER OF THE TRACTOR AND TRAILER BEARING NO. AP 04 V 7123 AND AP 04 V 7124, R/O. D.NO. 140-131, KRANTHI NAGAR, YERRAGUNTLA VILLAGE AND MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT (OWNER OF THE CRIME VEHICLE ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be pleased tomay be pleased to allow this appeal by setting aside the Decree and Order dated 18.11.2022 passed in MVOP No. 127 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -Cum- II Additional District Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur and dismiss the MVOP No. 127 of 2016 filed by the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein/ Claim Petitioners against the Appellant herein/ Respondent No.3 in the lower court and pass such IA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings dated 18.11 2022 passed in MVOP No. 127 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal -Cum- II Additional District Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur including execution proceedings and pass such Counsel for the Appellant: 1. A JAYANTHI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. SIVAPRASAD REDDY VENATI The Court made the following: 3 VS,J MACMA No.281 of 2023 J U D G M E N T: The Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the insurance company, aggrieved by the award dated 18.11.2022 passed in M.V.O.P. No.127 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal –cum- II Additional District Judge, Kadapa, wherein the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- towards compensation to the petitioners/claimants as per their claim on account of death of the deceased, Putta Obulesu, in a motor accident that occurred on 28.11.2015. 2. For the sake of convenience, both the parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the clam petition. 3. The brief averments of the claim petition are as follows: a) On 28.11.2015, in the afternoon, the deceased along with one Nidiginti Naresh loaded stones into a tractor and trailer bearing registration Nos.AP 04 V 7123 and AP 04 V 7124 belonging to the 2nd respondent, at Yerraguntla. After unloading the same at Kadapa, and while returning to Yerraguntla at about 6.30 p.m., when they reached near Gollapalle bridge on Yerraguntla – Kamalapuram main road, the driver of the tractor drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner over a pit, as a result of which the tractor and trailer turned turtle. The deceased, who was travelling in the trailer, fell on the road, sustained grievous injuries, and became unconscious. He was shifted to Government Hospital, Kamalapuram, where he was declared 4 VS,J MACMA No.281 of 2023 dead. A case was registered, and after investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the driver. b) It is the case of the claimants that the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month as a collie and was contributing to the family. Due to his sudden death, the claimants suffered loss of dependency, love and affection. Hence, they claimed compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- from the respondents. 4. Before the Tribunal, respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained ex-parte. 5. The 3rdrespondent/insurance company filed its written statement denying the allegations and contending that though the vehicle was insured and the policy was in force, the deceased was travelling as a gratuitous/unauthorized passenger in a tractor, and no premium was paid to cover such risk. It was further contended that the driver had no valid driving licence and that there was violation of policy conditions. Therefore, the insurer is not liable to pay compensation. 6. Based on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled by the Tribunal for trial: (1) Whether the accident is occurred on 28.11.2015 at 6.30 p.m., near Yerraguntla-Kamalapuram main road (SH) near Gollapalle bridge, Kamalapuram mandal main road due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of tractor and trailer bearing No.AP 04 V 7123 causing death of Purtta Obulesu? 5 VS,J MACMA No.281 of 2023 (2) If so, whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation against whom and to what extent? (3) To what relief? 7. On behalf of the claimants, P.W.s1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. On behalf of the insurance company, R.W.1 was examined and Exs.B1 and B2 were marked. 8. After hearing both parties and considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal allowed the claim petition with the following terms: “In the result, this claim petition is allowed by awarding compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven lakhs only) without costs and with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition i.e., 10-06-2016 till the date of realisation. 2. The 3rd respondent shall deposit the above said compensation amount within one month from the date of this judgment failing which the 3rd respondent has to pay the said compensation with interest at 9% per annum. 3. After deposit of the above said compensation amount of Rs.7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven lakhs only) with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of Claim Petition till the date of deposit by the 3rd respondent, the 1st petitioner/Claimant No.1 is entitled to receive an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- with accrued interest thereon out of Rs.4,00,000/-, Claimant No.3 is entitled to receive an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- with accrued interest thereon out of Rs.2,00,000/-. R.3 is directed to pay that amount to the claimant Nos.1 and 3 directly and the said information shall be furnished to this Court. The remaining amount of Rs.2,00,000/- of 1st claimant, Rs.1,00,000/- of 3rd claimant shall be kept in fixed deposit in any 6 VS,J MACMA No.281 of 2023 Nationalized bank for a period of two years. The amount of 2nd claimant (being minor son of deceased) Rs.1,00,000/- shall be kept in fixed deposit till attaining his majority.” 9. Aggrieved by the said award, the insurance company filed the present appeal mainly contending that the deceased was an unauthorized passenger in a tractor, the policy did not cover such risk, and therefore, the insurer cannot be fastened with liability. 10. Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as respondents, perused the material in record. 11. Learned standing counsel for the appellant/insurance company contended that the deceased had travelled in the tractor and trailer bearing Nos.AP 04 V 7123 and 7124 as an unauthorized passenger, and that there is no provision to carry any person other than the driver in a tractor. It is further contended that, as the deceased travelled in the tractor on the date of accident as an unauthorized passenger, the claimants are not entitled to any compensation, and therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside. 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 prayed for dismissal of the appeal filed by the insurance company. 7 VS,J MACMA No.281 of 2023 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.7,00,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal? 14. On a perusal of the impugned award, it can be observed that P.W.1, the wife of the deceased, reiterated the contentions urged in the petition; however she is not an eyewitness to the accident. P.W.2, who is an eye-witness, deposed that he travelled along with the deceased as a collie in the same tractor at the time of the accident and that he lodged the complaint with the police. He further stated that the tractor and trailer were driven at high speed, as a result of which they turned turtle, and the deceased fell on the road, sustained injuries, and became unconscious, and while undergoing treatment, he succumbed to the injuries. P.W.2 categorically stated that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor and trailer by its driver i.e. respondent No.1. 15. It is the case of respondent No.3 that the deceased travelled as a gratuitous passenger in violation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, that no premium was paid by the insured to cover the risk of coolies, and that the deceased 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, the police filed a charge sheet against respondent No.1. Therefore, basing on the evidence of P.W.2 and Exs.A.1 8 VS,J MACMA No.281 of 2023 and A.5, the Tribunal rightly came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the 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 for loading and unloading stones at the time of the accident. No special premium was collected to cover the risk of a coolie. Further, the seating capacity of the tractor is only “one” and as the deceased was travelling as an unauthorized passenger in the tractor, the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. 18. At this juncture, it is pertinent to refer to Rule 252 of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, which reads as follows: “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 9 VS,J MACMA No.281 of 2023 vehicle for such purpose, and save in accordance with the provisions of such permit.” 19. According to the above Rule, persons shall not be carried beyond the prescribed capacity and it is not merely a violation of the terms of the policy; 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 to pay compensation to the claimants or to recover the same from the owner, as held by this High Court in Vachala Vs. V.R. Kumar1, wherein 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 2006 ACJ 2098 10 VS,J MACMA No.281 of 2023 question of insurer covering the risk 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 a 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 appellant. 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 No.281 of 2023 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 12 VS,J MACMA No.281 of 2023 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 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 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 04 V 7123 and AP 04 V 7124. 27. With the above directions, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA KGR Dated 24.02.2026.