The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellants: Sri. Srinivasa Rao Veeramachaneni Counsel for the Respona"ntli\ur. Nageswara Rao Repakula Coun,ld {r '{rr" pet"laovrde,al 1vo.L. gr5. t\.{,rfqqlh AoJJy Sov"o MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELL ANEOUS APPEAL NO: 54 OF 2019 Appeal filed under Section 173 of tt4.V.Act, agains dated Dt. 12-10-'2018 passed in MVOP No 25 of 2012 on thc Chairman Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-l Additior Order and Decree ile of the court of the rl District Judge, at Kh am mam. Between: lClCl LombarC Genreal lnsurance Company Limited, D f lr 39-1-82A, 6th Floor, Anjaneya Tourers, MG Road, Venkateswarapuram, Labbip: Vijayawada. ...APP -''anU2nd ResPondent AND

1. Bhukya Dwali, W/o Late Veeranna, Aged 32 years, (- Golya Tharda, Tekulapalli Mandal, Khammam District-ri 2. Bhukya Nagaraju, S/o Late Veeranna, Aged- 15 Yea. Golya Tharda, Tekulapalli Mandal, Khammam Districl-rt 3. Bhukya Krishnamraju, S/o Late Veeranna, Aged- lll R/o- Golya Thanda, Tekulapalli lvlandal, Khamrl. (Petitionen; No.2 and 3 being minors are Rept. by th: guardian, petitioner no.'1 ) ...Res 1 4. M.Bhaskar Rao, S/o Raghavaiah, Aged- Major, Occ- o No.AP 24 V 1199, Rl/o- H.No.3-277l3/8, Sneha T. Kodada,NalgondaDistrict-S08206. ...Responc :c- House hold, R/o- 7 042. . Occ- Student, R/o- 7 042. 'ears, Occ- Student, n District-507 002. mother and natural cnd ents/Petitioners rner of Lorry bearing nsport, lvlain Road, rnUl't Respondent lA NO: 1 OF 2019 . Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the Ci- Jmstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court rn: be pleased To stay the operation of the decree and judgment rl; ted.12-10,2018 in MVOP.NO.25I2012 on the file of the Motor Accident Cl,r ns Tribunal-Cum- | Additional District Judge at Khammam pending disposal of t r main MACM. Counsel for the Appellant : Sri. Harinath Reddy Soma Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Srinivasa Rao Veerama<:l aneni cure.,Ael .P<rrJte AeApq^Jevti rloful: Srf 1z€f,qlcola t\Jc\1e-^v, lloo The Court delivered the following: rF3 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY WI.A.C.M.A.Nos.119 AND 154 OF 2019 COMMON JUDGMENT These two appeais are being disposed of by this common judgment since M A.C.M.A.No.119 of 2019 hled by the claimants, seeking enhancemcnt of the compensation and M-A.C-M.A.No. I54 ol 2019 hled by the Insurance Company, are directed against the vcry samc order and decree dated 12-10- 2018 passed in M.V.O.P-No.25 of 2072 by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-l Addrtional District Judge at Khammam (for short "the Tribunal").

