1 MACMA No. 489/ 2023 VS,J. APHC010399292023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] MONDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 489/2023 Between: 1. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, DWARAKANAGAR, NEAR RTC COMPLEX, VISAKHAPATANAM ...APPELLANT AND 1. SMT. GEDELA BHARATHI, W/O LATE SRINU, HINDU, AGED 21 YEARS, HOUSEHOLD DUTIES, RESIDENT OF MAHANTHI STREET, KANAPAKA, VIZIANAGARAM TOWN. 2. SMT. GEDELA LAKSHMI, W/O KRISHNA, HINDU,AGED 45 YEARS, HOUSEHOLD DUTIES, RESIDENT OF MAHANTHI STREET, KANAPAKA, VIZIANAGARAM TOWN. 3. GEDELA KRISHNA, S/O SATYAM, HINDU, AGED 48 YEARS RESIDENT OF MAHANTHI STREET, KANAPAKA, VIZIANAGARAM TOWN. 4. GEDELA MOKSHITA, D/O LATE SRINU, HINDU, AGED 4 YEARS, RESIDENT OF MAHANTHI STREET, KANAPAKA, VIZIANAGARAM TOWN. 5. GEDELA BHUVANESH, S/O LATE SRINU, HINDU,AGED 1YEAR RESIDENT OF MAHANTHI STREET, KANAPAKA, VIZIANAGARAM TOWN. (PETITIONERS 4 AND 5 ARE BEING MINORS REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN SMT. BHARATHI I.E. 1ST PETITIONER) 2 MACMA No. 489/ 2023 VS,J. 6. JALAMADHI LAKSHMI, W/O APPALA NAIDU, AGED 30 YEARS, OWNER OF THE MOTOR CYCLE BEARING NO. AP 35AG 5731, RESIDENT OF D.NO. 1-23-65, YATHA STREET, KANAPAKA, VIZIANAGARAM TOWN. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Appellant: 1. GUDI SRINIVASU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. The Court made the following: 3 MACMA No. 489/ 2023 VS,J. THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 489/2023 J U D G M E N T: 1. This Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (for short MACMA) has been preferred by the Appellant/2nd Respondent - ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, represented by its Divisional Manager, Dwaraka Nagar, near RTC Complex, Visakhapatnam, challenging the Order and Decree dated 17.01.2023 in M.V.O.P.No.550 of 2017 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short MACT) –cum- IV Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram, awarding Rs.1,00,000/- to the petitioners towards compensation as against 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 2nd Respondent and Respondents No.1to 5 herein as Petitioners and Respondent No.6 herein as 1st respondent. 2. The Petitionersbeing wife, parents and children of the deceased – Gedela Srinu filed claim petition under section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-, together with interest and costs, for the death of G.Srinu in a road accident that occurred on 21.04.2017. 4 MACMA No. 489/ 2023 VS,J. 3. Brief averments of the claim petition are that: on 21.04.2017 in the early morning hours in between 3.00 to 4.00 A.M the deceased was proceeding towards Gajapathinagaram side on a motor cycle bearing No.AP35 AG 5731, due to his speed, rash and negligent driving, lost control over the vehicle and dashed against the road side railing and fell on the road, sustained severe bleeding injuries on the back side of the head and other body parts and became unconscious. After receiving information, 108 Ambulance went to the spot and shifted the deceased to District Head Quarters Hospital. Father of the deceased received information from the hospital staff and rushed to the hospital. On the advice of Doctors, the deceased was shifted to KGH hospital, Visakhapatanam for better treatment. While undergoing treatment the deceased died at about 07.30 a.m.,. The deceased was aged 26 years and he was hale and health prior to the accident. He used to earn Rs.8,000/- per month as sales man. Due to the sudden death of the deceased, the petitioners have lost his love and affection. The petitioners have spent more than Rs.50,000/- for transport to the hospital and funeral expenses. The 1st respondent is owner of the crime vehicle, 2nd respondent is insurance company and insurance policy was in force as on the date of the accident. As such, both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. 5 MACMA No. 489/ 2023 VS,J. 4. 1strespondent filed written statement, denying petition averments and the accident and submitted that the deceased was not having valid driving license at the time of accident. If the Honourable Court came to the conclusion that the petitioners are entitled to compensation, it is to be paid by 2nd respondent insurance company but, not by the 1st respondent. 5. 2nd respondent insurer has filed separate written statement denying the petition averments and submitted that the death of the deceased was not arising out of an accident held in the course of employment and there is no employee and employer relationship between 1st respondent and the deceased. Hence, 2nd respondent - insurer is not liable to pay compensation. The company will indemnify driver cum owner of the vehicle, provided such driver fulfill the terms and conditions of the policy. 1st party to the policy is insurance company and the 2nd party is the insured i.e., owner. The deceased is not a 3rd party under the Motor Vehicles Act. The insurance company will indemnify the liability of the owner towards 3rd party, but it does not indemnify the driver who steps into the shoes of the insured himself. Hence, the present petition is not maintainable. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to try and entertain this petition and the petition is liable to dismissed. The entire police record is very clear that there is gross negligence on the part of the deceased, self negligence cannot be compensated by the insurance company. The present petition is filed in collusion with the respondent No.1, but not otherwise. 6 MACMA No. 489/ 2023 VS,J. 6. On the basis of above pleadings, the following issues were settled bythe Tribunal for enquiry: 1) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of 1strespondent vehicle motor cycle bearing No.AP 35 AG 5731 by its driver and causing death of deceased Gedela Srinu? 