The New India Assurance Company Limited, Vs BandaruSreeramulu

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMIT E D,, WHOLLY OWNED BY GOV E RNMENT OF INDIA, HAVING I T S REGIONAL OFFICE AT D.NO. 4 7-10-12, PAVAN PARADISE, 3 A ND 4 FLOOR, NEAR DIAMOND PARK, 2ND LANE, DWAR A KA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNAM 500016, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER TP CLAIMS HUB-VIJ A YAWADA, G.V.V.S.V.P.JANAKIR A M, S/O LATE G.A.V.K.N.SUNAD A RAM, AGED ABOUT 55 Y EARS, OCCMANAGER TP CL A IMS HUB VIJAYAWADA, R/O VIJA Y AWADA

¶10

...APPELLANT

¶11

AND

¶12

BANDARUSREER A MULU, , S/O LATE SANJANNA, A G ED ABOUT 36 YEARS, RIO RE K ULAKUNTA VILLAGE, BUKKARA Y ASAMUDRAM MANDAL, ANANT H APURAMU DISTRICT.

¶13

BANDARULAKSH M AIAH, , S/O LATE SANJANNA, A G ED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O RE K ULAKUNTA VILLAGE, BUKKARA Y ASAMUDRAM MANDAL, ANANT H APURAMU DISTRICT.

¶14

BANDARU NARA Y ANA SWAMY, S/O LATE SANJANNA, AGED ABOUT 28 Y E ARS, OCCHOUSEHOLD D UTIES, R/O REKULAKUNTA V ILLAGE, BUKKARAYASAMUDR A M MANDAL, ANANTHAPURAM U DISTRICT.

¶15

2

¶16

BANDARU RAJU, S/O LATE SANJANNA, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/O REKULAKUNTA VILLAGE, BUKKARAYASAMUDRAM MANDAL, ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT.

¶17

GOSALAKANDAPPA, , S/O LATE KONDAPPA, MAJOR, OWNER OF TRACTOR AND TRAILER BEARING NO.AP-04-N-9370 AND 9371, R/O REKULAKUNTA VILLAGE, BUKKARAYASAMUDRAM MANDAL, ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT.

¶18

Y VENKATA SIVA REDDY, S/O K.LAKSHMI REDDY, MAJOR, DRIVER, R/O DAYYALAKUNTAPALLI VILLAGE, MUNAGAVALASA VILLAGE, BUKKARAYASAMUDRAM MANDAL, ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT.

¶19

CHEEMALA LAKSHMI NARAYANAMMA, , W/O S.NALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, R/O B.PAPPURU VILLAGE, NARAPPA MANDAL, ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT. (AS PER AMENDED ORDERS PASSED IN. IA.NO.331/2019, DT.09-10-2019)

¶20

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶21

Counsel for the Appellant:

¶22

1.M R K CHAKRAVARTHY

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶24

¶25

The Court made the following Judgment:

¶26

The Respondent No.1/ Insurance Company filed the present Appeal challenging by the impugned award dated 10.03.2022 passed in M.V.O.P.No.538 of 2015 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-IV Additional District Judge, Ananthapuramu, whereby the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.3,80,000/- towards total compensation to the claimants as against the claim of Rs.4,00,000/- for the death of the deceased Bandaru Kullayuamma.

¶27

3

¶28

For the sake of convenience, both the parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the claim application.

¶29

The claimants filed a claim petition under Section 163(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the death of the deceased Bandaru Kullayamma, (herein after referred to as “deceased”) who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 15.01.2015.

¶30

The brief averments of the claim petition are as follows:

¶31

On 15.01.2015 at about 2.00 p.m, the deceased along with her two sons namely Lakshmaiah and Narayana Swamy loaded paddy bags in Tractor and Trailer bearing No. AP 04 N 9370 and 9371 to take to rice mill situated at Dayyalakunta Palli Village. But when the vehicle reached at Bayanna peta Village on Narpala to Ananthaspuramu Road, at about 2.00 p.m, the driver drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and lost control over his vehicle and applied sudden breaks, due to which the deceased was dragged to some distance, fell down under right tire of trolley and died on the spot. Immediately her sons got down and found their mother’s dead body. The Bukkarayasamudram Police registered a case in Crime No.8 of 2015 under Section 304-A of IPC against the driver of Tractor and Trailer.