2. For the sake of convenicnce, hercinafter the parties u,ill be rcferred to as arrayed before the Tribunai.

3. The brief facts of the case are that ot 28.06.2OO9 at about

24.00 hours the deceased Bhu\ra Venkanna and two other coolies boarded lorry bearing No.AP.24-V 1 199 at Mahabubabad in order to unload the gravei and in between 24;00 hours to 01:O0 hours when the lorry reached near Pedda Chemvu Kuravi, the driver of lorry drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, due to which the driver lost control over the vehicle and dashed against a tree. As a result, Venkanna died on the spot and two other coolies were injured. I Kuravi r)olice Station registcred .r case in Crimc Nc. under liections 3O4-A and 337 IpC against the j crime v:hicle i.e., Iorry bearing registration No.,\l Le policc of 01 of 2009 ivcr of the 24-V'. 1 199. Statrng that the deceased was aged 35 years and rL, s hale and healthy and used to earn Rs.3OO/ per day by doin 1 and tha: due to the sudden demise of deceased, tl t who arc his wrfe and minor chikL-cn, lost love and I hnancial support of the cleceased. initia[y filcrl petition under Section 166 of thc Motor Vehrclcs claiming compensation of Rs.5,OO,OO0/ , agairlst thr insurer of the lorry and subsequently, the clair. enhancel from Rs.S,0O,0O0/- to Rs.10,00,000/ r,,, r was allo.",sed by this Tribunal vldc order dated Oa I LA.No. 1:i7 of 2Ot7 . 4. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.1 i.e., ou 1orry filed a counter denying the claim petition a: ignoranc,: about how the accident occurred anc liability, because the vehicle u,as insured rvith I No.2. Respondent No.2-insurer also filed a counll ;oolie worl< claimants. ection trnd the cl:rinl Act, 1988 twner-ancL has been :h in turn r.20I 8 in rcr of the claiming ro!ttesting -'spondent not only disputing; nature of the accident but also denyng tha its policy should cover the claim, and challenged the claimar s'status, 7 .4 /:.1 age, income, and thc arnoun[ claimed. It lurther argued that its liability is limited undcr statutory provisions and sought for thc dismissal of the claim petition. 5- After considering the oral and documentary evldence on record, the Tribunal carne to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry and awarded compensation of Rs.8,76,40O/- with interest @ 7 .5o/o per annum. Challenging the same, the present appeals camc to be fi1ccl by the ctaimants and rhe ltrsurance Company respectively.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the claimants vehemently contended that the arvard passed by lhc Tribunal grantiL-rg compensation of Rs.8,76,400/- in favour of the claimants is inadequate and clearly undervalues the deceased's earning capacity; evcn though P.W. 1 testified that the dece ased used to earn Rs.300/- per day, the Tribunal wrongly adopted only Rs.15O/- per day despite the prevailing labour market; and taking into consideration his young age and dependents, a higher award is justified; and as such, learned counsel sought to enhance the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to Rs.10.O0,000/-. 4 \

7. L:arned Standing Counsel appearing 1br tr Comparry contended that even though thc in;- statutory liabilty towards unauthorizerl ()r passengers in a goods vehicle as per the provLsions Vehicles Act, in thrs case, the dcceaserl and others . in violation of Lhc policy (as mere passengers), but r wrongly fastene d liability on the Insurer instead ,:r:. lorrl-owner wholly responsible. Learned Starrl r further contendcd that thc ,l.ribunal,s assessn r deceasecl income at Rs.4,5OO/_ per month and rlrr 4O%o tor future prospects are unjustrhed, because t _- credible 3vidence that the deceased was self empiort counsel also argued that the Tribunaj ought to h:ir.c the clatr petition for non_joinder ofthe driver of th: is a necessary party for determining liability unclr:r Thus, th,: learned Standing Counsel sought to set impugnerl award. lnsurance ct ltas no gratuitous I the Motor ere carried Lc Tribunal rolding thc 3 Counsel rf of tlte Lddition oi re was no I I-earned clisrnissed orry, rvho he policy. aside the

8. Learned counsel appearing for the owner of r, lorry,, on the other hand, coritends that the insurer cannot evii e liabilitv by contending that the deceased were unau t,t rized or graturtous, passengers; rather, they were bona jfl.li workers covered under IMT-17; and the award passed by the Tribunal I I I i 5 against the Insurer is Iegally correct. In order to buttress the said contention, the learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment oI the Hon'ble Supreme Court in thc case of Ha.numclncrgouda u. llnited. India Insurance Cor and thc judgment of the erstwhile Andhra Pradcsh High Court in the case of Jamparapu Jeeuamma &, Ors. v. sio,no,po,lli Veera Red.d.g & Anr2.

