The Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Nallamilli Basamma & Ors.

The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1605 of 2007 Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1605 of 2007 Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1605 of 2007 (along with Cross Objections No.10 of 2024) (along with Cross Objections No.1 Between: The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. ...Appellant Doddigarla Annapurna and others Doddigarla Annapurna and ...Respondents ...Respondents Counsel for the appellant: Counsel for the appellant:

1. V. Raghu Counsel for the respondents: Counsel for the respondents: B. V. Krishna Reddy 1. B. V. Krishna Reddy The Court made the following: The Court made the following: 3 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1288 of 2007 M.A.C.M.A.No.1288 of 2007 and batch APHC010232462007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3311] (Special Original Jurisdiction) Monday, the thirteenth day of October, two thousand and twenty five Monday, the thirteenth day of October, two thousand and twenty five Monday, the thirteenth day of October, two thousand and twenty five Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1845 of 2007 Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1845 of 2007 Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1845 of 2007 (along with Cross Objections No.8 of 2024) (along with Cross Objections No. Between: Insurance Company Ltd The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd ...Appellant Burugu Anjamma and others Burugu Anjamma and others ...Respondents ...Respondents Counsel for the appellant: Counsel for the appellant:

1. V. Raghu Counsel for the respondents: Counsel for the respondents: B. V. Krishna Reddy 1. B. V. Krishna Reddy The Court made the following: The Court made the following: 4 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1288 of 2007 M.A.C.M.A.No.1288 of 2007 and batch APHC010291102007 COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH IN THE HIGH AT AMARAVATI [3311] (Special Original Jurisdiction) Monday, the thirteenth day of October two thousand and twenty five Monday, the thirteenth day of October two thousand and twenty five Monday, the thirteenth day of October two thousand and twenty five Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1856 of 2007 Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1856 of 2007 Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1856 of 2007 Between: The Oriental Insurnace Company Limited, Tanuku The Oriental Insurnace Company Limited, Tanuku ...Appellant Pasupeleti Jayamma and others Pasupeleti Jayamma and others ...Respondents ...Respondents Counsel for the appellant: Counsel for the appellant:

1. V. Raghu Counsel for the respondents: Counsel for the respondents: B. V. Krishna Reddy 1. B. V. Krishna Reddy The Court made the following: The Court made the following: 5 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1288 of 2007 M.A.C.M.A.No.1288 of 2007 and batch APHC010195702008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3311] (Special Original Jurisdiction) Monday, the thirteenth day of October, two thousand and twenty five Monday, the thirteenth day of October, two thousand and twenty five Monday, the thirteenth day of October, two thousand and twenty five Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi Miscellaneous Appeal No.3196 of 2008 Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.3196 of 2008 Motor Accident Civil Between: The Oriental Insurance Company Limited The Oriental Insurance Company Limited ...Appellant Nallamilli Saraswathi and others Nallamilli Saraswathi and others ...Respondents ...Respondents Counsel for the appellant: Counsel for the appellant:

1. V. Raghu Counsel for the respondents: Counsel for the respondents: Reddy 1. B. V. Krishna Reddy The Court made the following: The Court made the following: 6 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1288 of 2007 M.A.C.M.A.No.1288 of 2007 and batch APHC011353192007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3311] (Special Original Jurisdiction) Monday, the thirteenth day of October two thousand and twenty five Monday, the thirteenth day of October two thousand and twenty five Monday, the thirteenth day of October two thousand and twenty five Present S. Bhanumathi The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi The Honourable Ms. Justice B. Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.502 of 2025 Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.502 of 2025 Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.502 of 2025 Between: The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., ...Appellant Neelabani Nagamani and Others Neelabani Nagamani and Others ...Respondents ...Respondents Counsel for the appellant: Counsel for the appellant:

1. A. Anasuya espondents: Counsel for the respondents: B. V. Krishna Reddy 1. B. V. Krishna Reddy The Court made the following: The Court made the following: 7 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1288 of 2007 and batch COMMON JUDGMENT: Since all the above appeals and cross-objections arise out of one accident, the appeals are heard together and ordered through a common judgment.