¶32

Before the Tribunal, Respondent No.3 remained exparte. Respondent No.4 is daughter of deceased added as per orders in I.A.No.331 of 2019, dated 09.10.2019 also remained exparte.

¶33

4

¶34

Respondent No.1 filed counter denying the material allegations and

¶35

inter alia contended that at the time of accident, as deceased was suffering with ill health, she was taken to hospital and her sons forcibly made her to get in to tractor, though, she refused due to her ill health, being unable to control herself she might have fell down on the road. Nobody identified crime vehicle and its number. Only for wrongful gain, the claim petition was filed. Respondent No.3 had valid driving license at the time of accident. Thus, the Claim Petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶36

Respondent No.2 filed counter and inter alia contended that the accident occurred due to negligence of deceased and petitioners while traveling and allowed her to sit on the load of paddy bags. Due to ill health, she was not able to control herself and fell down. Deceased was travelling as a gratuitous passenger in tractor and trolley, but not as owner of paddy bags and no policy was issued by the Respondent/ Company for owner of Tractor and Trailer bearing No. AP 04 N 9370 and 9371 from 08.06.2014 to 07.06.2015. Driver of offending vehicle has no Fitness Certificate at the time of accident. Therefore, there is violation of policy conditions and insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. Claim of compensation is excessive and finally prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

¶37

Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial:

¶38

(1) Whether the deceased Bandaru Kullayamma received injuries in motor vehicle accident on 15.01.2015 at about 2.00 p.m, at Bayanna

¶39

5

¶40

peta on Narpala to Ananthapuramu Road, due to rash and negligent driving of driver of Tractor and Trailer bearing No. AP 04 N 9370 and 9371?

¶41

(2) Whether Petitioners are entitled to receive compensation, if so to what extent and from whom?

¶42

(3) To what relief?

¶43

During the course of enquiry, on behalf of the claimants, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.9 were marked. On behalf of the Respondent No.2, R.Ws.1 was examined and Exs.B.1 was marked.

¶44

Taking into consideration the said oral and documentary evidence, while answering issue No.1 the Tribunal held that the deceased sustained injuries in the accident in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 15.01.2015 due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor and trailer bearing Nos. AP 04 N 9370 and 9371 and succumbed to the injuries and as such, the issue was answered in favour of the claimants and held that respondent Nos.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation amount to the claimants and awarded Rs.3,80,000/- under different heads towards compensation.

¶45

Learned standing counsel for the Appellant – Insurance Company contended that the deceased has travelled in the tractor and trailer bearing Nos. AP 04 N 9370 and 9371 as unauthorized passenger and there is no provision to carry other persons except driver on a tractor. It is further contended that as the deceased has travelled in the tractor on the date of accident as unauthorized passenger, the claimants are not entitled for any

¶46

6

¶47

compensation, and requested to set aside the award passed by the Tribunal below.

¶48

The learned counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 4/ Claimants would contend that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper, which needs no interference, and requested to dismiss the appeal filed by the insurance company.

¶49

Having heard the submissions made by the learned counsel representing both parties and on perusal of the material available on record, the point that arises for consideration is as follows

¶50

“ Whether the Appellant – Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation of Rs.3,80,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal ?

¶51

I have carefully analyzed the entire evidence on record. P.Ws.1 and 2, who are sons of the deceased reiterated the contentions urged in the petition. P.W.2 who is second son of the deceased, who travelled along with another brother P.W.1 in Tractor and Trailer bearing Nos. AP 04 N 9370 and 9371 to go to rice mill situated at Dayyalakunta Palli Village, but when the vehicle reached at Bayanna peta Village on Narpala to Ananthapuramu Road, at about 2.00 p.m, the driver drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and lost control over it and applied sudden brakes, due to which deceased fell down under from paddy load and came under right tire of trolley, due to which she died on the spot and the accident occurred due to rash and negligent

¶52

7

¶53

driving of the tractor and trailer bearing Nos.AP 04 N 9370 and 9371, by its driver.

