1 APHC010208192022 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: 184/2022 Between: 1. CHOLA MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, MEHAR NAGAR, NEAR IDBI BANK, SRIKAKULAM TOWN AND DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT AND 1. EEDU NAGAMMA, D/O LATE MOHAN RAO, HINDU, AGED 20 YEARS, STUDENT, RESIDING AT DOOR NO. 7-2-5, SANTOSI STREET, RATTAKANNA VILLAGE, LTCHAPURAM MANDALAM, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. EEDU JAYAMMA, D/O LATE MOHAN RAO, HINDU, AGED 19 YEARS, STUDENT, RESIDING AT DOOR NO. 7-2-5, SANTOSI STREET, RATTAKANNA VILLAGE, ITCHAPURAM MANDALAM, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. EEDURAMAYYA, S/O LATE MOAHAN RAO, HINDU, AGED 16 YEARS, RESIDING AT DOOR NO. 7-2-5, SANTOSI STREET, RATTAKANNA VILLAGE, ITCHAPURAM MANDALAM, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. (3RD PETITIONER BEING MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS SISTER AND GUARDIAN THE 1ST PETITIONER EEDU NAGAMMA, D/O LATE MOHAN RAO, HINDU, AGED 20 YEARS, STUDENT, RESIDING AT DOOR NO.7-2- 5, SANTOSI STREET, RATTAKANNA VILLAGE, LTCHAPURAM MANDALAM, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT) 4. PALEPU POLA RAO, S/O BHAGIRATHI, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, DRIVER OF THE TRACTOR TRAILER NO. AP 30V 5757-5759, RESIDING AT DOOR NO.1-11, NARSIPURAM VILLAGE, KASIBUGGA TOWN, PALASA MANDALAM, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 2 5. UPPU HARIKRISHNA, S/O SOMESWARA RAO, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 40YEARS, OWNER OF TRACTOR TRAILER NO. AP 30V 5757-5759, RESIDING AT DOOR NO. 6-1-52/1, RATTAKANNA VILLAGE, ICHAPURAM MANDALAM, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Appellant: 1. GUDI SRINIVASU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. 2. C SUBODH The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 184/2022 J U D G M E N T: 1. This Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (for short MACMA) has been preferred by the appellant/ 3rd respondent Insurance Company challenging the Order and Decree dated 13.12.2021 in M.V.O.P.No.275 of 2018 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short MACT) – cum- Principal District Judge, Srikakulam, awarding Rs.11,20,000/- to the petitioners towards compensation as against their claim of Rs.15,00,000/-. For the sake of convenience and to avoid confusion, the parties hereinafter are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal i.e., appellant herein as 3rd respondent and Respondents 1 to 3 as Petitioners, Respondents No.4 and 5 herein as Respondents No.1 and 2. 2. The Petitioners No.1 to 3 being daughters of deceased – Late Mohan Rao (hereinafter referred to as the „deceased‟) filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-, together with interest and costs, for the death of Mohan Rao in a motor vehicle accident. 3. Brief averments of the claim petition are that: on 26.12.2017 morning at 04.30 AM, the deceased Eedu Chandramma and her villager Pyla Gangamma boarded the Tractor Trailer bearing Nos. AP 30V 5757-5759, to go to Loddalputti village for loading and unloading purpose, they reached Balarampuram near Loddaputti village and loaded the big stones and boarded in the trailer to go to Chidambareswara street of Ichapuram town for unlading purpose. When they 4 reached opposite to Rajavarikota, Old NH 5 road near Santhapeta, Ichapuram, around 11.30 AM, at that time the 1st respondent being driver of the Tractor Trailer drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and applied sudden brakes, due to which the deceased fell down on the road and tyres of the trailer ran away over her waist and ribs and died instantaneously. The Station House Officer, Ichapuram police station registered a case in Crime No.66/2017. The petitioners spent Rs.25,000/- towards funeral and transport expenses of the deceased dead body. The deceased was working as a labourer under the employment of the 2nd respondent, she used to attend all types of labour works and getting Rs.15,000/- per month and maintaining her family. The deceased was hale and healthy and died at her young age of 38 years. The 1st respondent being driver has valid driving licence to drive the tractor trailer and the 2nd respondent being owner of the vehicle had insured the vehicle with the 3rd respondent/insurance company and it was in force as on the date of accident. 4. 1st respondent - driver of the vehicle remained ex-parte. 5. The 2nd respondent-owner of the vehicle filed his written statement denying the petition averments and contended that when the vehicle reached to the destination, without stopping the vehicle, the deceased put her step on the land and fell down on the road and the trailer ran over the body of the deceased 5 and when the driver of the vehicle applied sudden brake the accident was occurred and the accident occurred due to fault of the deceased only and 1st respondent is not at all responsible for the death of the deceased. The compensation claimed is very high. He insured the vehicle with the 3rd respondent and the policy was in force as on the date of accident. He paid the insurance premium to cover the accidental risks. The insurance company is only liable for compensation. