APHC010207822005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Thursday, the Twenty sixth day of February, Two Thousand and Twenty Six The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Motor Accident Civil Between: 1. United India Insurance Company Limited, represented by its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Anantapur. 1. Y.Subbamma, W/o.Y.Narayana, aged 36 years, Hindu, R/o.Vepakunta village, Kanaganapalli Mandal, Anantapur District. 2. Y.Alivelamma, D/o.Y.Narayana, aged 26 years, Hindu, R/o.Vepakunta village, Kanaganapalli Mandal, Anantapur District. 3. Y.Seenappa, S/o.Y.Narayana, aged 22 years, Hindu, R/o.Vepakunta village, Kanaganapalli Mandal, Anantapur District. 4. Y.Ravi, S/o. Y.Narayana, aged 20 years, Hindu, R/o.Vepakunta village, Kanaganapalli Mandal, Anantapur District. 5. Y.Venkatesh, S/o.Y.Narayana, aged 15 years, Hindu, R/o.Vepakunta village, Kanaganapalli 6. Y.Narayana, S/o.Y.Narayana, aged 8 years, Hindu, R/o.Vepakunta village, Kanaganapalli Mandal, Anantapur District. (Respondents Nos.5 and 6, being minors, are represented by their mother and natural guardian Y.Subbamma) IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) Thursday, the Twenty sixth day of February, Two Thousand and Twenty Six Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No: 2602 of 2005 United India Insurance Company Limited, represented by its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Anantapur. ...Appellant and Y.Subbamma, W/o.Y.Narayana, aged 36 years, Hindu, R/o.Vepakunta village, Kanaganapalli Mandal, Anantapur District. Y.Alivelamma, D/o.Y.Narayana, aged 26 years, Hindu, R/o.Vepakunta village, Kanaganapalli Mandal, Anantapur District. Y.Seenappa, S/o.Y.Narayana, aged 22 years, Hindu, R/o.Vepakunta anaganapalli Mandal, Anantapur District. Y.Ravi, S/o. Y.Narayana, aged 20 years, Hindu, R/o.Vepakunta village, Kanaganapalli Mandal, Anantapur District. Y.Venkatesh, S/o.Y.Narayana, aged 15 years, Hindu, R/o.Vepakunta village, Kanaganapalli Mandal, Anantapur District. Y.Narayana, S/o.Y.Narayana, aged 8 years, Hindu, R/o.Vepakunta village, Kanaganapalli Mandal, Anantapur District. (Respondents Nos.5 and 6, being minors, are represented by their mother and natural guardian Y.Subbamma) IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3311] Thursday, the Twenty sixth day of February, Two Thousand and Twenty Six Miscellaneous Appeal No: 2602 of 2005 United India Insurance Company Limited, represented by its Divisional ...Appellant Y.Subbamma, W/o.Y.Narayana, aged 36 years, Hindu, R/o.Vepakunta Y.Alivelamma, D/o.Y.Narayana, aged 26 years, Hindu, R/o.Vepakunta Y.Seenappa, S/o.Y.Narayana, aged 22 years, Hindu, R/o.Vepakunta Y.Ravi, S/o. Y.Narayana, aged 20 years, Hindu, R/o.Vepakunta Y.Venkatesh, S/o.Y.Narayana, aged 15 years, Hindu, R/o.Vepakunta Y.Narayana, S/o.Y.Narayana, aged 8 years, Hindu, R/o.Vepakunta (Respondents Nos.5 and 6, being minors, are represented by their 2 BSB,J M.A.C.M.A.No.2602 of 2005 7. K.Chinna Peera, S/o. Reddi Khasim, major, Muslim, D.No.28 / 428- 105, Bus stand road, Anantapur. (case against respondent No.7 was dismissed for default vide order dated 05.01.2012) (case against respondent No.7 was restored vide C.O.Dated 26.03.2021 in I.A.No.02 of 2016 in M.A.C.M.A.No.2602 of 2005.) ...Respondents Counsel for the appellant 1. Ch.Yagna Narayana Counsel for the respondents Nil 3 BSB,J M.A.C.M.A.No.2602 of 2005 The Court made the following JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the decree and the award dated 30.03.2005 in O.P.No.251 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum III Additional District Judge, (F.T.C.), Ananthapur. 2. The appellant is the respondent No.2, the respondents Nos.1 to 6 are the claimants and the respondent No.7 is the respondent No.1 before the Tribunal. 3. The claimants filed a petition seeking compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the death of Y.Narayana (in short ‘the deceased’) in a motor vehicle accident. 4. The case of the claimants is, briefly stated, as follows: On 05.03.1996, the deceased and other vegetable vendors boarded a lorry bearing No.MEK 4550 with their vegetables to go to their village and paid requisite charges. As the driver of the lorry drove it rashly and negligently near Bhanukota village, the lorry fell into a ditch. The deceased died on the spot and the others sustained injuries. A case was registered by the police of Kanaganapalli village vide Cr.No.10 of 1996. The deceased used to earn Rs.4,000/- per month doing agriculture and vending vegetables. He was aged 35 years. 5. The respondent No.1 remained ex parte. 6. The respondent No.2 opposed the claim denying the case pleaded by the claimants and further pleading that the driver of the lorry had no driving licence as on the date of the accident and that the amount of compensation claimed is excessive. 