Insurer challenged a tribunal award for death in a tractor-trailer accident, arguing absence of valid driving licence and permit meant no indemnity. Court upheld pay-and-recovery against insurer citing Supreme Court precedent and dismissed the appeal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
TUESDAY. THE NINETEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS
MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.162 of 2020
Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V.Act, against the Judgment and Decree dated 21-10-2019 passed in M.V.O.P No.31 of 2015 on thefile of the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal Cum X Additional District Judge Narasapur, West Godavari District. Between:
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Rep. by it's Divisional Manger, T.P Hub, Guttikonda Zoom Plaza, Near Vinayak theatre. Ring Road, Vijayawada-10.
...Appellant/3''^ Respondent
AND
(Respondents 2 and 3 are being minors represented bytheirmotheri.e respondent No.1)
...Respondents/Petitioners
...Respondents/ Respondents
lA NO: 1 OF 2020
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings of the JudgmentandDecreedated 21-10-2019 passed in M.V.O.P No.31 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal Cum X Additional District Judge, Narasapur or else the deponent herein will be put to irreparable loss and hardship.
lA NO: 1 OF 2024
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit the withdraw deposited amount dated 19.02.2020 in I.A.No. 1 of 2020 in M.A.C.M.A.No.162 of 2020 in M.V.O.P.No.31 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum- X Additional District at Narsapur.
Counsel for the Appellant : Sri V Raghu
Counsel for Respondent No.1: Sri Chakradhara Raja Y
The Court made the following: JUDGMENT
r
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS
M.A.C.M.A.No.162 of 2020
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is directed against the order of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-X Additional District Judge at Narsapur (hereinafter called as ‘theTribunaT) in M.V.O.P.No.31 of 2015 dated 21.10.2019. 2. The appellant is the insurer of the Tractor and Trailer bearing No.AP 37 BF 0985 and AP 37 V 9096 (hereinafter referred as “crime vehicle”). The respondent Nos.l to 4 herein are the wife, children, and mother of one Chekuri Krishna (hereinafter called as ‘the deceased’) respectively. The respondent Nos.5 and 6 are the driver and owner ofthe said crime vehicle, respectively.
- For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as they arrayed before the tribunal.
- The case of the claimants, in the petition before the Tribunal is that:
i). On 21.12.2013 at about 10.30 a.m., while the deceased along with other coolies proceeding on crime vehicle by sitting on the paddy bags, when they reached the road, due to rash and negligent drivingof
2
the 1st respondent, the cri crime vehicle was turned turtle. resulted the deceased died on the spot, ii). Being dependents, they claimed compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- against the driver, owner, and insurer of the crime vehicle.
- The respondent No.3/insurer filed written statement denying the averments in the petition and pleaded that there IS
no valid driving license to the 1
St respondent to drive the crime vehicle as well there is no permit to the crime vehicle by the time of incident, as such, 2nd respondent violated the terms of the policy, that by the time of incident the deceased was travelling in the crime vehicle as unauthorized passenger; that
the compensation claimed by the claimants i IS excessive and thereby, prayed to dismiss the petition.
- The Tribunal settled the following issues for enquiry basing on the material:
r
3
2.Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation if so what amount and from which of the respondent? 3.Whether the vehicle involved is covered with policyas on date of incident by Respondent No.3?
4.Whether the deceased was an unauthorized gracious passenger travelling in the vehicle
5.Whether Respondent No.3 has no liability to pay any compensation? and
6.To what relief?”
- During enquiry, on behalf of the claimants, PWs.l and2 were examined, Exs.A.l to A.5 were exhibited. On behalf of the respondent No.3, R.Ws.l and 2 were examined and Exs.B.l to B.5 were marked.
- On the material, the Tribunal, having concluded thatthe accident occurred due to the negligent riding of the crime vehicle by the 1®^ respondent, held that the claimants are entitled for the compensation of Rs.5,13,000/- withinterestat 9.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization against the respondent Nos.l and 2, forthedeathof the deceased in the accident and also directed the respondent No.3 to deposit the said compensation amount within one
4
month and shall recover the same from the owner of the said
crime vehicle.
The only contention of the appellant/insurer is thatinthe absence of valid driving license to drive the crime vehicle by the
5
1st respondent as well valid permit to the crime vehicle, the insurer is not liable to indemnify the owner at any point of time, thereby, the Tribunal erred in ordering pay and recovery against the insurer.
6
of the Honhle Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Swaran Singh^, ordered pay and recovery. 16. Now it is relevant to refer the categorical observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.Iyyapan v. M/s.United India Insurance Company Limited? that “...In any case, it is the statutory right of a third party torecover the amount of compensation so awarded from the insurer. It is for the insurer to proceed against the insured for recoveryofthe amount in the event there has been violation of anyconditionof the insurance policy.” (emphasis supplied) 17. In view of the above precedent, it is clear andin vivid terms that there is statutory right of a third partytorecoverthe amount of compensation so awarded from the insurer, then, the insurer to proceed against the insured for recoveryofthesaid amount in the event there has been violation of anyconditionof the insurance policy. Thereby, in the present case on hand, the findings of the Tribunal that the insurer is liable to satisfy the award at first instance and then recover the same from the
2 (2013) 7 see 62
1 2004 ACJ 1
7
insured/owner in the absence of driving license to drive the crime vehicle as well permit to the crime vehicle bythedateof incident warrants no interference and holds good.
- Viewing from any angle, this Court is of the considered opinion that no interference warrants to the findingsrecorded by the Tribunal regarding all aspects, as there isno need to disturb the well-articulated order passed by the Tribunal, the appeal preferred by the appellant is liable for dismissal. Thus, the point is answered against the appellant/insurer.
Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, stand closed.
Sd/- B.PRASADA RAO
//TRUE COPY//
To
TK
ns
\
HIGH COURT
TK
DATED:19/11/2024
JUDGMENT + DECREE
MACMA.No.162 of 2020
W
g 0 t MAR 2025
i? . Current Section * '.y
DISMISSING THE MAGMA
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the insurer is liable to satisfy the award at first instance with pay and recovery when there was violation of policy conditions (no valid driving licence or permit)?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
S.Iyyapan v. M/s.United India Insurance Company LimitedRelied on¶16
(2013) 7 see 62
National Insurance Company Limited v. Swaran SinghRelied on¶15
2004 ACJ 1
2 provisions across 2 enactments
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited
Chekuri Vijaya
Chekuri Sasi Priya
Chekuri Navadeep
Chekuri Santhamma
Bunga Yohan
V Srinivas
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