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition against 2nd respondent. 6. The 3rd respondent/insurance company filed its written statement denying the petition averments besides contending that the person who drove the Tractor and Trailer bearing Nos. AP 30V 5757 and 5759 has no driving licence as on the date of accident to drive the said vehicle. The vehicle involved in this case is goods carriage vehicle. At the material time of accident, the deceased and another were sat on the wooden plank behind the seat of the driver i.e., on the tractor and hence the deceased in this case comes within the ambit of unauthorized passenger/ gratuitous passenger. The vehicle in this case is a goods carriage vehicle by having seating capacity of one i.e., driver only. Except driver no one should travel on it since there is no seating capacity. But contrary to it, at the material time of accident, the deceased and another person were traveling on the tractor. On the date of contract of insurance the insured vehicle was expressly or impliedly not covered by a permit to carry any 6 person/passenger. The deceased is not supposed to travel in the goods vehicle. The deceased traveled in the vehicle as unauthorized passenger. The insurance company has not collected any additional premium to cover the risk of the labourer. 2nd respondent has not paid any additional premium to cover the risk of the labourer. Therefore, this respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners in this case since there is no contract of insurance to cover the risk of the labourer in the said vehicle at the time of accident. The compensation claimed is very excessive. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition. 7. Based on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled by the Tribunal for inquiry/trial: 1) Whether the deceased/Eedu Chandramma, W/o late Mohana Rao died on account of the injuries sustained by her in the motor vehicle accident that took place on 26.12.2019 at about 11.30 hours near Old Maharaja Fort, Old NH 5 road, near Santhapeta junction, Ichapuram, Srikakulam district? If so, whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor trailer No.AP 30 V 5757-5759 by its driver? 2) Whether the petitioners proved the age and income of the deceased? 3) Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim any compensation for the death of the deceased/ Eedu Chandramma, W/o late Mohana Rao? If so, to what amount and from whom? 4) To what relief? 8. During the course of trial, to prove the case of petitioners, 1st petitioner - Eedu Nagamma examined as P.W.1, eyewitness to the accident and co-labour of deceased by name - Pyla Gangamma examined as P.W.2 and got 7 marked Ex.A.1- Certified copy of First Information Report in Crime No.66/2017 of Ichapuram town PS; Ex.A.2 - Certified copy of Inquest Report; Ex.A.3 - Certified copy of MVI Report; Ex.A.4 - Certified copy of Postmortem report; Ex.A.5 - Certified copy of charge sheet in CC 48/2018 on the file of JMFC, Ichapuram. On behalf of Respondents Respondent No.2 - Uppu Harikrishna examined as R.W.2, S.Lakshmi, Senior Assistant of RTA Office examined as R.W.2; the Deputy Manager of Respondent No.3 insurance company by name B. Shashank examined as R.W.3 and got marked Ex.B.1 – copy of insurance policy, Ex.B.2 – office copy of letter dated 28.02.2019 issued by 3rd respondent – insurance company to the owner of the vehicle; Ex.B.3 – served postal acknowledgment of 2nd respondent in respect of Ex.B.2 notice, Ex.B.4 – Terms and conditions of Ex.B.1 insurance police, Ex.X.1 – letter of Deputy Transport Commissioner dated 15.03.2020 authorizing R.W.2 to give evidence before the Tribunal, Ex.X.2 – copy of “B” register of Tractor No.AP30 V 5757; Ex.X.3 – Copy of “B” Register of Trailer No.AP30 V 5759. Ex.X.4 – copy of permit history of Trailer No.AP30 V 5759, and Ex.X.5 – copy of fitness history of Trailer No.AP30 V 5759. 9. Upon hearing the counsel for Petitioners as well as Respondents, the tribunal partly allowed the petition by granting compensation of Rs.11,20,000/- to the petitioners 1 to 3, with interest at 7% per annum from the date of petition till date of deposit or realization and with proportionate costs, as against their claim of Rs.15,00,000/-. Respondents No.1 to 3 are jointly and 8 severally liable to pay compensation amount. However, 3rd respondent/Insurance Company is liable to deposit the compensation amount into Tribunal within one month from the date of order. 