1 MACMA NO. 519 OF 2022 VS,J. APHC010656532022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] TUESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 519/2022 Between: 1. B.KULLAYAMMA, W/O LATE B.PRABHAKAR, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, 2. B.HEMANTH KUMAR,, S/O LATE B.PRABHAKAR, AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS, 3. B.AKHIL,, S/O LATE B.PRABHAKAR, AGED ABOUT 7 YEARS, (ALL ARE R/O KOTANKA, GARLADINNE MANDAL, ANANTAPUR DIST.) 4. B.VENKATALAKSHMI DIED, B.VENKATALAKSHMI DIED ...APPELLANT(S) AND 1. PAGIDI NAGARAJU, S/O VENKATESULU, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O CHINNAMPALLI, ANANTAPUR(R) MANDAL AND DIST. OWNER- CUM-DRIVER OF AUTO RICKSHAW NO.AP-02-TF-0801, 2. IFFCOTOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, REP. BY ITS MANAGER, 5-605, 1ST FLOOR, RAJU ROAD, ANANTAPUR. INSURER VIDE POLICY NO. 1-INMC2YL, P400 AND 2720 6429, VALID FROM 29- 09-2017 TO 28-09-2018 ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. M KARIBASAIAH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GUDI SRINIVASU The Court made the following: 2 MACMA NO. 519 OF 2022 VS,J. THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 519/2022 JUDGMENT: 1. This Motor Accident Claims Miscellaneous Appeal (for short MACMA) has been preferred by the claimants for enhancement of compensation amount being aggrieved by the Order/ Award and Decree passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short MACT) –cum- I Additional District Judge, Ananthapur District at Ananthapur in M.V.O.P.No.599 of 2017 dated 25.07.2022, wherein the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.9,82,000/- as against the claim of Rs.16,00,000/-. For the sake of convenience and to avoid confusion, the parties herein after referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal i.e., Appellants herein as petitioners and respondents herein as respondents. 2. The Petitioners being wife and minor children of Late B.Prabhakar (hereinafter referred to as the “deceased”) filed claim petition in M.V.O.P.No.599 of 2017 under sections 140 and 166 of the M.V Act claiming compensation of Rs.16,00,000/- along with interest and costs for the death of B.Prabhakar in a motor vehicle accident.. 3. Brief averments of the claim petition in MVOP No.599 of 2017 are that: on 25.10.2017 at 9.30 P.M the deceased was traveling in an Auto Rickshaw bearing No. AP-02-TF-0801 [hereinafter refered to as the 'offending vehicle‟) 3 MACMA NO. 519 OF 2022 VS,J. while proceeding from Kotanka towards Anantapuramu, the 1st Respondent [R.1] being the owner-cum-driver, drove it at high speed, lost control over the vehicle, as a result, the vehicle turned turtle, the deceased sustained grievous injuries on his head, he was taken to Saveera Hospital, Anantapuramu, from there he was shifted to Govt., General Hospital, Kurnool for better treatment, where he succumbed to injuries at about 5.30 A.M, on 29.10.2017. Anantapuramu Rural Police have registered the accident as a case in Crime No.227 of 2017 against R.1, for the offences punishable under section 304-A of Indian Penal Code [in short 'I.P.C']. The deceased was a Mason, earning 500/- per day [₹15,000/- per month]. Due to the sudden demise of the 'deceased', his wife- 1st Petitioner, children- Petitioners No.2, 3 and mother-4th Petitioner, being dependents of the deceased, lost financial support. Hence, prayed to award compensation. 4. Respondent No.1 having been remained ex-parte. 5. 2nd Respondent [R.2] filed the written statement, denied the material averments in the petition regarding the accident, claim of the petitioners as legal heirs, details of accident, income of the deceased etc., and contended that as on the date and time of accident, R.1 drove the offending vehicle without holding valid driving license, thereby violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, as well as the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules therein. R.1 4 MACMA NO. 519 OF 2022 VS,J. was not qualified for holding or obtaining such driving license. As the police who investigated into the matter- accident have filed charge sheet against R.1 not only for the offence punishable under section 304-A of I.P.C and also under section 3 r/w 181 of Motor Vehicles Act, the petition is not maintainable. As R.1 having knowledge that he had no license, drove the vehicle and caused the accident, thereby violated the terms of policy, R.2 need not pay anything as compensation to anybody. The amount claimed as compensation is excessive. The petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts and therefore it is liable to be dismissed, with costs. 6. Basing on the above pleadings the following issues were framed by the tribunal for trial/enquiry: 1) Whether the deceased 'B.Prabhakar' sustained grievous injuries in the accident that occurred on 25.10.2017 at about 9.30 a.m, near MYR function hall, Bellary Road, Anantapuramu, either due to rash and/ or negligent driving of 1st Respondent being the driver of Auto bearing No.AP-02-TF-0801 and died ? 2) Whether the Petitioners are entitled to claim any compensation? If so, to what amount and from which of the Respondents? 3) To what relief? 5 MACMA NO. 519 OF 2022 VS,J. [Subsequently issue No.1 is altered [or amended), in view of powers of Court under Order XIV, Rule 5(1) of the Civil Procedure Code [C.P.C], as per docket order dated 20.07.2022]. 7. During the course of trial, 1st Petitioner - Smt B.Kullayamma got examined as P.W.1, an independent witness by name Boya Bandi Adeppa @ Bandi Adinarayana got examined as P.W.2, and got marked Ex.A.1 – attested copy of inquest report, Ex.A.2 – attested copy of postmortem report, Ex.A.3 – attested copy of M.V.I report, Ex.A.4 – attested copy of charge sheet, Ex.A.5 – medical bills issued by Severa Hospital, Ananthapuramu. On behalf of 2nd respondent, its Assistant Manager (Legal) by name V.Anand Kiran got examined as R.W.1 and got marked Ex.B.1 – copy of Insurance Policy along with terms and conditions. 8. