1 MACMA NO.162/2022 VS,J. APHC010161682022 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: 162/2022 Between: 1. SHAIK MABUNNI, W/O. LATE MOHAMMAD HUSSAIN, AGED 48 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WISE, RESIDING AT D.NO.8-3, SUNDARAIAHCOLONY, (KALAVATHAMMA COLONY), KAKKALPALLI, ANANTAPURAMU RURAL, ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT. 2. SHAIK RESHMA, D/O. LATE MOHAMMAD HUSSAIN, AGED 30 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WISE, RESIDING AT D.NO.8-3, SUNDARAIAHCOLONY, (KALAVATHAMMA COLONY), KAKKALPALLI, ANANTAPURAMU RURAL, ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT. 3. SHAIK NIZAMUDDIN, S/O. LATE MOHAMMAD HUSSAIN, AGED 29 YEARS, OCC. UNEMPLOYEE, RESIDING AT D.NO.8-3, SUNDARAIAHCOLONY, (KALAVATHAMMA COLONY), KAKKALPALLI, ANANTAPURAMU RURAL, ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT. 4. SHAIK RAFIQ, S/O. LATE MOHAMMAD HUSSAIN, AGED 28 YEARS, OCC. UNEMPLOYEE, RESIDING AT D.NO.8-3, SUNDARAIAHCOLONY, (KALAVATHAMMA COLONY), KAKKALPALLI, ANANTAPURAMU RURAL, ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT(S) AND 1. VENKAT LAKSHMI, BY HER L. RS . R4 TO R7. 2. SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN. 2 MACMA NO.162/2022 VS,J. 3. BOYA OBULESU, S/O. DHANUNJAYA, AGED 41 YEARS, RESIDING AT DURADAKUNTA VILLAGE, KALAYANDURGAM MANDAL, ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT. 4. P OBULAPPA, S/O NOT KNOW, AGED 93 YEARS, RESIDING AT D.NO. 7-77, NEAR VALMIKI CIRCLE, KALYANADURGAM TOWN, ANANTAPURAM DISTRICT. 5. P NARAYANAMMA, W/O. NAGARAJU, D/O. OBULAPPA, AGED 58 YEARS, RESIDING AT IRUPAAPALLI VILLAGE, BELUGUPPA MANDAL, ANANTAPURAM DISTRICT. 6. P CHARDRAPPA, S/O. OBULAPPA, AGED 53 YEARS, RESIDING AT D.NO. 7-77, NEAR VALMIKI CIRCLE,KALYANADURGAM TOWN, ANANTAPURAM DISTRICT. 7. P MARENNA, S/O.OBULAPPA, AGED 43 YEARS, RESIDING AT D.NO. 7-77, NEAR VALMIKI CIRCLE, KALYANADURGAM TOWN, ANANTAPURAM DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. SESHADRI GOALLA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. N RAMA KRISHNA 2. This court made the following: 3 MACMA NO.162/2022 VS,J. THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 162/2022 J U D G M E N T: 1. This Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (for short MACMA) has been preferred by the appellants/Petitioners challenging the Order and Decree dated 16.09.2019 in M.V.O.P.No.578 of 2014 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short MACT) –cum- III Additional District Judge, Ananthapuramu, awarding Rs.7,00,000/- to the petitioners towards compensation as against their claim of Rs.10,00,000/-. For the sake of convenience and to avoid confusion, the parties hereinafter are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal i.e., appellants herein as Petitioners and Respondents herein as Respondents. 2. The Petitioner No.1 being wife and petitioners No.2 to 4 being children of the deceased – Shaik Mohammad Hussain (hereinafter referred to as the „deceased‟) filed claim petition under sections 140 and 166 of the M.V Act read with Rule 455 of A.P M.V Rules, claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-, together with interest and costs, for the death of Shaik Mohammad Hussain in a motor vehicle accident. 3. Brief averments of the claim petition are that: at the time of accident, deceased was aged 45 years, hale and healthy and working as mastery in Granite factories and also an expert skilled worker in granite i.e., decorating work 4 MACMA NO.162/2022 VS,J. in slas, colour granite designs in apartments, houses etc., and earning Rs.15,000/- per month. He is the only earning member in their family. On 18.04.2014 the deceased and others were travelling in an Auto bearing registration No.AP-02-TA-6859 from Rayadurg to Anantapuramu.At about 7.00 p.m., when the said Auto reached at “T” Circle, Kalyandurg town, tractor and trailer bearing No.AP-02-X-4963 and AP-02-X-4965 came in opposite direction, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, in high speed, in zig zag manner, without blowing horn and without applying dipper lights to the opposite vehicles, dashed the Auto in which the deceased and others were travelling. As a result, the deceased fell down from the Auto and received grievous head injury. Immediately, the deceased was shifted to Government Hospital, Kalyandurg, as he was not in a talking position, he was shifted to Govt. Hospital, Anantapuramu, there the Doctors examined and declared that he was brought dead. The petitioners spent an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards medical, transport and funeral expenses. The accident was registered as a case in Cr.No.117/2014 for the offence punishable under section 304-A IPC in Kalyandurg town Police Station, against the driver of tractor i.e., 3rdrespondent. The 1strespondent being owner, 2ndrespondent being insurer and 3rdrespondent being driver of tractor and trailer bearing No.AP-02-X-4963 and AP-02-X-4965, all are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners. 5 MACMA NO.162/2022 VS,J. 4. Respondents No.1 and 3 remained ex-parte. 