Allowed

Peddadaka Manjula & 4 Ors. v. K.Lakshmi & Anr.

Andhra Pradesh HC22 Jun 2025MACMA/2707/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Claimants appealed dismissal of their claim against the insurer after the death of the deceased travelling in an insured goods lorry. Holding that collection of NFPP premium under the comprehensive package policy covered the risk even of a gratuitous passenger, the court fastened liability on the insurance company and allowed the appeal without costs.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed; liability fixed on Respondent No.2/insurance company also; no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

Peddadaka Manjula & 4 Ors. Vs K.Lakshmi & Anr. — Insurance | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

¶1

APHC010009652008

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶3

MONDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

<ir
G AJ*
o :ry' c:^
^ r^'/i

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI

¶7

jVIOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 2707 OF 2008

¶8

Between:

¶9

Peddadaka Manjula, W/o.Late P.Madhusudhana Reddy, aged about 25 years, R/o.PudipatIa Village, Chowdepalle Revenue Mandal, Chittoor District.

¶10

Peddadaka Chedhuvardhana Reddy, S/o.Late P.Madhusudhana Reddy, aged about 5 years, R/o.PudipatIa Village, Chowdepalle Revenue Mandal, Chittoor District.

¶11

Peddadaka Lihit Reddy, S/o.P.Madhusudhana Reddy, aged about 3 years, R/o.PudipatIa Village, Chowdepalle Revenue Mandal, Chittoor District.

¶12

Peddadaka Reddeppa, S/o.Ramaiah, aged about 57 years. R/o.PudipatIa Village, Chowdepalle Revenue Mandal, Chittoor District.

¶13

Peddadaka Santhamma, W/o.Reddeppa, aged about 52 years R/o.PudipatIa Village, Chowdepalle Revenue Mandal, Chittoor District. (R-2 and R-3 being minors, rep by their mother natural Guardian)

¶14

...Appellants/Claimants

¶15

AND

¶16

'■•t.

¶17

K.Lakshmi, W/o.K.Obulesu, Major, Transport Operator, R/0.D.N0.1641-A, Uma Nagar, Old Town, Anantapur Town, Anantapur District. ^

¶18

The United India Insurance Company, Anantapur Branch, rep by its Manager, Anantapur.

¶19

...Respondents/Respondents

¶20

Counsel for the Appellants: Sri D.Kodandarami Reddy

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Sri N.Aswartha Narayana

¶22

(No representation)

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Sri P.Ramanjaneyulu

¶24

Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the 0"der and Decree, dated 19-09-2006 passed in OP No.21 of 2005 on the file of the Court of the Chair Person, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-l l Additional , District Judge, Madanapalle, Chittoor District.

¶25

This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Award and Decree of the Trial Court and material papers in the petition and upon hearing arguments of Sri D.Kodandarami Reddy, Advocate for Appellants, and of Sri P.Ramanjaneyulu, Advocate for Respondent No.2 and none appeared for Respondent No.1.

¶26

That the Appeal be and the same hereby is allowed;

¶27

That the liability be and hereby is fixed on Respondent No.2/ Insurance Company also; and

¶28

That there be no order as to costs in this MAGMA.

¶29

SD/- K. KASI RAO ACHARI

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-ll Additional District Judge, Madanapalle, Chittoor District.

¶35

Two CD Copies

HIGH COURT

DATED:23/06/2025

DECREE

MACMA NO.2707 OF 2008

¶40

% 0 2 AUG 2025
o».
^ . Current Seciion , ^

¶41

ALLOWING THE APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS

¶42

APHC010009652008

¶43

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶44

MONDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶45

V
-p<br>ot - -gsv'/Uii

¶46

PRESENT

¶47

HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI

¶48

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 2707 OF 2008

¶49

Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the Order and Decree, dated 19-09-2006 passed in OP No.21^{of2005onthefile} of the Court of the Chair Person, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-ll Additional District Judge, Madanapalle, Chittoor District.

¶50

Between:

¶51

Peddadaka Manjula, W/o.Late P.Madhusudhana Reddy, aged about 25 years, R/o.PudipatIa Village, Chowdepalle Revenue Mandal,^Chittoor District.

¶52

Peddadaka Chedhuvardhana Reddy, S/o.Late P.Madhusudhana Reddy, aged about 5 years, R/o.PudipatIa Village, Chowdepalle Revenue Mandal, Chittoor District.

¶53

Peddadaka Lihit Reddy, S/o.P.Madhusudhana Reddy, aged about 3 years, R/o.PudipatIa Village, Chowdepalle Revenue Mandal, Chittoor District.

¶54

Peddadaka Reddeppa, S/o.Ramaiah, aged about 57 years, R/o.PudipatIa Village, Chowdepalle Revenue Mandal,^{ChittoorDistrict.}

¶55

Peddadaka Santhamma, W/o.Reddeppa, aged about 52 years, R/o.PudipatIa Village, Chowdepalle Revenue Mandal,^{ChittoorDistrict.} {R-2 and R-3 being minors, rep by their mother natural Guardian)

¶56

...Appellants/Claimants

¶57

AND

¶58

K.Lakshmi, W/o.K.Obulesu, Major, Transport Operator, R/o.D.No.1641-A, Uma Nagar, Old Town, Anantapur Town, Anantapur District.