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the Petitioners as well as Respondent No.2 and upon perusing the oral as well as documentary evidence placed on record by both parties, the Tribunal awarded Rs.9,82,000/- towards compensation, with proportionate costs and with interest at 6% p.a from the date of filing the petition till the date of deposit and directing the 1st respondent to pay the same within three (03) months from the date of order along with costs and dismissed the claim against 2nd respondent – insurance company. 6 MACMA NO. 519 OF 2022 VS,J. 9. Being aggrieved by the said order and decree, the claimants have preferred the present appeal on the grounds that – the Tribunal failed to consider that the 1st respondent has insured his vehicle with 2nd respondent and in such case, both are liable to pay compensation to the claimants and when the insurance policy was in existence as on the date of accident, the insurance company cannot be exempted from the liability to pay compensation to the petitioners as ordered by the tribunal. Hence, prayed to allow the appeal and to direct the insurance company to pay the compensation amount to the petitioners and then recover it from the 1st respondent. 10. Heard the learned Counsel for appellants/petitioners as well as respondents and perused the material available in record. 11. Now the point for determination is – Whether the order/award passed by the Tribunal needs any interference? 12. POINT: On a perusal of the award, it can be observed that R.W.1 – the Assistant Manger (Legal) of Respondent No.2 was examined. Through R.W.1 the insurance policy was marked as Ex.B.1. However, the only ground raised by the insurance company is that as the driver (R.1) was not holding valid driving license as on the date of accident and as he has violated the terms and conditions of insurance policy and as such the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation. 7 MACMA NO. 519 OF 2022 VS,J. 13. Under similar circumstances, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in “National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh & Ors.1” has categorically held that the insurance company may not be liable to satisfy the decree and, therefore, its liability may be zero but it does mean that it did not have initial liability at all. Thus, if the insurance company is made liable to pay any amount it can recover the entire amount paid to the third party on behalf of the assured. Therefore, the Tribunal has power to direct them to satisfy the decree at the first instance and then direct recovery of the same from the owner. 14. In “National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh & Ors.,” (referred above) the Hon‟ble Supreme Court while dealing with the case of unauthorized passengers held as follows: “Sub-section (5) of Section 149 which imposes a liability on the insurer must also be given its full effect. The insurance company may not be liable to satisfy the decree and, therefore, its liability may be zero but it does mean that it did not have initial liability at all. Thus, if the insurance company is made liable to pay any amount it can recover the entire amount paid to the third party on behalf of the assured. If this interpretation is not given to the beneficent provisions of the Act having regard to its purport and object, we fail to see a situation where beneficent provisions can be given effect to Sub-section (7) of Section 149 of the Act, to which pointed attention of the Court has been drawn by the learned counsel for the petitioner, which is in negative language may now be noticed. The said provision must be read with Sub-section (1) thereof. The right to avoid liability in terms of Sub-section (2) of Section 149 is restricted as has been discussed hereinbefore. It is one thing to say that the insurance companies are 1 (2004) 3 SCC 297 8 MACMA NO. 519 OF 2022 VS,J. entitled to raise a defence but it is another thing to say that despite the fact that its defence has been accepted having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has power to direct them to satisfy the decree at the first instance and then direct recovery of the same from the owner. These two matters stand apart and require contextual reading.” 15. As per the law laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the judgment (referred supra) even if the insurer successfully proves a breach of policy condition, the insurance company may still be directed to pay compensation to the claimant and 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. 16. In the absence of the documentary evidence, the Tribunal considered the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.6,500/-. Accordingly, annual income would come to Rs.78,000/- (Rs.6,500 X 12). As there are 3 dependents in the present case, 1/3rd has to be deducted towards his personal expenses. After deducting 1/3rd, the monthly income of the deceased would come to Rs.52,000/- (Rs.78,000 – Rs.26,000). After applying the appropriate multiplier i.e. „16‟ for the age group of 31 to 35 years, as per the decision of the 9 MACMA NO. 519 OF 2022 VS,J. Hon‟ble Apex Court in “Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation2”, the loss of dependency would come to (Rs.52,000 X16) Rs.8,32,000/-. 17. In addition to the above, the Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.1,20,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate. In total, the Tribunal below awarded Rs.9,82,000/- to the claimants, which needs no interference. 18. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal is partly allowed directing respondent No.2 – Insurance company to initially pay the compensation amount of Rs.9,82,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a, from the date of petition till realization to the claimants, within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of copy of the order and then recover the same from the insured-owner of the offending vehicle by filing Execution Proceedings before the Tribunal. No costs. Accordingly, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA KS Dated 10.03.2026. 2 2009 ACJ 1298 10 MACMA NO. 519 OF 2022 VS,J. 264 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENTS CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO:519 /2022 DATED 10.03.2026 KS