APHC010911052018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3505] WEDNESDAY, THE 12th DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 30/2019 Between: 1. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE, NAGA DEVI TALKIES, RAJAHMUNDRY, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT ...APPELLANT AND 1. C SANDHYA, R/O. 2-17, NANDARADA, RAJANAGARAM MANDAL EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT 2. CHITTIBOINA ANJAYYA, R/O. 2-17, NANDARADA, RAJANAGARAM MANDAL, E.G.DIST 3. CHITTIBOINA SAVITHRI, R/O. 2-17, NANDARADA, RAJANAGARAM MANDAL, E.G.DIST 4. KADAVALA VENKATA RAMANA, R/O. 1-134, RAJANAGARAM MANDAL, E.G.DIST. ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC before the High Court Aggrieved by the orders passed by the way of judgment and decree MVOP 273 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Vehicle Accident claim tribunal cum V Additional District Judge, E.G.Dist at Rajamahendravaram 2 TCDS,J MACMA_30_2019 IA NO: 1 OF 2019 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 to Condone the4 delay of 54 days in filing the appeal on decree and judgment passed in Op. 273 of 2016 dated 10.7.2018 on the file of the motor Accidents Claims Tribunal E.G.Dist at Rajamahendravaram IA NO: 2 OF 2019 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 to stay the execution of decree and judgment passed by the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal Cum V Additional District Judge, E.G.Dist at Rajamahendravaram in MVOP 273 of 2016 dated 10.07.2018 pending the final disposal of the main appeal Counsel for the Appellant: 1. B PARAMESEWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. VARREY VENTAKATA NAGAVISHNU TEJA The Court made the following: 3 TCDS,J MACMA_30_2019 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR M.A.C.M.A NO: 30/2019 JUDGMENT : The present appeal is preferred by Oriental Insurance Company questioning the liability of payment of compensation awarded by order dated 10.07.2018 in M.V.O.P.NO.273 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal-cum- V Additional District Judge, East Godavari at Rajamahendravaram. As the only question raised in the appeal is with regard to the liability of the insurance company in paying compensation that was awarded by the Tribunal, this Court is not going into the other aspect raised in the claim petition. 2. The claimants filed the petition under section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- on account of the death of one Sri.Chittiboyina Venkata Rama Krishna (herein after referred as deceased), the husband of the petitioner No.1 and son of the petitioner Nos. 2 & 3. It was the case of the petitioners that on 06.07.2015 at about 10.00 am the deceased along with the respondent No.1 went to Burugupudi village on motor cycle bearing registration No.AP 5 AJ 1854, while returning when they reached Nandarada Village, the 4 TCDS,J MACMA_30_2019 respondent No.1 driving the motor cycle in a rash and negligent manner and thereby lost control over the vehicle and fell down on the road and sustained injuries, and the deceased died on the spot. In view of the sudden demise of Sri.Chittiboyina Venkata Rama Krishna, the petitioners approached the Tribunal by filing the above mentioned claim petition against the respondent No.1 and the insurance company. The respondent No.1 filed counter affidavit denying the manner in which the accident stated to have occurred in the claim petition. Further it was categorically stated that there was no negligence on his part while driving the motor cycle and prayed to dismiss the petition. 3. The respondent No.2 filed separate counter affidavit stating that the rider/respondent No.1 was not holding valid driving license as on the date of the accident. It was further contended that the insurance policy does not provide the risk of the death of the pillion rider, as no additional premium was paid to recover the risk of the pillion rider. It was further stated that the deceased was travelling on the motor cycle as pillion rider, therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation as the risk of third party was not covered under the policy. 5 TCDS,J MACMA_30_2019 4. In order to prove the case of the petitioners, the 1st petitioner was examined as PW1 and one Sri. Galla Vara Prasad who is eye witness to the accident was examined as PW.2. The petitioners have also got marked documents in Exhibits A1 to A4. On the other hand the respondents have examined as RW.1 & RW.2 and marked policy of insurance in Exhibit B1 and Exhibits X1 & X2 were marked through the witnesses on their behalf. Considering the oral and documentary evidence put forth by the parties, the tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.9,77,200/- towards compensation under various conventional heads by fastening, the liability on respondent No.1. Further the Tribunal directed the respondent No.2 insurance company/appellant to deposit the compensation as awarded by it and to recover the same from the respondent No.1 later. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal is preferred. 5. Heard, Sri B.Prameswara rao learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant and Miss. V.V.N.V.Teja appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Notice sent to respondent No.4 was returned with an endorsement “refused”, and the same is considered as deemed service. Perused the material available on record. 6 TCDS,J MACMA_30_2019 6. The counsel appearing for the appellant would strenuously submit that the as per the policy issued by the insurance company, the risk of the pillion rider does not cover and therefore the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation as directed by the Tribunal. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the copy of the policy and the evidences adduced by the insurance company in that regard. No doubt that the appellant has proved that the policy does not recover the risk of pillion rider in as much as no additional premium was paid towards the risk of the pillion rider, a perusal of the order under challenge would show that while discussing the issue, the Tribunal had gave a categorical finding that the risk of pillion rider was not recover under the insurance policy. However, taking into consideration of the fact that the vehicle got insured with the appellant as on the date of the accident, by following judgments referred by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the Tribunal while fastening the liability on the respondent No.1, directed the respondent No.2 to pay the compensation at the first instance and recover the same from the respondent No.2 later. During the course of hearing, the counsel for the appellant would submit that the Tribunal erred in directing the appellant to deposit the 7 TCDS,J MACMA_30_2019 compensation amount inspite of the fact that insurance company was exonerated from the liability. On the other as rightly pointed out by the counsel for the claimants, though the policy does not recover the risk of pillion rider/3rd party, there is no illegality in the order in as much as it will be very difficult to proceed against the respondent No.1. She would further submit that the Hon’ble Apex Court time and again held that, in such a situation, it would be improper to direct the insurance company to pay the compensation at the first instance and to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle later. This Court is in complete agreement with the arguments advanced by the counsel for the respondents. Furthermore, as already recorded supra, the Tribunal reserved the liberty to the appellant to recover the amount that was directed to pay by the insurance company. In such circumstances, this Court does not wish to interfere with the finding recorded by the Tribunal. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is dismissed. 7. Further a perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal, it is evident from the record while awarding compensation, the Tribunal did not follow the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of the ‘National Insurance 8 TCDS,J MACMA_30_2019 Company Vs. Pranay Sethi’ in determining the compensation under the head of consortium. Admittedly, in the case on, consortium was not awarded. The same is not disputed by the counsel appearing for the appellant. Having considered the submissions made on either side, this Court deems it appropriate to award consortium of Rs.40,000/- each to the petitioner Nos. 2 & 3. Accordingly the compensation is enhanced from 9,77,200/- + 40,000/- + 40,000/- = 10,57,200/-. 8. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is dismissed, however the appellant is directed to pay the enhanced compensation of Rs.10,57,200/-. Further the compensation is to be deposited within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any shall stand closed. _______________ T.C.D.SEKHAR, J 12.08.2026 CMK 9 TCDS,J MACMA_30_2019 10 TCDS,J MACMA_30_2019 111 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR MACMA NO.30 of 2019 12.08.2026 CMK