APHC010519552025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) Thursday, the fifth day of The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi M.A.C.M.A.No.2060 of 2005 and M M.A.C.M.A.No.2060 of 2005 Between: The National Insurance Company Limited, Nellore Dulla Suribabu and others M.A.C.M.A.No.3565 of 2009 The National Insurance Company Limited, Nellore Ginjala Ramanamma and others Counsel for the appellant 1. S.A.V.Ratnam Counsel for the respondent Josyula Bhaskara Rao The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) day of February two thousand and twenty Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi No.2060 of 2005 and M.A.C.M.A.No.3565 of 2009 No.2060 of 2005 The National Insurance Company Limited, Nellore ...Appellant and Dulla Suribabu and others ...Respondent No.3565 of 2009 Insurance Company Limited, Nellore ...Appellant and Ginjala Ramanamma and others ...Respondent ppellant: Counsel for the respondents: Josyula Bhaskara Rao following: [3311] two thousand and twenty six No.3565 of 2009 Appellant Respondents ...Appellant Respondents 2 M.A.C.M.A.Nos.2060 of 2005 & 3565 of 2009 COMMON JUDGMENT: M.A.C.M.A. No.2060 of 2005 This appeal was filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award and the decree dated 15.04.2005 in M.V.O.P.No.383 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III-Additional District Judge, Kakinada. The appellant is the respondent No.3, the respondent No.1 is the claimant, the respondents Nos.2 and 3 are the respondents Nos.1 and 2 before the Tribunal. M.V.O.P.No.383 of 2001 was filed by the injured seeking compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- M.A.C.M.A. No.3565 of 2009 This appeal was filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award and the decree dated 17.02.2005 in M.V.O.P.No.382 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV-Additional District Judge, Kakinada. The appellant is the respondent No.3, the respondents Nos.1 to 7 are the claimants Nos.1 to 7, the respondents Nos.8 and 9 are the respondents Nos.1 and 2 before the Tribunal. M.V.O.P.No.382 of 2001 was filed by the legal representatives of late Iftekhar Mahamood seeking compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-. The claimant No.1 is the wife, the claimants Nos.2 to 5 are the minor children and claimants Nos.6 and 7 are parents of the deceased. 2. Since both the appeals arise out of the same accident and the same question of liability was raised by the appellant in these appeals, they are heard together and a common judgment is passed. 3 M.A.C.M.A.Nos.2060 of 2005 & 3565 of 2009 3. The victims are referred hereafter as the injured and the deceased and the others as per their status before the Tribunal. 4. The common case of the claimants is that on 15.02.2001, the injured and the deceased, along with others were engaged for blasting, loading and unloading the quarry stones in a lorry bearing No.AP 26 T 8788 owned by the respondent No.2 and insured by the respondent No.3. After they travelled to some distance from the quarry, the respondent No.1 who was the driver of the lorry, drove it in a rash and negligent manner due to which the lorry turned turtle. Some of them received injuries and the deceased died. A case in Cr.No.32 of 2001 was registered under section 304-A, 338 and 337 I.P.C. by the Prattipadu police on a complaint of the V.A.O., Gajjanapudi village. A charge sheet was laid against the respondent No.1. 5. The injured sustained grievous crush injuries to his left hand and his left eye brow. His left hand was amputated above 1/3rd middle. He took treatment in the Government General Hospital, Kakinada as inpatient for three months and spent huge amount for his treatment. The injured used to earn Rs.4,500/- per month as a coolie in the quarry, but due to the amputation, he is unable to attend his work and earn. 6. The deceased was aged 35 years and earning Rs.150/- per day as on the date of the accident and on the demise of the deceased, they lost their bread earner. 7. After hearing both the parties in M.V.O.P.No.382 of 2001, the Tribunal allowed the petition in favour of the petitioners against all the three respondents with joint and several liability to pay compensation of Rs.2,53,000/- with proportionate costs and interest @ 9% p.a., on the amount of compensation payable from the date of the petition till the date of deposit. 4 M.A.C.M.A.Nos.2060 of 2005 & 3565 of 2009 8. Whereas, in M.V.O.P.No.383 of 2001, the Tribunal held that there is no contractual or legal obligation on the part of the respondent No.3 to indemnify the liability of the respondent No.2. The Tribunal allowed the claim petition in favour of the injured petitioner and against the respondents Nos.1 and 2 granting compensation of Rs.1,68,360/- with proportionate costs and interest @ 9% p.a., on the amount of compensation payable from the date of the petition till the date of deposit, however, directed the respondent No.3 to deposit the awarded amount within one month from the date of the award and gave liberty to the respondent No.3 to recover the said amount from the respondent No.2. 