2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, for what amount and which respondents are liable to pay compensation amount? 3) To what relief? In a petition under the section 163(A) of MV Act, rash and negligent driving is not a question to be decided and the section relates to 'no fault liability’, as such issue No.1 was re-casted as below by the Tribunal. 1) Whether the petitioners have proved that the deceased Gedela Srinu died in the accident occurred on 21.04.2017 while driving the motor cycle bearing No. AP 35AG 5731? 7. During the course of trial/inquiry, on behalf of petitioners, 1st petitioner Gedela Bharathi got examined as P.W.1 and also got marked Ex.A.1: Attested copy of FIR in crime No. 40/2017; Ex.A2: Attested copy of postmortem certificate;Ex.A3: Attested copy of inquest report; and Ex.A4: Attested copy of MVI report,and Ex.A.5 – attested copy of final report. 7 MACMA No. 489/ 2023 VS,J. On behalf of Respondents, Manager of 2nd respondent insurance company - U.Appanna got examined as R.W.1, Respondent No.1 - P.Adilaxmi got examined as R.W.2 and got marked Ex.B1 - Attested copy of insurance policy of offending vehicle and Ex.X.1: Authorization letter. 8. Upon hearing both sides and upon perusing the material available on record, the Tribunal partly allowed the petition, with proportionate costs by awarding an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation to the petitioners together with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of award till realization on awarded compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. 2nd respondent is directed to pay the compensation amount within one (01) month from the date of order. 9. Being aggrieved by the said order and decree, the 2nd respondent – Insurance Company has preferred the present appeal on the grounds that – the deceased borrowed the motor cycle bearing No.AP35 AG 5731 from the owner of the motor cycle – 6th respondent and stepped into the shoes of the owner of the motor cycle by the time of accident and he is not a 3rd party to maintain a petition under section 163A of the M.V Act. Tribunal ought tohave seen that the CAP under Section 163A of M.V Act is Rs.40,000/- per annum. Tribunal failed to see that the accident occurred purely due to the self-negligence of the deceased and the petitioners are not entitled for any amount under the head of Personal Accident Claim as per terms and conditions of the policy; to get compensation under personal accident claim, the deceased should be registered as owner of 8 MACMA No. 489/ 2023 VS,J. the vehicle and he should be the policyholder as per policy and he should hold effective driving license, deceased was not possessing driving license as per evidence of R.W.2. The Tribunal awarded Rs.1,00,000/- compensation without any basis and directed the appellant to pay the compensation. Hence, prayed to allow the appeal by setting aside the Judgment/Order and Decree dated 17.01.2023 in M.V.O.P.No.550 of 2017 passed by the Chairman, MACT –cum- IV Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram. 10. Heard the learned Counsel for Appellant as well as Respondents and perused the material in record. 11. Now the point for consideration is: Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference? 12. POINT: The present appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company challenging the award passed by the Chairman, MACT –cum- IV Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram dated 17.01.2023 on the sole ground that the claim petition itself is not maintainable under section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act as the deceased is not the owner of the motor cycle and he stepped into the shoes of the owner of the motor cycle and he does not come under the definition of third party, as such, the claimants are not entitled for any compensation as awarded by the Tribunal. 9 MACMA No. 489/ 2023 VS,J. 13. 9 MACMA No. 489/ 2023 VS,J. 13. On perusal of the award/order passed by the Tribunal, it can be observed that it is admitted case of the claimants that on 21.04.2021 early in the morning hours in between 3.00 to 4.00 A.M, the deceased was proceeding towards Gajapathinagaram side on motor cycle bearing No.AP35 AG 5731, due to his speed in a rash and negligent driving, lost control over the vehicle and dashed against the road side railing and fell on the road, sustained severe bleeding injuries on the back side of the head and thereafter while undergoing treatment in KGH Hospital, Visakhapatnam the deceased was died at about 4.30 A.M.,. 14. The Tribunal on the point whether the petitioners are legal heirs of the deceased, who is not the owner of the motor cycle, who met with self- accident and died are entitled for any compensation under section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, has relied on Ningamma and another vs United India Insurance Company1 case, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court in a similar issue was considered and held that- “the borrower of the vehicle stepped into the shoes of owner being permissive user of the vehicle and if he dies, in the self accident, his L.Rs are entitled to compensation as of personal accident coverage to the owner of the vehicle to the extent of the premium paid for the personal accident coverage”. In the present case, as per Ex.B.1 – policy terms,1st respondent – owner paid Rs.1,000/- to cover risk of personal accident, therefore, the Tribunal 1 2009 ACJ 2020 10 MACMA No. 489/ 2023 VS,J. awarded Rs.1,00,000/- to the petitioners who are the legal heirs of the deceased, which is neither excessive nor arbitrary. Therefore, there are no grounds to allow the appeal and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 15. Accordingly, Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA KS Dated 23.02.2026. 11 MACMA No. 489/ 2023 VS,J. 259 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 489/2023 DATED 23.02.2026 KS