5. 2ndrespondent filed written statement denying all the allegations mentioned in the petition and submitted that driver of the tractor and trailer bearing No.AP-02-X-4 63 and AP-02-X-4965 had no driving license at all at the time of the alleged accident and he has not satisfied the requirements of Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules. Thus, he violated section 3(1) of M.V. Act. 1strespondent willfully and knowingly handed over the possession of vehicle to the person who had no driving license at all as on the date of accident. Therefore, he has contravened section 5 of M.V. Act and Rules framed thereunder. Owner of the crime vehicle has not complied the mandatory terms of section 134(c) of M.V. Act. Police concerned also failed to comply the provisions under section 158(6) of M.V. Act. Thus the 1st respondent alone is liable to pay compensation and the 2nd respondent has no liability to pay any compensation to the petitioners. The petitioners have to prove the alleged manner of accident and registering of case, age and income of thedeceased and medical expenses. 3rdand 4thpetitioners are majors and they cannot be dependents on the deceased as it is their obligation to maintain their mother and sister. Thus, the petitioners 3 and 4 are also not entitled to claim compensation. 6 MACMA NO.162/2022 VS,J. The main reason for causing the accident is overload of passengers in the auto and in-experience and inefficiency of driver of auto in driving the same and the auto is not insured with any insurance company and it had no valid records and a false case has been registered against the driver of the tractor and trailer. Thus, this respondent is not liable to pay compensation. The driver of the tractor and trailer bearing No.AP-02-X-4963 and AP-02-X-4965 is not at all responsible for the accident as such the 2ndrespondent is not liable to pay compensation. This petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties i.e., driver of auto and its insurance company. The claim of compensation is excessive and the petitioners are not entitled to claim interest on non-pecuniary damages. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition. 6. Considering the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial by the Tribunal. 1) Whether the deceased Shaik Mohammad Hussain received injuries in motor vehicle accident on 18.04.2014 at about 7.00 p.m, near “T” Circle, Kalyandurg town on Kalyandurg toAnantapuramu road, Ananthapuramu District, due to rash and negligent driving of driver of tractor and trailer bearing No.AP-02-X-4963 and AP-02-X-4965? 2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to receive compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom? 3) To what relief? 7 MACMA NO.162/2022 VS,J. 7. During the course of enquiry/trial, on behalf of Petitioners,1st petitioner who is wife of the deceased, got examined as P.W.1, and one eye witness to the accident by name -S.Mahaboob Basha got examined as P.W.2 and also got marked Ex.A.1: Attested copy of FIR; Ex.A.2: Attested copy of inquest report; Ex.A.3: Attested copy of post mortem report; Ex.A.4: Attested copy of charge sheet; Ex.A.5: Attested copy of MVI report; Ex.X1: Authorization letter; Ex.X2: RC extract of tractor bearing No. AP-02-X-4963; Ex.X3: RC extract of trailer bearing No. AP-02-X-4965; Ex.X4: FC extract of Trailer; Ex.X5: Permit of Trailer. On behalf of Respondent No.3, RW1: D.Ramanjaneyulu; RW2: B.Gouri Shankar; RW3: B.Obulesu were examined and got markedEx.B.1: Attested copy of insurance policy relating to tractor and trailer bearing No. AP-02-X-4963 and AP-02-X-4965. 8. Upon hearing learned counsel for Petitioners and Respondent No.2, the Tribunal allowed the petition in part, by awarding compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- against the estate of the deceased/R.1 which is now in the hands of R.4 to R.7, together with accrued interest thereon at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till date of deposit. R.4 to R7 are directed to deposit said compensation amount together with accrued interest thereon and 8 MACMA NO.162/2022 VS,J. costs of petition, within 30 days from the date of order, from the estate of the deceased R.1, if any.The claim against Respondents No.2 and 3 was dismissed. 