APHC010655412022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] MONDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 513/2022 Between: 1. S.B.I.GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, REP BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, S.B.I. UPSTAIRS, HERO HONDA SHOW ROOM, RENIGUNTA ROAD, TIRUPATI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT AND 1. M DEVAGANAPATHI, S/O M.CHANDRASEKHAR NAIDU, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, RESIDENT OF D.NO.18-3-52, KHADHI COLONY, MAIN ROAD, NEAR MUNICIPAL PARK, TIRUPATI TOWN POST AND MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT 2. SAGAR MALAKAR, S/O KAPIL MALAKAR, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, RESIDING AT DISHNUPUR VILLAGE, DEVAPURA POST, BAGUSARAI DISTRICT, BIHAR STATE 3. M/S KAPOOR DIESELS GARAGE PVT LTD, REP BY ITS MANAGER NANGALIPOONA, G.T.ROAD, NORTH WEST DELHI ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be pleased tobegs to prefer this memorandum of appeal being aggrieved by the decree and judgment passed in M.V.O.P.No.178 of 2015, dated 01-02-2022, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -cum- Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati IA NO: 1 OF 2022 2 VS,J MACMA No.513 of 2022 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to condone the delay of 116 days in filing the appeal against M.V.O.P.No.178 of 2015, dated 01-02-2022 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -Cum- Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati and to pass IA NO: 2 OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased suspend of operation of the Judgment and Decree made in M.V.O.P.No.178 of 2015dt 01-02¬2022 on the file of Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum IV dditional District Judge, Tirupati pending disposal of the above appeal in the interest of justice pending disposal of the above appeal in the interest of justice and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to extend the time to comply orders made in IA 2/2022 in MACMA 513/2022 dated 07-12-2022 on the file this Hon'ble Court by four weeks enabling the petitioner to deposit the Amount in the interest of justice pending disposal of the above appeal in the interest of justice and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to vacate the interim order passed in IA.No. 2/2022 in MACMA No. 513/2022 Dt. 07-12-2022 in the interest of justice and to pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. AMANCHARLA SATISH BABU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. T C KRISHNAN The Court made the following: 3 VS,J MACMA No.513 of 2022 JUDGMENT: The present appeal is filed by the appellant/insurance company challenging the order and decree dated 01.02.2022 passed in M.V.O.P.No.178 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati, wherein the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.2,80,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs eighty thousand only) to the petitioner, as against the claim of Rs.9,00,000/-, for the injuries sustained and damages caused to his car in a motor accident that occurred on 07.05.2014. 2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. The case of the claimants is briefly as follows: a) On 07.05.2014 at 12.30 p.m., the petitioner along with his mother Rajeswari, brother Dilip Chakravarthi, friend Balaji and one A.Narasimhamurthy was proceeding in a TATA Indica car bearing No.AP-02- P-1125 to his native village Eguvakaminayaapalli to cast his vote in A.P. Assembly elections. At about 01.30 p.m., when they reached Kasipentla village on the Tirupati-Chittoor Highway, while the petitioner was driving the car on the extreme left side of the road, the 1st respondent driving a Container lorry bearing No.HR-38-Q-6508 belonging to the 2nd respondent, in a rash and negligent manner in opposite direction on the extreme right side of the road, dashed the petitioner’s car on its front, went ahead and fell into a channel. 4 VS,J MACMA No.513 of 2022 Due to that impact, the petitioner’s car was damaged beyond repairs and the petitioner sustained fractures to left radius, left ulna, laceration on outer angle of right eye besides other bodily injuries. Other persons in the car also received simple and grievous injuries and were shifted to different hospitals. The petitioner was shifted to BOTH Hospital, Tirupati in ambulance, where he underwent surgery on 07.05.2014 and was discharged on 10.05.2014 with advice to take bed rest for two months. A criminal case in Crime No.136 of 2014 was registered by the Station House Officer, Chandragiri Police Station against the 1st respondent for the offences under Sections 337, 338 and 279 of I.P.C. b) It is the contention of the petitioner that he is an engineering graduate engaged in business under the name and style of “Elite Solutions” in Tirupati, earning Rs.50,000/- per month and also deriving agricultural income of Rs.2,00,000/- per annum. During the course of his treatment from 07.05.2014 to 10.05.2014, the petitioner incurred huge expenses. However, as he is entitled to reimbursement from the Government of Andhra Pradesh, his wife being a Government employee, he has not claimed any amount towards medical expenses. It is further stated that, having been advised bed rest for a period of two months, he was unable to attend to his business and agricultural activities, thereby suffering loss of income for about one year. Therefore, he sought compensation of Rs.9,00,000/- from the respondents. 4. The 1st respondent/driver filed a counter, which was adopted by the 2nd respondent/owner, denying the petition averments. It was contended that the 5 VS,J MACMA No.513 of 2022 petition is not maintainable, that the petitioner failed to produce any evidence in support of his alleged business and agricultural income, and that the claim is excessive. It was further contended that, as the policy was in force at the time of the accident, the 3rd respondent/Insurance Company alone is liable to pay compensation. 5. The 3rd respondent/Insurance Company filed a counter denying all the petition averments and contended that the injuries sustained by the petitioner are simple in nature and do not affect his normal life. It was further contended that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner himself, who lost control of the car and dashed against the lorry, and that a false complaint was lodged, leading to filing of the charge sheet without proper investigation. It was also contended that the driver of the lorry did not possess a valid driving licence, the vehicle lacked a valid fitness certificate, and that the vehicle was not insured with the 3rd respondent. Therefore, it is not liable to pay compensation. It was further contended that there was contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner, and that the owner and insurer of the petitioner’s car are necessary parties; in their absence, the petition is not maintainable. The 3rd respondent also claimed protection under Sections 147 to 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act and contended that the compensation and interest claimed are excessive, and sought dismissal of the petition. 