Dismissed

United India Insurance Co.,Ltd., v. D.Durga Rao & 4 Others

Andhra Pradesh HC19 Jan 2025MACMA/438/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this motor accident appeal, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh examined the liability of an insurance company. The insurer contested liability, arguing the policy was merely an 'Act Only' cover and did not extend to loading/unloading workers. The Court rejected this, finding that additional premium for such coverage was paid and accepted by the driver. Consequently, the tribunal's award was affir

What did the court decide?

The motor accident civil miscellaneous appeal was dismissed; there shall be no order as to costs.

United India Insurance Co.,Ltd., Vs D.Durga Rao… — Motor Accident Claims | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
^0^
MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE fo
PRESENT ^km
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS W ,4

¶2

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 438 OF 2016

¶3

Between:

¶4

United India Insurance Co., Ltd., Pr. Office, Tenali trhough its Regional Office, TP-HUB, Hyderabad rep.by its Manager.

¶5

...Appellant/R-3

¶6

AND

¶7

D.Durga Rao, S/o. Andriyya R/o. Gollagudem, S.Apparaopet (H), Agiripalli Mandal, Nizvid, Krishna District.

¶8

D. Joji Babu, S/o. Surga Rao (Physically handicapped) 3. D.China Bujji, D/o. Durga Rao (R-2 & R-3 here in being minors, rep. by thier father natural guardian, R-1 Here in) R-1 to^{T-3hereinareR/o} Gollagudem, S.Apparaopet (H), Agiripalli Mandal, Nizvid,^Krishna District.

¶9

K.Yesudas, W/o. Kanakambaram, Occ: Driver R/o. Gollagudem Colony (not necessary Party)

¶10

J.Venkata Rao, S/o. Subba Rao Owner of Tractor AP. 24/G-7345 & Tractor AP, 24/G-7346: D.No. 5-60-Davajigudem: Gannavaram (M), Krishna District.

¶11

...Respondents

¶12

Appeal under Section 173 of M.V.ACT against the Judgment^and decree dated 02/03/2016 in OP No. 135/13 (old O.P. 293 of 2009) dt. 2110-2014 by the Chairperson, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- XV Addl. Dist. Judge, Vijayawada.

¶13

This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the Suit and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Srinivasa Rao

¶14

¶15

Vutia, Advocate, on behalf of the Appellant and Sri V.V.Satish, for Respondents.

¶16

This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

¶17

That the MAGMA be and is hereby dismissed.

¶18

That there be no order as to copy in this Appeal.

¶19

Sd/- G. HELA NAIDU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

To.

SECTfON OFFICER

The Chairperson, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- XV Addl. Dist. Judge, Vijayawada.

¶24

Two CD Copies

RAM

■S

HIGH COURT

DATED:20/01/2025

DECREE

MACMA.No.438 of 2016

DISMISSING THE MACMA AS WITHDRAWN WITHOUT COSTS

¶33

'1 ¥

¶34

MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶35

PRESENT

¶36

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS

¶37

0?^
'^9 * hS

¶38

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 438 OF²⁰¹⁶

¶39

Appeal under Section 173 of M.V.ACT against the Judgment^and decree dated 02/03/2016 in OP No. 135/13 (old O.P. 293^of 2009)^dt. 2110-2014 by the Chairperson, Motor Accidents Claims^{Tribunal-cum-XV} Addl. Dist. Judge, Vijayawada.

¶40

Between:

¶41

United India Insurance Co., Ltd., Pr. Office, Tenali trhough its Regional Office, TP-HUB, Hyderabad rep.by its Manager.

¶42

...Appellant/R-3

¶43

AND

¶44

D.Durga Rao, S/o. Andriyya R/o. Gollagudem, S.Apparaopet^(H), Agiripalli Mandal, Nizvid, Krishna District.

¶45

D. Joji Babu, S/o. Surga Rao (Physically handicapped) 3. D.China Bujji, D/o. Durga Rao (R-2 & R-3 here in being^{minors,rep.by} thier father natural guardian, R-1 Here in) R-1 to^{T-3hereinareR/o.} Gollagudem, S.Apparaopet (H), Agiripalli Mandal, Nizvid,^Krishna District.