¶59

The United India Insurance Company, Anantapur Branch, lep by its Manager, Anantapur.

¶60

...Respondents/Respondents

¶61

Counsel for the Appellants: Sri D.Kodandarami Reddy

¶62

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Sri N.Aswartha Narayana

¶63

(No representation)

¶64

Counsel for the Respondent No.2; Sri P.Ramanjaneyulu

¶65

The Court made the following:

¶66

[3311]

¶67

APHC010009652008

¶68

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

¶69

AT AMARAVATI

¶70

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶71

Monday, the twenty third day of June, two thousand and twenty five

¶72

Present

¶73

The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. BhanumathI

¶74

M.A.C.M.A No. 2707 of 2008

¶75

Between:

¶76

Peddadaka Manjula & Others

...Appellants

and

K.Lakshmi and others

...Respondents

Counsel for the appellants:

¶82

I.D. Kodanda Rami Reddy

¶83

Counsel for the respondents:

¶84

I.P. Ramanjaneyulu

¶85

2.N. Aswartha Narayana

¶86

The Court made the following:

¶87

BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.2707 of 2008

¶88

¶89

JUDGMENT:

¶90

This appeal is filed under section 173 of Motor Vehicles^Act,1988 against the award and the decree, dated 19.09.2006, in O.P.No.21/2005 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims^{Tribunal-cum-} Additional District Judge, Madanapalle. The claimants^arethelegal representatives of P.Madhusudhan Reddy (hereinafter^referred to as ‘the deceased’), who while travelling in mini lorry^{bearingNo.AP02U} 4643 met with the accident and died.

¶91

The case of the claimants, is briefly, as follows; On 24.08.2003, at about 3.30 a.m at K.M.No.192/4 of^National High Way No.07 of Itikalapadu village of Mahaboob Nagar^District,the driver of the mini lorry drove it in a rash and negligent^mannerand dashed against a stationed lorry on its back due to^{which,thedeceased} who was travelling in the mini lorry died on the spot.^{AcaseinCr.No.48} of 2003 for the offence under Section 304-A and 338 I.P.C. was registered by the police of Manapadu P.S. The deceased^wasdoing tomatoes business. He purchased tomatoes at Punganur^andcarried them in a mini lorry of the 1®* respondent to Hyderabad. After selling the same in the market, while he was returning to his native^villageinthe same lorry, he died in the aforesaid accident. The^{cleaner,byname,} in the mini lorry Suresh, and driver, Venkataramana, who were sustained simple injuries. The deceased was 30 years^{oldandearning} Rs.1,00,000/- per annum from his business and Rs.60,000/-^perannum from agriculture. The claim was opposed by the insurance^company/ 2"^ respondent contending that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger in a goods vehicle.

¶92

/ /

¶93

¶94

BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.2707 of 2008

¶95

The 2"^^ respondent filed written statement stating that this respondent had insured a new Eicher van bearing No.AP^02U4643 under goods carrying commercial vehicle package policy^andthe same was in force from 09.09.2002 to 08.09.2003 and that the liability of this respondent, if any, is borne by the terms and conditions of the policy issued by it. The other contentions raised by the claimants were all denied.

¶96

On behalf of the claimants, the 1®* claimant was examined as PW1, the cleaner of the vehicle was examined as PW2 and Exs.M to A11 were marked.

¶97

For Claimants:

¶98

EX.A1	Certified copy of F.I.R.
EX.A2	Certified copy of inquest report.
EX.A3	Certified copy of Post Mortem Certificate.
Ex.A4	Certified copy of M.V.I’s report.
EX.A5	Certified copy of charge sheet.
EX.A6	Bunch of bills issued by K.M.R. Tomato Commission Mandi, Madanapalle.
EX.A7	3 pocket note books in which supply of milk to the milk collection centre are noted.
EX.A8	Pattadar pass book in the name of 4'*^ petitioner.
Ex.A9	T.C. of PW1.
EX.A10	Voter identity card of 4“^ petitioner.
Ex.A11	Voter identity card of 5*^ petitioner.
For respon	dents:
EX.B1	Copyofpolicy.

¶99

4 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.2707 of 2008

¶100

The 1 respondent remained ex parte. On behalf of 2 nd respondent, B. Venugopal, was examined as RW1 and copy of the policy is marked as Ex.B1. 6. After hearing both parties, the Tribunal assessed the total amount of compensation payable at Rs.3,72,500/- and awarded interest @ 7.5% p.a., payable from the date of petition, i.e., 27.01.2005, till the date of realization. However, the compensation was granted only against the 1®‘ respondent while dismissing the claim against the² nd respondent on the ground that the policy does not cover the risk of a gratuitous passenger. The contention of the claimants is that the deceased, while returning from Hyderabad, was travelling along with empty boxes in the lorry after selling the tomatoes carried in the same boxes.