9. Aggrieved by the awards in both the claim petitions, the respondent No.3 preferred these appeals on the same ground as urged before the Tribunal that it is not liable to pay compensation since the injured and the deceased were travelling in the lorry as unauthorised passengers and further that the decisions in the claims arising out of the same accident are conflicting. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal in M.V.O.P.No.383 of 2001 erred in appreciating the legal proposition while directing the insurance company to pay and recover, having observed that the injured was an unauthorised passenger and the policy covered the risk of coolie and allowed the claim only against the respondents Nos.1 and 2 with joint and several liability. 11. She further submitted that the Tribunal in M.V.O.P.No.382 of 2001 erred in holding that the insurance company is jointly and severally liable with the insured by improper appreciation of evidence of P.W.2 and Ex.A.1 and concluding that the deceased was a coolie engaged in the quarry lorry and that the policy covered the risk of the deceased as the policy was issued for six coolies. 5 M.A.C.M.A.Nos.2060 of 2005 & 3565 of 2009 12. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimants contended that the Tribunal rightly held in M.V.O.P.No.382 of 2001 that the passengers in the lorry at the time of the accident were covered by the comprehensive policy. He further submitted that in M.V.O.P.No.383 of 2001 also, the same observation ought to have been drawn, however, as the Tribunal rightly directed the insurance company to first pay to the claimants and then recover the amount from the insured for the violation of the terms of the policy, the award need not be set aside. He referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Brij Bihari Gupta Vs. Manmet and others1, wherein it was held that Section 147 of the M.V.Act, 1988 covers the risk of death or body injury to third parties and any person, including owner of the goods or his authorised representative of the owner of the goods carried in the motor vehicle. 13. In the case of the injured in M.V.O.P.No.383 of 2001, the Tribunal observed that as per the evidence of P.W.2 and the contents of the F.I.R. marked as Ex.A1, the claimant was working as a coolie in the quarry, but not in the lorry and therefore, he was an unauthorised passenger in the lorry at the time of the accident, whereas the policy of insurance marked as Ex.B1 covers the risk of six coolies. Therefore, the claim petition was dismissed against the respondent No.3 / insurance company without any liability. 14. Whereas, in the other case of death in M.V.O.P.No.382 of 2001, the Tribunal observed that the policy of insurance of the lorry marked as Ex.B1 is comprehensive policy and the insurance company is liable to pay compensation for six employees under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 and that the lorry was engaged for quarrying operation which involves labour for loading and unloading and that the evidence of P.W.2 and the contents of the F.I.R. / Ex.A1 shows that the deceased was an employee in that quarry lorry. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the 1 2025 (6) ALD 87 (SC) 6 M.A.C.M.A.Nos.2060 of 2005 & 3565 of 2009 respondents Nos.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. 15. Since both the claim petitions were decided by different Tribunals on different dates basing on the evidence therein, there is contrast in the decisions therein. As can be seen from the evidence of P.W.2 and Ex.A.1, the injured and the deceased were travelling with the quarry material after loading it in the lorry and thereby they are the authorised representative of the owner of the goods i.e. quarry material carried in the goods vehicle. As such, the policy squarely covers the liability in both cases, but the Tribunal covered the risk as coolies in respect of which premium was collected. In fact, the Tribunal in M.V.O.P.No.383 of 2001 committed error in holding that the injured was mere unauthorised passenger, yet treating the incident as violation of terms of policy directed payment of the amount of compensation however, since the liability of the insurance company cannot be dispensed with, the award cannot be set aside in that petition. As the insured has not preferred any appeal, the directions for recovery of the amount paid from the insured remains intact. Insofar as the appeal against the award and the decree in M.V.O.P.No.383 of 2001, no change can be made in the award. 16. In the result, both the appeals are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ B. S. BHANUMATHI, J Dt.05.02.2026 GRL / PNV