¶46

K.Yesudas, W/o. Kanakambaram, Occ; Driver R/o. Gollagudem Colony (not necessary Party)

¶47

J.Venkata Rao, S/o. Subba Rao Owner of Tractor AP.^24/G-7345& Tractor AP, 24/G-7346: D.No. 5-60-Davajigudem: Gannavaram (M), Krishna District.

¶48

...Respondents

¶49

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI SRINIVASA RAO VUTLA

¶50

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI V V SATISH

¶51

The Court made the following Judgment:

¶52

¶53

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS M.A.C.M.A.No.438 of 2016

¶54

JUDGMENT:

¶55

This appeal is filed against the order, dated 21.10.2014 passed in M.V.O.P.No.135 of 2013 on the file of the^Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XV Additional District Judge, Nuzvid (hereinafter called as ‘the Tribunal’).

¶56

The appellant is the insurer of a Tractor bearing No.AP 24G 7345 and Trailer bearing No.AP 24G 7346 (hereinafter referred to as “crime vehicle”). Respondent^Nos.1 to 3 herein are the claimants, who are the husband, son, and daughter of one D.Manikyam (herein after referred to as the deceased). Respondent No.4 herein is the driver of^thecrime vehicle and Respondent No.5 herein is the owner of^thecrime vehicle.

¶57

For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.

¶58

The case of the claimants, in the petition before the Tribunal is that;

¶59

On 11.04.2007 at about 2:30 PM, while Respondent No.1 had loaded brick stones onto his truck-cum-trailer bearing

¶60

¶61

'■egistration numbers AP 24G 7345 and AP 24G 7346 and was proceeding from Brahmalingam Clieruvu to Gannavaram on the Agiripallj-Gannavaram road, the deceased and one B. Bhagyam boarded the trailer as loading and unloading labourers, Respondent No.1 drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and, without observing the lorry approaching from the opposite direction, lost control of the vehicle, Consequently, the vehicle 'veered to the extreme roadside margin, causing the connecting bolt between the tractor and trailer to loosen. As the vehicle jolted over the uneven roadside terrain, the tractor overturned along with the brick load. The deceased and B. Bhagyam, who were seated atop the load, fell off and sustained injuries. Both were shifted ,o Dr. Pinnamaneni Siddhartha Hospital, Chinnaoutpalli, for treatment. However the deceased succumbed to his ini injuries on 13.04.2007. One Rama Rao said to be the owner of the vehicle, lodged a report with the police, which was registered as Crime No.87 of 2007. Upon receiving the death intimation, the police altered the section of law to Section 304-A IPC.

¶62

"■ On to the death of deceased, the claimants claimed compensation of Rs. 3 lakhs against Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

¶63

¶64

Respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained ex parte. Respondent No.3 filed written statement denying the petition averments^and contended that the petitioners have to prove the earning^ofthe deceased and that she worked as loading and unloading^coolie who used to travel in tractor-cum-trailer. It is also^{toestablishthat} the deceased was engaged as coolie by the respondent^Nos.1 and 2. The deceased was an unauthorized passenger,^soalso the other passenger namely B. Bhagyam and that the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 violated the terms and conditions^ofthe policy. The petitioners have to prove that the respondent^No.1 had valid driving license at the time of accident and that the vehicle was insured with respondent No.3. No information^was received from the police or from respondent Nos.1 and 2 immediately after the accident. The compensation claimed is highly excessive, arbitrary, and unjust, therefore,^the petition is liable to be dismissed with costs.

¶65

The Tribunal settled the following issues for enquiry basing on the material:

¶66

“1. Whether the deceased D.Manikyam died in a motor vehicle accident on 11.04.2007 due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 of Tractor-Trailer bearing No.AP 24G 7345 and AP 24G 7346 as claimed?

¶67

¶68

If so, what is the correct age and income of deceased by the date of accident ? 3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation as prayed for? If so, from whom and to what amount? 4. To what relief?”

¶69

During enquiry, on behalf of the claimants, PW.1 was examined and got marked Exs.AI to A6. On behalf of the Respondents, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and got marked Ex.B1 and got marked Exs.XI and X2.

