1 MACMA NO. 509 of 2022 VS,J. APHC010655212022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] TUESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 509/2022 Between: 1. RAVELA RUTHAMMA, W/O. RAJU, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, 2. RAVELA AVANTHI, D/O. RAJU, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 5 YEARS, STUDENT, BEIG MINOR, REP. BY HER MOTHER RAVELA RUTHAMMA, I.E. PETITIONER. (BOTH ARE R/O. VELLACHERUVU VILLAGE, SANTHAMAGULURU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ADDANKI JCJC ...APPELLANT(S) AND 1. VAJRALA RAGHAVENDRA REDDY, S/O. VENKATA REDDY, R/O. DOOR NO. 2-782, KOTHAPETA, VINUKONDA POST AND MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. (OWNER MAHENDRA BOLERO BEARING NO. AP 07 TD4266) 2. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE -2, DOOR NO. 4-13-25, 1ST FLOOR, MADDI BUILDINGS, OPP. HARIHARAMAHAL, KORITEPADU, GUNTUR, GUNTUR JCJC (INSURER OF MAHENDRA BOLERO BEARING NO. AP 07 TD 4265, VALID FROM 24.6.2013 TO 23.6.2014) 2 MACMA NO. 509 of 2022 VS,J. 3. SHAIK DARIYA, S/O. PEDABURAN R/O. NEELAGANGAVARAM VILLAGE, VINUKONDA MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT, VINUKONDA JCJC, (DRIVER OF THE MAHENDRA BOLERO BEARING NO.AP07 TD 4265) ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. SRICHARAN TELAPROLU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. SAMBOJU BALA GOPAL 2. P NARAHARI BABU The Court made the following: 3 MACMA NO. 509 of 2022 VS,J. THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 509/2022 J U D G M E N T: 1. This Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (for short MACMA) has been preferred by the claimants/Petitioners seeking enhancement of compensation amount being aggrieved by the Award/Order passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short MACT) –cum- III Additional District Judge, Guntur, in M.V.O.P.No.55 of 2016 dated 08.09.2022, wherein the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.7,27,000/- as against the claim of Rs.5,80,000/-. For the sake of convenience and to avoid confusion, the parties herein after are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal i.e., Appellants as claimants/Petitioners; and Respondents as Respondents. 2. This petition is filed by the petitioner under section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act and Rules 455 and 476 of A.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, claiming compensation of Rs.5,80,000/- with subsequent interest and costs for the death of Ravela Raju in a motor vehicle accident on 24.05.2014. 3. Brief averments of the claim petition in MVOP No.291 of 2016 are that – The deceased Ravela Raju was resident of Vellacheruvu village, Santhamaguluru Mandal, Prakasam District, aged about 48 years, doing sound 4 MACMA NO. 509 of 2022 VS,J. system operating work (band troope) and earning Rs.9,000/- per month. He was hale and healthy prior to the accident. 1st petitioner is the wife, 2nd petitioner is the daughter of the deceased. Except the petitioners, there are no other legal heirs or dependants on the deceased. i. On 24.05.2014 the deceased and some others went to Jakkasaniguntla village of Kurnool district to conduct a marriage program and on the same day they returned to Vinukonda in the Mahendra Bolero bearing No. AP 07 TD 4265. At about 9.30 p.m., when they reached near Penchikalapadu village of Prakasam District, the driver of the vehicle i.e. 3rd respondent drove the vehicle in rash and negligent manner, with high speed, dashed she buffalo. As a result, 3rd respondent lost control over the vehicle and the vehicle turned turtle. The deceased received injuries to his head and other multiple injuries over the body and died on the spot. Other inmates of the vehicle also received injuries. The accident was reported to Besthavaripeta police station and a case in crime No.82/2014 was registered under sections 337, 304-A of the Indian Penal Code against 3rd respondent. ii. The accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the 3rd respondent i.e. driver of the 1st respondent, 1st respondent being owner, 2nd respondent being insurer of the 1st respondent’s vehicle; all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners. 5 MACMA NO. 509 of 2022 VS,J. 4. 1st respondent filed written statement denying all the material allegations of the petition, including age, income and avocation of the deceased and submitted that there is no rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the Bolero bearing No.AP 07 TD 4265. The driver of the crime vehicle is having valid driving licence at the time of accident. The compensation of Rs.5,80,000/- claimed by the petitioners is very high, excessive and exorbitant. This 1st respondent is the owner of the Bolero and the same is insured with the 2nd respondent and insurance policy was in force on the date of the accident. 5. 2nd respondent filed written statement denying all the material allegations mentioned in the petition and specifically submitted that he does not admitted the manner of the accident, the age, avocation, income of the deceased as mentioned in the petition. The petitioners never demanded for compensation against this respondent either in written or orally, as such, the petitioner's are not entitled to any costs and interest from the date of accident till the date of realization. There is no negligence on the part of the driver of Mahendra Bolero bearing No.AP 07 TD 4265. The accident was occurred only due to rash and negligent act of the deceased only. The offending vehicle is goods carrying commercial vehicle having only two seating capacity. There is no insurance coverage of the passengers in commercial vehicles. The deceased cannot travel on goods carrying commercial vehicle and he is an unauthorized passenger in it. The driver of the Mahendra Bolero has no valid and effective driving license to 6 MACMA NO. 509 of 2022 VS,J. drive the vehicle and had no valid permit and fitness certificate at the time of the accident which is an infringement of the specific condition of the insurance policy. The petitioners are not dependents on the earnings of the deceased. The liability, if any, of this respondent is only subject to the terms and conditions of the policy as per provisions of M.V. Act. The respondent seeking protection under section 170 to defend in case the 1st respondent colluded with the petitioner. The compensation claimed by the petitioners is excessive and exorbitant and they are not entitled as claimed. The interest claimed by the petitioners is usurious, penal and highly speculative and excessive. