1 APHC010197862012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3605] WEDNESDAY, THE 12th DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ALAPATI GIRIDHAR MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1874/2012 Between: 1. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, SRIKAKULAM., REP.BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, SRIKAKULAM TOWN AND DIST. ...APPELLANT AND 1. KONCHADA HARANADHA RAO AND ANOTHER, S/O VENKU NAIDU CULTIVATION R/O RAPAKA VILLAGE, PONDURU MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. IIJADA SURYANARAYANA, S/O APPANNA DRIVER CUM OWNER OF THE AUTO AP 30 T 9352 R/O KONCHADA VILLAGE, PONDURU MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Appellant: 1. N RAMA KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. A RAVI SHANKAR 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ALAPATI GIRIDHAR M.A.C.M.A.No.1874 of 2012 The Court made the following JUDGMENT: 1. The Appeal is filed by the Insurance Company against the common Award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Srikakulam, dated 04.10.2010 in M.V.O.P. Nos.331 and 365 of 2006, whereby the Tribunal allowed the claim petitions and fastened the liability on the Appellant-Insurance Company. Aggrieved by the fastening of liability, the Insurance Company has preferred the Appeal. I. CONTENTIONS:- 2. The learned counsel for the Appellant submits that on the date of the accident, the driver of the offending auto was holding only a Learner's Licence (LLR), under the conditions of the Learner's License, the vehicle ought to have displayed the prescribed "L" Board, and the holder of the Learner's Licence was not permitted to drive the vehicle unaccompanied or to carry passengers, particularly on a National Highway. It is, therefore, contended that there was a clear breach of the policy conditions. Learned Counsel fairly submits, if compensation is held payable to the claimants, the Insurance Company may be 3 directed to satisfy the Award in the first instance and thereafter recover the amount from the owner of the offending vehicle in accordance with law. 3. The claimants in M.V.O.P. Nos.331 and 365 of 2006 filed claim petitions seeking compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.1,50,000/-, respectively, for the injuries sustained by them in the motor vehicle accident. II. FACTS OF THE CASE:- 4. The case of the Claimants is that on 13.01.2005 they boarded the Auto Rickshaw/AP 30 T 9352 at Rapaka Village to travel to Ponduru Village, near Koticheruvu, the Driver-cum-Owner drove the auto in a rash and negligent manner, on noticing a dog attempting to cross the road, the Driver-cum-Owner applied sudden brakes but, due to the speed, he lost control over the Auto, which turned turtle. As a result, both the Claimants sustained multiple injuries and they were shifted to the Government Hospital, Srikakulam, for treatment. 5. In connection with the said accident, a FIR is registered and Charge Sheet also filed. The claim petitions were filed against the Driver-cum-Owner of the offending Auto and its Insurer. III. ANALYSIS:- 6. The Insurance Company has not disputed the occurrence of the accident, the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending 4 auto/Respondent No.1, the injuries sustained by the Claimants, the treatment undergone by them, the existence of the Insurance Policy or the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The only issue raised in the present appeal pertains to the liability of the Insurance Company to satisfy the Award. 7. The Tribunal considered evidence of PW.1 and 2, Ex.A1 to A.10, evidence of RW.1 and 2 and Ex.X1 and X2, Ex.B1 to B.6, and held that there were three passengers in the Auto, the Insurer failed to prove that the Owner- cum-Driver/1st Respondent violated the conditions of the Driving License or Insurance Policy. The Tribunal also relied on oral and documentary evidence including injuries, treatment and medical bills, and awarded compensation of Rs.75,000/- in M.V.O.P. No.331 of 2006 and Rs.50,000/- in M.V.O.P. No.365 of 2006, which is not in dispute in the Appeal, and held Respondent Nos.1 and 2, the Owner-cum-Driver and the Insurer of the offending Auto, jointly and severally liable to satisfy the Award. 8. The Tribunal recorded that RW.2 in his cross-examination admitted that the Driver has a valid driving license. The Tribunal also recorded that the Insurer could not prove the violations as discussed supra, thus the contention of the Insurance Company that the Driver violated the terms of the Policy by driving with the learner's license is without any evidence by the Insurer. 5 9. It is also significant that the Appellant has not challenged the findings relating to the occurrence of the accident, negligence, injuries or quantum of compensation. The challenge is confined to its liability to satisfy the Award. In view of the discussion, the said contention does not warrant interference with the Award of the Tribunal. IV. CONCLUSION:- 10. In the result, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/-. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________ JUSTICE ALAPATI GIRIDHAR Dated: 12.08.2026 CHD 6 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ALAPATI GIRIDHAR M.A.C.M.A.No.1874 of 2012 Date: 12th August, 2026 CHD