¶70

On the material, the Tribunal having come to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of driver of Tractor-cum-Trailer held that the petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.2,07,500/- with interest and costs against the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 jointly and severally.

¶71

It is against the said order the present appeal was preferred by the appellant/Respondent No.3-lnsurer.

¶72

Heard Sri Vutia Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the appellant/insurer and Sri Y. Nagendra learned counsel representing Sri V.V.Satish, learned counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3/Claimants.

¶73

¶74

Now, the only point that arises for determination is^“whether the award passed by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside, if so, to what extent?'

¶75

POINT:

¶76

It is not in dispute about the death of the deceased in a road accident and that the claimants are awarded compensation of Rs.2,07,500/- and that the claimants did not prefer any appeal for enhancement of compensation.

¶77

The learned counsel for the appellant/insurer, Sri Vutia Srinivasa Rao, contended that the policy obtained by^theownerof the Tractor-Trailer is an “Act Only” policy, and hence, the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation. It was argued that the Tribunal erred in directing the insurer to indemnify the owner. In response, the learned counsel for the claimants submitted that, as per Ex.BI—the insurance policy—an^amount of Rs.200/- was paid towards third-party premium for covering loading and unloading workmen. Therefore, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that^theinsurer has no liability does not merit acceptance. 14. Upon hearing both sides and on perusal of the material^on record, it is not in dispute that the accident occurred on 13.04.2007 resulting in the death of one B. Bhagyam. The

¶78

¶79

appellant’s contention that it is not liable to pay compensation on the ground that the policy is only an “Act Policy" stands negated by the evidence on record. The insurance company examined Sri K.A. Purnachandra Rao, Assistant Regional Manager, who stated that the policy was an Act policy and that, therefore the insurer was not liable. However, during cross-examination, the said witness admitted that the policy was in force as on the date of the accident and that Ex.B1 shows that third-party premium had been paid by the owner of the Tractor-Trailer, This admission establishes that coverage for loading/unloading workers was in effect. 15. Further, during cross-examination, R.W.1—the driver of the Tractor-cum-Trailer—admitted that the deceased was engaged as a coolie for loading and unloading purposes. A perusal of Ex.B1 confirms that a specific premium of Rs.200/- was paid by the owner for coverage of such risks. In the present case as additional premium is paid towards coverage of employees engaged in loading and unloading, the insurer is liable to indemnify the insured. Accordingly, this Court holds that the insurance company is liable to pay compensation to the claimants for the death of the deceased in the accident.

¶80

¶81

fNs

¶82

For these reasons stated above, this Court finds no^merits in the appeal, and as such, this Court is of the considered opinion that the award passed by the Tribunal warrants no interference. This point is answered accordingly.

¶83

In the result, the appeal is dismissed. There shall^beno order as to costs.

¶84

Interim orders granted earlier if any, shall stand^vacated. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall

stand closed.

To,

//TRUE COPY//

Sd/- G. HELA NAIDU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTI ^^I^FICER

¶89

The Chairperson, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- XV Addl. Dist. Judge, Vijayawada, (with records if any)

¶90

The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court of^{AndhraPradesh.}

¶91

One CC to Sri Srinivasa Rao Vutia, Advocate [OPUC]

¶92

One CC to Sri V V Satish, Advocafe [OPUC]

¶93

Two CD Copies

RAM

HIGH COURT

DATED:20/01/2025

JUDGMENT+DECREE MACMA.No.438 of 2016

¶99

DISMISSING THE MACMA AS WITHDRAWN WITHOUT COSTS

United India Insurance Co.,Ltd., v. D.Durga Rao & 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

United India Insurance Co.,Ltd., v. D.Durga Rao & 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Dhanalakshmi, Vs the State of a.P., Rep by Pp.

K. Dhanalakshmi, Vs the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd., Thrgh Insp.

K. Dhanalakshmi, Vs the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd., Thgh Insp., of Police

K.Sarvesu & 2 Others Vs the State of A.P. Rep., by Its Pp

A.Srinivasa Reddy, Prakasam Dt., Vs Sri Sai Enterprises, Prakasam Dt & 2 Otrs- Pp.

M/S United India Ins. Com. Ltd., Nellore Vs G Mallaiah, Prakasam Dist & 5 Others