¶54

It is the case of Respondent No.2 that the deceased was travelling as an unauthorized passenger by sitting in the trailer and died due to his own negligence.

¶55

Further, Ex.A.1 – copy of F.I.R and Ex.A.5 – copy of Charge Sheet disclosed that after investigation police filed charge sheet against Respondent No.6 herein i.e driver of the crime vehicle. Therefore, basing on the evidence of P.W.2 and Exs.A.1 and A.5, the Tribunal rightly came to the conclusion that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.3.

¶56

Admittedly, there is no evidence on record to show that the deceased was engaged to unload paddy at the time of accident. Special premium was not collected to cover the risk of coolie. Further, the seating capacity of the tractor is only “one‟ and as the deceased was travelling as an unauthorized passenger by sitting in the trailer, the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation.

¶57

At this juncture, it is pertinent to quote Rule 252 of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, in this case, which reads as follows:

¶58

“ 252. Carrying of persons in goods vehicle carriage :-

¶59

(1) No person shall be carried in the cab of a goods vehicle beyond the number for which there is seating accommodation at the rate of 284

¶60

8

¶61

nukuneters measure along the seat, excluding the space reserved for the driver for each person and not more than Seven persons in all shall be carried in any goods vehicle.

¶62

(2) No persons shall be carried in a goods vehicle upon the goods or otherwise in such a manner that such person is in danger of falling from the vehicle and in no case shall any person be carried in a goods vehicles, in such a manner that any part of his person when he is in sitting position is at a height exceeding 3 meters from the surface which the vehicle rests.

¶63

(3) No person other than a person connected to the conveyance of goods shall travel in a goods vehicle.

¶64

(4) Notwithstanding the provision of sub-rule (1) the Regional Transport Authority or the State Transport Authority, may subject to such conditions as it thinks fit allow a large number of persons to be carried in a goods vehicles;

¶65

(5) Nothing in this rule shall be deemed to authorize the carriage of any person for hire or reward on any goods vehicle, unless there is in force in respect of the vehicle a permit authorizing the use of the vehicle for such purpose, and save in accordance with the provisions of such permit”.

¶66

According to the above Rule, persons shall not be carried more than the prescribed capacity and it is not just violation of terms of policy, but, if a person is allowed to travel in a goods vehicle beyond the permitted seating capacity, the insurance company is not at all liable and therefore, it cannot be fastened with liability of paying the compensation to the claimants and recovering the same from the owner as was held by this High Court in case of

¶67

9

¶68

“ Vachala Vs. V.R. Kumar ”¹ , wherein the decision at paragraphs No.4 and 5 reads as follows:

¶69

“4. Ex. B.2, true extract of the „B‟ register relating to the offending vehicle, shows that it originally was a open (hackney) carriage (Auto Rickshaw Cab) having seating capacity of „Four in all and by the proceedings in R. No. 7713/A5/93 dated 20.4.1993, the following alterations were made with effect from 20.4.1993.

¶70

(1) Class of Vehicle - L.M.V. goods vehicle;

¶71

(2) Seating Capacity - one;

¶72

(3) D.L.W : 330 Kgs; and

¶73

(4) R.L.W. - F.A.W.-300 Kgs and R.A.W-600 Kgs.‟

¶74

Therefore, it is clear that the seating capacity of the offending vehicle is only one i.e., the driver alone can travel in the vehicle. The offending vehicle being a light motor goods vehicle with seating capacity for one i.e., driver, question of anybody else either it be the owner of the goods, or his authorized representative, being allowed to travel therein cannot arise in view of Rule 252(5) A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, made in pursuance of the power given under the Act. When carrying of passengers in the offending vehicle is not allowed by the Act question of insurer covering the risk of owner of the goods or an authorized representative of the owner of the goods travelling along with the goods in the offending vehicle does not arise.