4 BSB,J M.A.C.M.A.No.2602 of 2005 7. On behalf of the claimants, she got herself examined as PW1, besides examining the co-passenger as PW2 and marked Exs.A1 and A2. 8. On behalf of the respondents, R.W.1 was examined and a copy of insurance policy was marked as Ex.B1. P.W.1: P.Subbamma P.W.2: Chandrasekhar Ex.A1: Certified copy of F.I.R. Ex.A2: Certified copy of Post mortem certificate. R.W.1: B.Ramachandrappa Ex.B1: True copy of insurance policy. 9. After considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.1,77,720/- with interest @ 9% p.a., thereon from the date of the petition till the date of its payment, together with proportionate costs payable by the respondents with joint and several liability. 10. Aggrieved by the award, this appeal was filed by the respondent No.2 challenging the liability, mainly on the ground that the policy of insurance had not covered the risk of unauthorised passengers and that even if the persons boarded the lorry along with the vegetables, the same would be luggage and not goods as held by this Court in Pinninti Sanyasi and another Vs. Cheekati Sriramulu and others1, and as held by the Supreme Court that a goods vehicle is not authorised to carry passengers in M.V.Jayadevappa and another Vs. Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Limited2. The rate of interest is challenged on the ground that the Tribunal ought to have granted interest @ 7.5 % p.a., instead of 9% p.a., taking note of the prevailing rate of interest on bank deposits in view of the 1 2005 (2) ALD 93 (NOC) 2 2005 ACC 472 (SC) 5 BSB,J M.A.C.M.A.No.2602 of 2005 decision of the Supreme Court in Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation Limited Vs. S.Rajapriya and others3. 11. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the insurance company is not liable, since the risk of the deceased is not covered by the policy as he is un-authorised fare paid passenger and the terms of policy were violated. 12. Though vakalat for the respondent No.1 was initially filed by a counsel, on 26.03.2021, since the counsel reported giving up vakalat, this Court directed the Registry to issue notice to the respondent No.1. The notice sent had not been returned. Despite service of notices on the respondents Nos.2 to 4, they have not turned up. The respondent No.1 is a co-claimant of the respondents Nos.2 to 4. The respondents Nos.5 and 6 are represented by the respondent No.1 as they were minors. The notice sent to the respondent No.7 was returned unserved as refused and moreover he remained ex-parte before the Tribunal. 13. The fact that the deceased and the others were travelling along with a load of vegetables is not in dispute. As can be seen from the record, the insurance company generally pleaded that there was breach of terms of policy, but there was no specific plea taken in its counter about its liability on the ground that the risk of the deceased was not covered under the policy as he was a mere passenger and that the vegetables were his personal luggage and not goods. However, the Assistant Regional Manager of the respondent No.2 / appellant examined as R.W.1 deposed that the deceased and others travelled in the lorry as fare paid passengers and that they had not hired the lorry for carrying vegetables. He further deposed that the respondent No.1 violated terms and conditions of the policy by allowing 3 2005 (4) ALT 14 (SC) 6 BSB,J M.A.C.M.A.No.2602 of 2005 passengers in a goods vehicle on collection of fare and that the policy was issued for transportation of goods and not for carrying passengers for charges. He denied the suggestion that the deceased travelled in the vehicle as owner of the goods. 14. The Tribunal was silent on the aspect of the liability of the insurance company questioned on the grounds of breach of terms of policy or that the deceased was not authorised to travel in the lorry, may be as it was not raised before it during the course of arguments. 15. The fact that many agriculturists boarded the lorry with bags of vegetables indicates that the load is heavy. Therefore, it cannot be said that such load is personal luggage like a hand bag. As such, this Court does not accept the argument that the load of vegetables carried by the deceased is his personal luggage. The fact remains that he is the owner of those vegetables. As such, being the owner of the goods carried in the vehicle, the risk to his life is adequately covered by the policy of insurance issued by the appellant. There is no ground to uphold the contention in this regard. 16. In so far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal awarded just amount. The rate of interest by then is not on high side. Thus, there is no merit in the appeal. 17. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI Date: 26.02.2026 GRL 7 BSB,J M.A.C.M.A.No.2602 of 2005 69 HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI M.A.C.M.A.No.2602 of 2005 Date: 26.02.2026 GRL