1 APHC010556712012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3605] FRIDAY, THE 17th DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ALAPATI GIRIDHAR MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1788 OF 2012 Between: 1. THE DIVIL MANAGER, THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD.SRIKAKULAM, THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, OPP. SURYA MAHAL, SRIKAKULAM. ...APPELLANT AND 1. TUMULA LAXMI AND 5 OTHERS, W/O LATE SEETARAM HOUSE WIFE R/O KUNTINIVALASA VILLAGE, MENTADA MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 2. TUMULA DEVI, D/O LATE SEETARAM MINOR R/O KUNTINIVALASA VILLAGE, MENTADA MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 3. TUMULA KRUSHNAMMA, D/O LATE SEETARAM MINOR, RES. 2 AND 3 ARE REP.BY THEIR MOTHER 1ST RES. R/O KUNTINIVALASA VILLAGE, MENTADA MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 4. TUMULA APALAMMA, W/O LATE RAMU R/O KUNTINIVALASA VILLAGE, MENTADA MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 5. JAGARAPU VENUGOPALA RAO, S/O APPANNA DRIVER OF LORRY AP 24 U 9505 JAGARAPU VEEDHI, SALUR, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 6. JAGARAPU SRINIVASA RAO, S/O APPANNA OWNER OF LORRY AP 24 U 9505 JAGARAPU VEEDHI, SALUR, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 Counsel for the Appellant: 1. T V P SAI VIHARI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. G SAI NARAYANA RAO 3 The Court made the following JUDGMENT: 1. The Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the Insurance Company against the Award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge), Vizianagaram dated 24.06.2010 in M.V.O.P.No.166 of 2008, assailing the order for the joint and several liability. I) Contentions:- 2. The learned counsel for the Appellant fairly submitted that they are confining finally to its liability as the law is settled on gratuitous passengers, the Insurance Company is supposed to satisfy the Award at first instance and thereafter recover the same from the owner as per law. Finally sought to modify the direction of joint and several liability to that extent. 3. The learned counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 4/Claimants also fairly conceded on the submission of the Insurance Company. II. Brief Facts: 4. The case of the Claimants is that they are Wife and Children of Tumula Seetharam/deceased, that on 01.12.2006 the said Seetharam & 2 others had boarded offending Lorry/AP 24 U 9505 for loading and unloading work to go to Vizianagaram, some others of his village had also boarded the Lorry with luggage of Cabbage & other vegetables, that the Driver/1st Respondent drove the Lorry at high speed in negligent manner, to avoid collusion against the opposite coming Lorry, he dashed another stationed Lorry and the said Seetharam and 2 others died. In this regard, Pedamanapuram Police registered a case under Section 304-A, 337 and 338 of IPC and filed the charge sheet against the Driver. III. Analysis: 5. There is no dispute in the arguments on the road accident by the Driver/1st Respondent in a negligent manner involving the offending Lorry, 4 death of Tumula Seetharam in the accident, the owner/2nd Respondent has insured the offending Lorry with the 3rd Respondent and the Insurance Policy was in force, filing of the charge sheet against the Driver under Section 304-A, 337 and 338 of IPC. Thus, the sole point to be decided in the Appeal is what is the liability of the Insurance Company in a case of gratuitous passengers ? 6. The Tribunal recorded that the deceased and some others were travelling in the offending Lorry, the Insurance Policy/Ex.B1 did not prohibit compensation as they were going as Labourers. The evidence on record reveals they all were travelling in the Lorry, some of them were with luggage of Cabbage and Vegetables. Though, the Tribunal recorded a finding that the deceased and others were traveling on the offending lorry but the Tribunal could not appreciate that there is no specific plea and evidence before the Tribunal as to what loading and unloading material they were supposed to do on the date of the accident. Further none appeared for the Driver and Owner to substantiate the plea of loading and unloading aspect. Thus the material on record shows the deceased and others were gratuitous passengers, thus the Insurer has to satisfy the Award at first instance and thereafter recover the same from the 1st and 2nd Respondents as per law (see Anu Bhanvara Etc. vs Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company1). Thus, the finding of the Tribunal that the Respondents No.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs. 1,90,000/- is modified to the extent as stated hereinabove. II. Conclusion:- 7. In view of the above discussion, the Court is inclined to allow the Appeal in part by directing the Appellant/Insurance Company to deposit the compensation at first instance and then recover the same from the Respondents No.1 and 2 as per law. With the above modification, this appeal 1 (2019) 10 SCALE 668) 5 is partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs in the circumstances of the case. The miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed. _________________________ JUSTICE ALAPATI GIRIDHAR Dated 17.07.2026 KK 6 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ALAPATI GIRIDHAR MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1788 OF 2012 17.07.2026 KK