9. Being aggrieved by the said the Order and decree, the appellants/petitioners have preferred this appeal on the grounds that – the Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim against 2nd respondent/insurance company on the ground that respondent No.3 was not having driving license. The tribunal ought to have considered that the petitioners have lost their breadwinner of the family and ought to have awarded entire compensation amount of Rs.10,00,000/- as claimed in the petition as the deceased died at the age of 45 years. Therefore, prayed to allow the appeal for total claim as claimed in the petition by fixing liability against 2nd respondent – insurance company. Hence prayed to allow the appeal by setting aside the Order and decree passed by the Chairman, MACT –cum- III Additional District, Ananthapuramu, dated 16.09.2019 in M.V.O.P.No.578 of 2014 by fixing liability on 2nd respondent. 10. Heard learned Counsel for the appellants as well as respondents. 11. Now the point for determination is:-Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference? 12. POINT:On perusal of the award passed by the Tribunal, it can be observed that the 1stclaimant, who is the wife of the deceased, got examined 9 MACMA NO.162/2022 VS,J. herself as P.W.1 who deposed about manner of accident as stated in the claim petition. P.W.2 is an eyewitness who travelled along with the deceased in an auto and stated about the manner of accident. Hence, relying upon the evidence of P.W.2 coupled with Ex.A.1 - Attested copy of FIR, Ex.A.4 – Attested copy of the charge sheet, which shows that after due investigation, it was established that the accident had occurred due to the negligence of respondent No.3, resulting death the deceased, the Tribunal safely concluded that the accident had occurred due to the negligence of respondent No.3 resulting the death of the deceased. 13. The 2nd respondent to prove that there is violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy, got examined the 3rd respondent who was driver of tractor and trailer at the time of accident as R.W.3 to prove that he drove the offending vehicle without having any driving license. R.W.3 categorically deposed in his chief examination that he was not having any driving license to drive any type of vehicle. It is also admitted fact that as on the date of accident, the policy was in force. Basing on the evidence of R.W.3 read with Ex.A.1- attested copy of F.I.R, Ex.A.4 – attested copy of charge sheet and Ex.A.5 – attested copy of M.V.I., report it was established that respondent No.3 drove the Tractor and Trailer bearing No.AP02 X 4063 and AP02 X 4965 in a rash and negligent manner on 18.04.2014 resulting in the death of the deceased. Though it is the evidence of R.W.1 that the policy under Ex.B.1 was in force at the time of 10 MACMA NO.162/2022 VS,J. the accident, the Tribunal considering Exs.A.1 to A.5, which are nothing but copy of F.I.R., inquest report, P.MCertificate, charge sheet and MVI report, which in fact was filed against respondent Nos.1 and 3 for the offence under Section 304- A of IPC and Sections 180 and 181 of the M.VAct., and the evidence of R.W.3, held that respondent No.3 was not holding any driving license at the time of the accident. It is the evidence of R.W.1 that the policy was in existence as on the date of the accident, but the driver of the said offending vehicle was not holding valid driving license, which in fact is in violation of the violation of policy conditions. 14. Under similar circumstances, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in “National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh &Ors.1” has categorically held that the insurance company may not be liable to satisfy the decree and, therefore, its liability may be zero but it does mean that it did not have initial liability at all. Thus, if the insurance company is made liable to pay any amount it can recover the entire amount paid to the third party on behalf of the assured. Therefore, the Tribunal has power to direct them to satisfy the decree at the first instance and then direct recovery of the same from the owner. 1(2004) 3 SCC 297 11 MACMA NO.162/2022 VS,J. In“National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh &Ors.,” (referred above)the Hon‟ble Supreme Court while dealing with the case of unauthorized passengers held as follows: “Sub-section (5) of Section 149 which imposes a liability on the insurer must also be given its full effect. The insurance company may not be liable to satisfy the decree and, therefore, its liability may be zero but it does mean that it did not have initial liability at all. Thus, if the insurance company is made liable to pay any amount it can recover the entire amount paid to the third party on behalf of the assured. If this interpretation is not given to the beneficent provisions of the Act having regard to its purport and object, we fail to see a situation where beneficent provisions can be given effect to Sub-section (7) of Section 149 of the Act, to which