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed, with costs. 6. 3rd respondent remained ex-parte. 7. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal for trial: 1) Whether Ravela Raju, S/o. Subbarao died in the accident on 25.05.2014 due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Bolero bearing No. AP-07- TD-4265? 2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount, and against whom? 3) To what relief? 7 MACMA NO. 509 of 2022 VS,J. 8. During the course of trial, the 1st petitioner – Ravela Ruthamma got examined as P.W.1, an eyewitness to the accident by name Adusumalli Samudrala got examined as P.W.2, another eyewitness to the accident and also defacto complainant in Crime No.82 of 2014 got examined as P.W.3 and got marked Ex.A.1 – photo copy of F.I.R in Crime No.82 of 2014 of Bestavaripeta police station, Ex.A.2 – certified copy of charge sheet in Crime No.344 of 2014 on the file of Additional Junior Civil Judge Court, Giddaluru, Ex.A.3 – Certified copy of postmortem report, and Ex.A.4 – copy of inquest report. On behalf of 2nd respondent – insurance company, it’s Administrative Officer by name Sk. Mastan Vali got examined as R.W.1 and got marked Ex.B.1 – True copy of certificate cum policy schedule issued by Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd., dated 25.06.2013; Ex.B.2 – office copy of notice issued to 1st respondent dated 20.08.2018 along with postal acknowledgment; and Ex.B.3 – copy of driving license. Respondent No.2 got summoned RTA, Prakasam District for cause production of driving license particulars of 3rd respondent, one K.V.Ravi Teja, Senior Assistant representing RTA, Prakasam District, got examined as R.W.2 and got marked Ex.X.1 – authorization cum driving license particulars of Shaik Dariya. Respondent No.2 also got summoned RTA, Narasaraopet for cause production of registration particulars of vehicle bearing No.AP07 TD 4265, one 8 MACMA NO. 509 of 2022 VS,J. T.Anuradha representing RTA, Narasaraopet got examined as R.W.3 and got marked Ex.X.2 – authorization letter, Ex.X.3 – copy of register/RC of the vehicle bearing No.AP07 TD 4265, and Ex.X.4 – copy of fitness detailed report. 9. Upon hearing the learned counsel for both parties, upon perusing the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the Tribunal allowed the claim of petitioners in part by granting Rs.7,27,000/- as compensation with proportionate costs and interest at 7.5% p.a from the date of petition till the date of payment or realization, directing respondents No.1 and 3 jointly and severally to pay compensation amount within one (01) month from the date of order, by excluding 2nd respondent from liability. 10. Being aggrieved by the said Order, the petitioners/claimants have preferred the present appeal on the sole ground that the tribunal exonerated the insurance company – 2nd Respondent herein from making liable for payment of compensation amount on the ground that the deceased was an unauthorized passenger who were traveling in the van, which is a goods carriage vehicle. 11. 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 1 (2004) 3 SCC 297 9 MACMA NO. 509 of 2022 VS,J. 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. 12. 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 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.” 10 MACMA NO. 509 of 2022 VS,J. 13. 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. 14. Though it is the case of the claimants that the deceased was earning Rs.9,000/- per month, in the absence of the documentary evidence, the Tribunal considered the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.5,000/-. As the age of the deceased is 48 years as on the date of the accident, he is entitled for an additional amount of 25% of his income towards his future prospects as held by the Apex Court in “National Insurance Company Vs. Pranay Sethi2”, as such the monthly income of the deceased would come to Rs.6,250/- (Rs.5000/- +1250/-). Accordingly, annual income would come to Rs.75,000/- (Rs.6,250 X 12). As there are 2 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.50,000/- (Rs.75,000 – Rs.25,000). After applying the appropriate multiplier i.e. 13 for the age of 48 years, as per the decision of 2 2018 ACJ 2782 11 MACMA NO. 509 of 2022 VS,J. the Hon’ble Apex Court in “Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation3”, the loss of dependency would come to (Rs.50,000 X13) Rs.6,50,000/-. 15. In addition to the above, the Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.40,000/- towards consortium, Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, and the claimants are entitled for Rs.7,000/- towards future enhancement under those heads. In total, the Tribunal below awarded Rs.7,27,000/- to the claimants, which needs no interference. 16. 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.7,27,000/- 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. Consequently, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA KS Dated 03.03.2026. 3 2009 ACJ 1298 12 MACMA NO. 509 of 2022 VS,J. 250 THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 509/2022 DATED 03.03.2026 KS