02. For the purpose of convenience parties are arrayed as before the Tribunal.

03. The insurance company / appellant preferred all the appeals against the respondents who are the claimants before the Tribunal. The claimants / petitioners preferred cross-objections. a(i). M.A.C.M.A.No.1288 of 2007: This appeal is under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short ‘the Act’) against the award and decree dated 28.04.2006 in O.P.No.5 of 2001 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, West Godavari District at Eluru. a(ii). X.Obj.No.11 of 2025: This cross-objection is filed by the claimants under Order XLI, Rule 22 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 in M.A.C.M.A.No.1288 of 2007 seeking enhancement of compensation amount awarded in O.P.No.5 of 2001. b(i). M.A.C.M.A.No.1605 of 2007: This appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Act against the award and decree, dated 28.04.2006, in O.P.No.86 of 2001 on the file of the Court of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, West Godavari District at Eluru. b(ii). X.Obj.No.10 of 2024: This cross-objection is filed by the claimants under Order XLI, Rule 22 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 in M.A.C.M.A.No.1605 of 2007 seeking enhancement of compensation amount awarded in O.P.No.86 of 2001. 8 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1288 of 2007 and batch c(i). M.A.C.M.A.No.1845 of 2007: This appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Act against the award and decree, dated 28.04.2006, in O.P.No.38 of 2001 on the file of the Court of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, West Godavari District at Eluru. c(ii). X.Obj.No.8 of 2024: This cross-objection is filed by the claimants under Order XLI, Rule 22 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 M.A.C.M.A.No.1845 of 2007 seeking enhancement of compensation amount awarded, in O.P.No.38 of 2001. d. M.A.C.M.A.No.1856 of 2007: This appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Act against the award and decree, dated 28.04.2006, in O.P.No.21 of 2001 on the file of the Court of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, West Godavari District at Eluru. e. M.A.C.M.A.No.3196 of 2008: This appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Act against the award and decree, dated 28.04.2006, in O.P.No.8 of 2001 on the file of the Court of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, West Godavari District at Eluru. f. M.A.C.M.A.No.502 of 2025: This appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Act against the award and decree, dated 28.04.2006, in O.P.No.1 of 2001 on the file of the Court of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, West Godavari District at Eluru.

4. The case of the claimants is, briefly, as follows: The accident occurred on 03.05.2000. Some coolies (herein after referred as ‘the deceased’) plucked coconuts and loaded the same into the lorry bearing No.AP 16 T 2999 and the lorry proceeded further for unloading the coconuts near Kothuru, Kamavarapukota Village. At about 5.00 P.M., the driver of the lorry drove it in a rash and negligent manner. As a result, the lorry turned turtle and fell on the road margin. 9 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1288 of 2007 and batch Some of the coolies died on the spot, and some other coolies received multiple grievous injuries. The Station House Officer, Tadikalapudi Police Station registered a case in Crime No.25 of 2001 under Section 304-A I.P.C. and 337 I.P.C. against the driver of the lorry and filed charge sheet in the Court of Judicial I Class Magistrate, Chintalapudi. The dependents of the deceased filed the petitions before the Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- in each petition.

5. The claimants filed petitions against four respondents. The respondent No.1 is the driver of the lorry. The respondent No.2 is the previous owner of the lorry. The respondent No.3 is the insurance company. The respondent No.4 is the present owner of the lorry. The respondents Nos.1 and 2 remained ex parte in all the petitions.

6. The insurance company / respondent No.3 filed written statements in all the petitions contending that the petitioners have to prove that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligence of the respondent No.1 in driving the lorry bearing No.AP 16 T 2999; that the respondent No.1 had a valid driving licence at the time of the accident; that the petitioners were engaged as coolies by the owner of the lorry for loading and unloading of the coconuts; and that there was no violation of terms and conditions of the policy and permit of the vehicle. It was further pleaded that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction and the petitioners have to approach the authorities under the Workmen Compensation Act; and that the amount of compensation claimed is excessive.

7. The respondent No.4 in O.P.Nos.1, 5, 8, 21, 38 and 86 of 2001 filed written statement briefly stating that the respondent No.1 who was the driver of the lorry had a valid driving license by the date of the accident; that the lorry was insured with the respondent No.3; that the 10 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1288 of 2007 and batch deceased were engaged as coolies for plucking, loading and unloading the coconuts in his lorry; that he also paid premium to the coolies under the policy; and that the petitioners have to prove the age and income of the deceased by the date of the accident.

8. The Tribunal framed the following common issues for trial in all the petitions: i. Whether the deceased died due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No.AP 16 T 2999, driven by its driver / respondent No.1? ii. Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim any compensation? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents? iii. To what relief?

