APHC010401662005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Tuesday, the twenty fourth day of March Two Thousand and twenty six The Honourable M Between: Akkala Chinnaiah and and C. Gurrappa and others Counsel for the appellant 1. P. Nagendra Reddy Counsel for the respondent 1. Vuppalapati. Srinivas Raju The Court made the IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) Tuesday, the twenty fourth day of March Two Thousand and twenty six Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi M.A.C.M.A. No.3705 of 2005 Akkala Chinnaiah and others ... hers ...Respondents ppellants: Nagendra Reddy espondents: Vuppalapati. Srinivas Raju The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3311] Tuesday, the twenty fourth day of March Two Thousand and twenty six Bhanumathi ...Appellants Respondents 2 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.3705 of 2005 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the decree and the award, dated, 27.08.2005, in M.V.O.P.No.376 of 2004, on the file of V Additional District Judge-cum- Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (F.T.C.) Kurnool. 2. The appellants are the claimants and the respondents are the respondents before the Tribunal. 3. M.V.O.P.Nos.375 and 376 of 2004 are decided by a common award, dated 27.08.2005, by the Tribunal. 4. The case of the claimants, briefly stated, is as follows: On 09.09.2003, at about 5.30 p.m., Damala Subhadra and Akkala Chinnakka, along with some others, boarded a trailer attached to a tractor bearing Reg.No.AP-21-U-8810 and 8811 respectively while returning after attending coolie work in Chagalamarri village to go to their village, Allagadda. Enroute, the driver of the tractor-trailer drove in a rash and negligent manner with a high speed and suddenly applied brakes at a culvert. As a result, the iron rod of the engine of the trailer broke and the trailer got separated and turned turtle on the road. Therefore, Damala Subhadra and Akkala Chinnakka died on the spot. 5. The tractor and trailer are owned by the respondent No.1 and insured with the respondent No.2. The claimants in M.V.O.P.No.375 of 2004 made a claim on ground of the death of D. Subhadra, aged about 19 years, being her parents. In M.V.O.P.No.376 of 2004, the claim was made by the children of the Akkala Chinnakka, aged about 55 years. 6. In both the petitions, the respondent No.1 remained ex-parte. 3 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.3705 of 2005 7. The respondent No.2 filed a separate counter denying the averments in the petitions and further stating that the accident is only an ‘act of god’ and there was no negligence of the driver of the tractor. It was further pleaded that there was no valid registration certificate, fitness certificate or permit to the insured to ply the vehicle and that the tractor-trailer is meant for transporting goods and not passengers and therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation for the death of unauthorised passengers travelling in the insured vehicle. Of course, it is also pleaded that there was no valid driving license of the driver of the tractor at the time of the accident. 8. Since, there is no appeal preferred against the award in M.V.O.P.No.375 of 2004, the details are not mentioned here. 9. In so far as the award in M.V.O.P.No.376 of 2004 is concerned, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.1,04,000/- with proportionate costs and interest on the principal amount at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation payable by the respondent No.1, while dismissing the claim against the respondent No.2 without costs. 10. The Tribunal rejected the contention that the accident was an ‘act of god’ and, after considering the facts, fixed the liability on the driver of the tractor-trailer for negligent driving which caused the accident. 11. This appeal was preferred mainly aggrieved by the dismissal of the claim petition against the respondent No.2 / insurance company. 12. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the Tribunal ought to have directed the respondent No.2 to first pay the amount of compensation to the claimants and then recover the same 4 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.3705 of 2005 from the respondent No.1, since it is only breach of terms of policy of the insurance to carry passengers in the trailer. 13. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submitted that the policy issued for goods vehicle does not cover the risk of unauthorized passengers and that it is not the case of breach of terms and conditions of the policy and that the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim. 14. The respondent No.1 did not contest the matter before the Tribunal. The respondent No.1 is shown as not necessary party in the cause title. It is reiterated that already claim against respondent No.1 was allowed before the Tribunal. The policy in respect of the tractor trailer is as goods vehicle, and therefore, the liability is limited to the extent indicated under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It is settled law that such policy does not cover the risk of mere passengers travelling in the goods vehicle. The liability of the insurance company for such vehicles extends only to the owner of the goods or the agent for the owner of the goods being carried in the vehicle. The deceased in this case was neither the owner of any goods nor the agent of the owner of the goods, because no goods were being carried in the tractor in that capacity. It is the admitted case of the claimants that the deceased was travelling in the vehicle to return to her village after attending the coolie work. Therefore, the insurance company cannot be made liable. If at all the risk is covered, it is only in case where there is breach / violation of terms of the policy, the insurance company can be made liable to first pay to third parties and then recover the amount so paid from the insured, but where there is no risk covered by the policy of insurance, the insurer cannot be directed to pay first and recover then. There is no merit in the appeal. 5 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.3705 of 2005 15. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ B. S. BHANUMATHI, J 24.03.2026 JLSR / RAR