6. Basing on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: 6 VS,J MACMA No.513 of 2022 “1. Whether the accident in question was occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of Container Lorry bearing No.HR.38-Q- 6508 by its driver resulting in injuries to the petitioner? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation: If so to what amount and from which of the respondents? 3. To what relief?” 7. On behalf of the petitioner, P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined Exs.A1 to A8 were marked. On behalf of the 3rd respondent R.W.1 was examined and Exs.B1 to B5 were marked. 8. After hearing both parties and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition, awarding compensation of Rs.2,80,000/- with interest @7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization, along with costs. Respondents No.1 to 3 were jointly and severally liable to pay the said amount within one month from the date of the order. 9. Aggrieved by the same, the Insurance Company preferred this appeal, contending that the driver possessed a fake driving licence and thus there was a breach of policy conditions, and therefore, the insurer is not liable to pay compensation. 10. Heard Mr.Amancharla Satish Babu, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant and Mr.T.C.Krishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner/respondent No.1 herein. 11. Now the point for consideration is: Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference? 7 VS,J MACMA No.513 of 2022 POINT: 12. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company is that, as on the date of the accident, the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid driving licence and that the licence produced is a fake one. Hence, there is a clear violation of the policy conditions and, therefore, no liability can be fastened on the appellant/Insurance Company. To substantiate the said contention, the appellant examined R.W.1, the Senior Legal Executive of the Insurance Company, and relied upon Exs.B1 to B5. As per the evidence of R.W.1, the accident that occurred on 07.05.2014 fell within the period covered under Ex.B1 policy issued in favour of the 2nd respondent in respect of the commercial goods vehicle bearing No. HR-38-Q-6508. He further deposed that, upon verification through the Transport Department website, no driving licence in the name of the 1st respondent was found. Further, as per the information furnished by the District Transport Officer and Public Information Officer, the driving licence of the 1st respondent was not issued by their office, which is marked as Ex.B5. Therefore, it is evident that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid driving licence, resulting in violation of the policy conditions. 13. It is to be noted that under similar circumstances, where there is a violation of the policy conditions, the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh & Ors.,1has held that if the insurer successfully proves a breach of policy condition, the insurance company may 1(2004) 3 SCC 297 8 VS,J MACMA No.513 of 2022 still be directed to pay compensation to the claimantsand then recover the amount from the insured (owner of the vehicle). This ensures that the rights of the third-party victim are protected and it was emphasized that insurance policies are statutorily required to protect third parties, and even in cases of breach by the insured, the insurer's liability towards third-party victims does not vanish immediately. 14. In view of the above, and following the settled principles of law as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decisions referred supra, this Court is of the opinion that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in the instant case has to be first paid by the insurance company, and thereafter the insurance company can recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle. 15. Coming to the quantum of compensation, as seen from the impugned award, the petitioner relied upon Ex.A8, the estimation report issued by Vaca Cars, which shows that the car was extensively damaged; however, if the petitioner had removed the damaged vehicle from the accident spot and sold it as scrap, he would have realized an amount of about Rs.40,000/-; therefore, after deducting the said amount, the Tribunal rightly assessed the loss towards vehicle damage at Rs.1,60,000/-, which is just and reasonable. Further, though the petitioner claimed that he was earning Rs.50,000/- per month from business and Rs.2,00,000/- per annum from agriculture, no documentary evidence was produced except Ex.A4/VAT registration certificate, which is insufficient to establish his income; hence, in the absence of proper proof, the Tribunal reasonably assessed a sum of Rs.10,000/- 9 VS,J MACMA No.513 of 2022 towards loss of income. Moreover, the petitioner sustained fractures to the radius and ulna of his left hand; therefore, considering the nature of injuries and the treatment undergone, the Tribunal awarded Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering. In addition, an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards transport charges, Rs.50,000/- towards attendant charges and extra nourishment, and Rs.5,000/- towards other damages were awarded, which are just and reasonable and do not warrant interference. Thus, in total, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,80,000/- towards compensation, which cannot be said to be excessive and requires no interference by this Court. 16. In view of the above discussion, while confirming the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, this Court deems it appropriate to partly allow this appeal by directing the 3rd respondent/insurance company to deposit the compensation amount at the first instance and thereafter recover the same from the 2nd respondent/owner of the offending vehicle i.e., the container lorry bearing No.HR-38-Q-6508. 17. With the above direction, this appeal is allowed in part. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 02.03.2026 KGR