10. Being aggrieved by the said order and decree, the 3rd Respondent – insurance company has preferred the present appeal on the grounds that:- the Tribunal failed to see that the Tractor is having only one seating capacity for driver and no one can travel, except the driver, the deceased was traveling as an unauthorized passenger in the goods vehicle at the time of accident, 1st respondent not paid any additional premium towards risk of coolies traveling in the Tractor and Trailer, deceased was not a third party to award compensation, the accident was occurred due to self negligence of the deceased. The tribunal failed to see that claimants failed to prove the age, avocation and income of the deceased, tribunal ought to have considered notional income of deceased as Rs.3,000/- per month as claimants failed to prove the income of the deceased and ought not fix as Rs.9,000/- per month and in awarding Rs.11,20,000/- as compensation under various heads and in awarding interest at 7% p.a instead of 6% p.a.. The tribunal erred in making the appellant – insurance company liable to pay compensation to the claimants though the deceased was traveling as an unauthorized passenger in goods vehicle and the insured has not paid any additional premium towards the risk of the coolies in the goods vehicle. Hence, prayed to allow the appeal by setting aside the Judgment/Order and decree 9 dated 13.12.2021 in M.V.O.P.No.275 of 2018 by the Chairman, MACT –cum- principal District Judge, Srikakulam. 11. Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as respondents, perused the material in record. 12. 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.11,20,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal? 13. I have carefully analyzed the entire evidence on record. P.W.1 – daughter of the deceased reiterated the contentions urged in the petition, however she is not an eyewitness to the accident. P.W.2 who is eyewitness to the accident deposed that while they reached near Rajugarikota, as the tractor and trailer went on high speed, thereby it turned turtle and deceased fell down, trailer ran over her wait, caused injuries to her rib and waist and died. P.W.2 categorically stated that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor and trailer, by its driver i.e. respondent No.1. 14. It is the case of respondent No.3 that the deceased was travelling as an unauthorized passenger by sitting in the tractor and died due to her own negligence. 15. Further, Ex.A.1 – copy of F.I.R and Ex.A.5 – copy of Charge Sheet disclosed that after investigation police filed charge sheet against respondent 10 No.1. Therefore, basing on the evidence of P.W.2 and Ex‟s.A.1 and A.5, the Tribunal rightly came to the conclusion that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1. 16. Admittedly, there is no evidence on record to show that the deceased was engaged as a coolie by the owner of the tractor to unload stones at the time of accident. Special premium was not collected to cover the risk of coolie. Further, the seating capacity of the tractor is only “one” and as the deceased was travelling as an unauthorized passenger by sitting in the tractor, the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. 17. At this juncture, it is pertinent to quote Rule 252 of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, in this case, 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 11 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 vehicle for such purpose, and save in accordance with the provisions of such permit.” 18. According to the above Rule, persons shall not be carried more than the prescribed capacity and it is not just violation of terms of policy, but, 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 of paying the compensation to the claimants and recovering the same from the owner as was held by this High Court in case of Vachala Vs. V.R. Kumar, wherein the decision at 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 12 representative, being allowed to travel therein cannot arise in view of Rule 252(5) of 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, question of insurer covering the risk of owner 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. 19. The next contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that carrying of 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 there under 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 appellants. 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.” 13 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. 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.” 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 14 of compensation awarded by the Tribunal from the owner of the tractor and trailer irrespective of the liability against the insurer. 22. 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. 23. 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 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. 24. 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. 25. 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 respondents / claimants are still entitled to recover the balance 15 half of the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from the owner of Tractor and Trailer bearing Nos.AP30 V 5757 and AP30 V 5759. 26. 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 KS Dated 24.02.2026. 16 267 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENTS CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 184/2022 DATED 24.02.2026 KS