pointed attention of the Court has been drawn by the learned counsel for the petitioner, which is in negative language may now be noticed. The said provision must be read with Sub-section (1) thereof. The right to avoid liability in terms of Sub-section (2) of Section 149 is restricted as has been discussed hereinbefore. It is one thing to say that the insurance companies are entitled to raise a defence but it is another thing to say that despite the fact that its defence has been accepted having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has power to direct them to satisfy the decree at the first instance and then direct recovery of the same from the owner. These two matters stand apart and require contextual reading.” As per the law laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the judgment (referred supra)even if the insurer successfully proves a breach of policy condition, the insurance company may still be directed to pay compensation to the claimantand then recover the amount from the insured (owner of the vehicle). This ensures that the rights of the third-party victim are protected and it was emphasized that insurance policies are statutorily required to protect third 12 MACMA NO.162/2022 VS,J. parties, and even in cases of breach by the insured, the insurer's liability towards third-party victims does not vanish immediately. In the case on hand, the evidence adduced by the claimants before the Tribunal would substantially prove that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.3 - driver of Tractor and Trailer bearing No.AP02 X 4063 and AP02 X 4965 and dashed the Auto in which the deceased was travelling, resulting death of the deceased. In view of the same and in the light of the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court referred to supra, the contention of respondent No.2 – insurance company that it cannot be directed to pay the compensation cannot be accepted. 15. Coming to the quantum of compensation, as the petitioners failed to prove the income of the deceased as Rs.15,000/- per month by doing mastery, the tribunal treated him as daily labour and considered his monthly income as Rs.5,000/-, as the accident was occurred in the year 2014. So, the annual income of deceased is (5000 x 12 =) Rs.60,000/-. As there are 4 dependents in the present case, 1/4thhas to be deducted towards his personal expenses. After deducting 1/4th, the annual income of the deceased would come to (60,000 – 15,000=) Rs.45,000/-. As per Ex.A.2 - inquest report age of the deceased is 45 years as on the date of the accident, the appropriate multiplier „14‟ is applicable for the age group of 41 - 45 years, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court 13 MACMA NO.162/2022 VS,J. in "Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation"2. If it is calculated, the loss of dependency would come to (45000 X 14 =) Rs.6,30,000/-. Thus, an amount of Rs.6,30,000/- was awarded towards loss of dependency to the petitioners due to the death of the deceased. 16. In addition to the above, the Tribunal also awarded Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.40,000/- towards loss of love and affection as laid down in “National Insurance Company Vs. Pranay Sethi 3”,. In all the Tribunal awarded Rs.7,00,000/- towards compensation to the petitioners 17. In view of the above discussion, while confirming the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, this Court deems it appropriate to modify the award passed by the Tribunal only to the extent of directing respondent No.2 – insurance company to initially pay the compensation to the appellants – claimants and then recover the amount from the owner of the vehicle. 18. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed directing respondent No.3 – Insurance company to initially pay the compensation amount of Rs.7,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realisation to the claimants, within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of copy of the order and then recover the same from the insured-owner of the 22009 ACJ 1298 3 2018 ACJ 2782 14 MACMA NO.162/2022 VS,J. offending vehicle (respondent No.1) by filing Execution proceedings before the Tribunal. No costs. However, the appellants are not entitled to claim any interest for the delay period of 816 days in filing the appeal as ordered by this court on 24.07.2025. 19. Accordingly, the present Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is modified. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. _______________________ SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA KS Dated 24.02.2026. 15 MACMA NO.162/2022 VS,J. 263 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENTS CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 162/2022 DATED 24.02.2026 KS