9. On behalf of the petitioners the following witnesses were examined: P.W.1 Pasupulati Jayamma Petitioner No.1 O.P.No.21 of 2001 P.W.2 N.Vijayamma (eye witness) P.W.3 N.Nagamma Petitioner No.1 O.P.No.1 of 2001 P.W.4 N.Basamma Petitioner No.1 O.P.No.5 of 2001 P.W.5 D.Annapurnama Petitioner No.1 O.P.No.86 of 2001 P.W.6 B.Anjamma Petitioner No.1 O.P.No.38 of 2001 P.W.7 Nallamilli Saraswathi Petitioner No.1 O.P.No.8 of 2001 The following documents were marked on behalf of petitioners: Ex.A1 Attested Xerox copy of F.I.R. Ex.A2 Attested Xerox copy of M.V.I. report. Ex.A3 Attested Xerox copy of P.M. report 11 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1288 of 2007 and batch Ex.A4 Attested Xerox copy of insurance policy. Ex.A5 Attested Xerox copy of P.M. report in O.P.No.1 of 2001 Ex.A6 Attested Xerox copy of P.M. report in O.P.No.5 of 2001 Ex.A7 Attested Xerox copy of P.M. report in O.P.No.86 of 2001 Ex.A8 Attested Xerox copy of P.M. report in O.P.No.38 of 2001 Ex.A9 Attested Xerox copy of P.M. report in O.P.No.8 of 2001

10. On behalf of the respondents, K.K.V. Raju was examined as R.W.1 and the following documents were marked Ex.B1 Policy copy of crime vehicle. Ex.B2 B’ register extract. Ex.B3 Copy of charge sheet.

11. After hearing both the sides, the Tribunal allowed all the petitions awarding compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- in each petition with interest @7 ½ p.a. from the date of the petition till the date of realization and fixed liability on the respondent No.3 / insurance company to first pay the compensation and then recover the same from the respondents Nos.2 and 3.

12. The compensation awarded is as follows: Sl. No. 1 M.A.C.M.A Number 1288 of 2007 O.P. Number 5 of 2001 Compensation arrived 2,49,300/- Compensation awarded 2,00,000/- 2 3 4 5 6 3196 of 2008 8 of 2001 2,34,900/- 2,00,000/- 1605 of 2007 86 of 2001 2,39,900/- 2,00,000/- 1845 of 2007 38 of 2001 2,00,000/- 2,00,000/- 1856 of 2007 21 of 2001 2,00,000/- 2,00,000/- 502 of 2025 1 of 2001 2,00,000/- 2,00,000/- 12 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1288 of 2007 and batch

13. In the appeals, the insurance company contended that all the passengers are unauthorised passengers travelling in goods vehicle and moreover, twenty two (22) persons were travelling which lead to the accident, whereas, the policy of insurance covered only three (3) coolies but the insurance company was directed to pay the amount of compensation in all six (6) cases and then to recover the same from the owner and the insured.

14. Both the insurance company and the claimants challenged the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal.

15. Insofar as the liability of the insurance company is concerned, admittedly premium was collected for coolies but the insurance company says that it was collected only for three (3) coolies because the policy of insurance indicates “Workmen > 6 No.3”. This has not been duly shown that it is limited to number three. On the other hand, the evidence of R.W.1 supports the finding of the Tribunal. The main contention of the 3rd respondent is that the accident vehicle was insured as goods carrier commercial vehicle and that even according to the F.I.R (Ex.A1) and the charge sheet (Ex.B3), 22 persons were travelling in the crime vehicle at the time of the accident and thus, there was violation of the terms and conditions of the policy and consequently, the 3rd respondent insurance company is not liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.

16. The fact of the victims were travelling in the vehicle is also duly appreciated by the Tribunal. It is improper to contend that the passengers are unauthorised persons travelling in the vehicle. The fact that they are coolies is well established. The policy also covered premium for coolies. Therefore, the insurance company cannot be 13 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1288 of 2007 and batch permitted to deny the claim alleging that the victims are gratutious passengers. As such, this Court does not see any force in the contentions of the insurance company that the policy did not cover more than three (3) coolies or that the victims are gratuitous passengers.

17. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, it is neither low nor high. Therefore, the contentions of both the insurance company and the claimants with regard to the quantum of compensation are not found justified. The impugned awards do not require any interference in the appeal.

18. As such, the appeals as well as the cross objections are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ B.S.BHANUMATHI, J 13-10-2025 NSM / RAR