¶75

5. The next contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that carrying of passenger in the offending vehicle at best amounts to the driver committing a breach of the terms and conditions of the policy and, so, the insurer has to pay the compensation to the appellants and recover the amount so paid from the owner, cannot be accepted because carrying of passengers in the offending vehicle is contrary to the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder and since the policy issued by second respondent does not even cover the risk of passenger in the offending vehicle. If the insurer covers the risk of some persons and lays down some conditions for its being made liable in respect of those persons, and if the insured violates some of those conditions, then there may be some force in

¶76

1 2004 (5) ALD 30

¶77

10

¶78

the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants. When the insurer did not undertake to cover the risk of passengers in the offending vehicle, question of its being made liable in respect of the risk of such passenger does not arise.

¶79

Learned standing counsel for the Appellant – Insurance Company has brought to the notice of this Court that in a similar case-MACMA No.1794 of 2006, where the driver of the tractor drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and due to sudden jerk, the deceased therein, who was sitting on the tractor fell down and the trailer ran over him resulting in grievous injuries and later, succumbed to the injuries at the Government Hospital, this Court directed the claimants to recover the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from the owner of the tractor, and requested this Court to pass similar order in this case also.

¶80

The operative portion of the order passed in M.A.C.M.A.No.1794 of 2006 is as follows:

¶81

“However, since the appellant deposited half of the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and the claimants were permitted to withdraw the same, without furnishing any security, the appellant since not liable to pay any compensation as decided in the above case, it can recover the amount from the insured without filing any separate suit, but by filing proceedings in execution. The respondents/claimants are still entitled to recover the balance half of the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from the owner of the tractor.”

¶82

In the present case also, the deceased travelled in the offending vehicle as an unauthorized passenger. Since half of the amount was already deposited by the Appellant – Insurance company as per the interim order of

¶83

11

¶84

stay passed by this Court in the appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the same amount may be permitted to be recovered from the owner of the insured vehicle. It was also submitted by him that the claimants may recover the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal from the owner of the tractor and trailer irrespective of the liability against the insurer.

¶85

Permitting the passenger to travel in a goods vehicle is a violation of terms of policy, therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation to the claimants.

¶86

It is the contention of the claimants that the deceased travelled in the trailer. Per contra , by marking Ex.A6 – copy of insurance policy, the appellant - insurance company established that the policy does not cover the risk of coolies, who travel on it. In the light of the above said decision of this High Court, it cannot be treated as mere violation of terms of policy and it shall be regarded as policy does not cover the risk of the deceased.

¶87

As a similar issue has already been decided by this Court, vide order, dated 17.07.2025 in M.A.C.M.A.No.1794 of 2006, the present appeal can be allowed under similar lines.

¶88

However, since the appellant deposited half of the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and the claimants were permitted to withdraw the same, without furnishing any security, and as the appellant is not liable to pay any compensation as decided in the above case, it can recover the amount from the insured without filing any separate suit, but by filing

¶89

12

¶90

execution proceedings. The respondents / claimants are still entitled to recover the balance half of the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from the owner of Tractor and Trailer bearing Nos.AP 04 N 9370 and AP 04 N 9371.

¶91

With the above directions, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶92

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶93

___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶94

Date: 10.02.2026

¶95

KK

The New India Assurance Company Limited, v. BandaruSreeramulu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The New India Assurance Company Limited, v. BandaruSreeramulu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Vs Bavisetty Veera Venkatewara Rao

The Apsrtc Vs Katragadda Avinash Babu

Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd Vs Kanimeraka Chinna Rao

Sivvapu Bhavani Vs Mamidi Chinna Rao

The Apsrtc Vs Golla Sujatha

Shriram General Insurance Company Limited Vs Chavatapalli Rama Lakshmi