¶101

To prove the contention of the claimants, they relied on the evidence of PW2 who is the cleaner of the said vehicle who deposed that the deceased was carrying empty boxes in the lorry. The Tribunal noted that there is no reference of empty boxes in Ex.AI and A2 and that the claimants have not taken any steps to get the trip sheet or the way bill to prove their contention. The Tribunal disbelieved the evidence of PW2 stating that it is parrot-wise evidence.

¶102

nd Aggrieved by the award, dismissing the claim against^the2 respondent, this appeal was filed by the claimants. 9. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that under the package policy, the insurance company collected premium of Rs.75/towards NFPP (non-fare paid passenger) for one passenger and it would cover the risk of the deceased in the present^case.

¶103

¶104

BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.2707 of 2008

¶105

¶106

On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent^No.2 / Insurance Company contended that the deceased was not^anon-fare paying passenger and that the claimants developed the^casethathe was travelling along with empty boxes though it was not initially stated in Exs.M and A2 or in the claim petition. He further submitted^thatevenin package policy, no passenger can be allowed to travel in commercial goods vehicle.

¶107

That apart, the learned counsel for the appellants^{submittedthat} the amount awarded by the Tribunal is on low side.

¶108

The learned counsel for appellants placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Meena Devi Vs. Nunu^ChandMahto @ Nemchand Mahto and others'' in paragraph No. 13 it^washeldthat:

¶109

“13. Thus applying the ratio of the said judgments, looking to the age of the child in the present case i.e., 12 years, the principles laid down in the case of Kishan Gopal and another Vs. Lala and others [(2014) 1 SCC 244] are aptly applicable to the facts of the present case. As per^theocular statement of the mother of the deceased, it is clear that deceased was a brilliant student and studying in a private school. Therefore, accepting the notional earning Rs.30,000/including future prospect and applying the multiplier^of15 in view of the decision of this Court in Sarla Verma & others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another [(2009) 6 SCC 121], the loss of dependency comes to Rs.4,50,000/-^and if we add Rs.50,000/- in conventional heads, then the^totalsum of compensation comes to Rs.5,00,000/-. As per the judgment

¶110

^2022 Live Law (SC) 841

¶111

¶112

BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.2707 of 2008

¶113

of MACT, lump sum compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- has been awarded, while the High Court enhanced it to Rs.2,00,000/up to the value of the claim petition. In our view, the said amount of compensation is not just and reasonable looking to the computation made hereinabove, Hence, we determine the total compensation as Rs.5,00,000/- and on reducing the amount as awarded by the High Court i.e., Rs.2,00,000/-, the enhanced amount comes to Rs.3,00,000/-”.

¶114

The mam challenge to the claim is the liability of the insurance company in view of its contention that the deceased was an unauthorized passenger jn a goods vehicle whereas the claimants stated that the premium was paid for one non-fare paying passenger and the same would cover the risk of the deceased. As rightly contended by'the claimants premium for non-fare paid passenger was collected and it is not shown that any other person made a claim under the said category. Even if the deceased was considered as a gratuitous passenger, his case wouid be covered by non-fare paid passenger and the liabiiity wouid arise under the poiicy marked as Ex.B1 Since the policy under Ex.BI is a comprehensive policy and premium for NFPP was received, the liability cannot be disowned by the insurance company.

¶115

Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, as the Tribunal adequately awarded compensation the same does not require interference.

¶116

in the result, the appeal is allowed.

¶117

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶118

¶119

BSB,J M.A.C.M.A.No.2707of2008

¶120

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any. shall stand closed.

¶121

SDI- K. KASI RAO ACHARI

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

To.

SECTION OFFICER

The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-ll Additional District Judge, Madanapalle, Chittoor District. (With records)

¶127

One CC to Sri D.Kodandarami Reddy, Advocate [OPUCj

¶128

One CC to Sr P.Ramanjaneyulu, Advocate [OPUC]

¶129

One CC to Sri N.Aswartha Narayana, Advocate [OPUC]

¶130

The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court of AP at Amaravati.

¶131

Two CD Copies BSV

HIGH COURT

DATED;23/06/2025

JUDGMENT AND DECREE

MACMA NO. 2707 OF 2008

¶137

69
g 0 2 AUG 2025
^ . Current Section
V ) % x
V 1

¶138

ALLOWING THE APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS

Peddadaka Manjula & 4 Ors. v. K.Lakshmi & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Peddadaka Manjula & 4 Ors. v. K.Lakshmi & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ch Vijayalakshmi Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Rampogu Abhishek Kumar Vs the State of Ap

Bendi Venkata Rao Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

Dr.B. Sreenivasa Murthy Vs Sri Kona Sasidhar

M. Abdul Moiz Khan Vs S. Nisar Ahmed(Died)

V. Anjali Sree Vs State of Andhra Pradesh