9. On a careful examination of the entire record. this Court tinds that the Tribunal rightly found negligence on the part of the lorry driver, bascd on credible eyewitness testimony and corroborating offrcial reports. So lar as the policy coverage is concerned, this Court accepts that the deceased was rrot a casual passenger but a working coolie, engaged for unloading, thereby placing him squarely within the IMT- 17 clause (persons employed in connection with operation/loading-unloading), rvhich is fully supported by the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in llanutnanagouda.'s case (7 supro) wheretn \ it was held that "operation" is broader than just loading/ unloading. While coming to assessment of income of the deceased by the Tribunal, this Court finds that hxing the ' (2014) 9 SCC l4r , 2oo9 AcJ 918 6 deceased rllcome at Rs.150/- per day, addition of + ) pr()specrs. applying the multiplier, and c:e( dcpendrnrs uas reasonablc and based on avarl r I ar1(i llc amotrnt awardcd torvards non_pecu I ifuneral love & affeclion, consortiumJ is consrs, i for futurc lc tia,ll : ellrlettcc. rn he;rcls t \\,r th th. (]stablis )cd jtrchcial precedents. [.-urther, the rai,, ()l ir lere s l aw:rrder by thc'lribunal at 7.57o per annum is also ol lia ble to be redu,.cd. Hencc, there is nothing on record to r I thc finc ings arrived at by tlie Tribunal arrd rl r appcais filt:d b], the clarmants and the Insurance Cr : r[err: lr.it]r -elor e'. t l.re olParry ar(l liablc to br: d isnr isscd. iO. Ar crrrclingly, M.A.C.M.A.No.1 19 of 2019 fil C by the clairlants zrnd NLA.C.M.A.No. 154 of 2019 filed by rtr Jnsrrrancc, Compan r, lrre dismissed. I I. Mrsccllancous petitrons pending, if any, ; all stand dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- IVI JAWAHAR REDDY ASSII TANT REGISTRAR \'./ \-J- t SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, l,TheChairmanMotorAccidentsClaimsTriburi-cum-lAdditional District Judge, at Khammam' (With records) z On" CC to Sii. Srinivasa Rao Veeramachaneni' Adv rcate [OPUC] i. One cC to Mr. Nageswara Rao Repakula, Adv,ocat() CPUCI + One CC to Sri. Harinath Reddy Soma, Advocate [OPUCI 5 Two CD C()pies KVR/DL Yt '^. ,nl :.+-- ..wg - t t -: HIGH COURT DATED:241111202s _i\ iri: (t tiB ?026 () () ,i ( l COMMON JUDGMENT MACMA.Nos.119 and 154 of 2019 DISMISSING BOTH THE APPEALS .oP(4 n w--, ,6{il* IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD IVONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF NOVEN,'IBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY M.A.C.M.A Nos: 119 AND 154 OF 2019 MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCEL LANEOUS APPEAL NO: 119 OF 2019 Between 1 Bhukya Dwali, w/o Late Veeranna, Aged 32 years, occ. House hold 2. Bhukya Nagaraju, s/o Late Veeranna, Aged 15 years, occ Student 3. Bhukya Krishnamraju, s/o late Veeranna Aged 13 years, occ. Student, (Clairi petitioners N-o Z and 3 being lr/inors rep.by their mother And nalural petitioner) iuardiah All are residents of Golya Thanda, Tekulapally Mandal. Khammam Dt. appellanUl5t claim 1st i.e ...Appellants/Claim Petitioners AND 1 . M Bhasker Rao, S/o Ragavaiah, age Major, occ. Owner of lorry AP 24 V 1199 R/o H.No 3-277 t3l3. Sneha Transport, Main road, Kodada, Suryapet, Nalgonda.

2. lClCl Lombard General lnsurance co.Ltd, Rep.By its Manager' 39-1-82A' 6th floor, Anjaneya Towers, MG Road, Venkateshwarapu ram, Labbipeta, 'Vijayawada. ...ResPondents/ResPondents Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V.Act, against Order and Decree dated Dt. 12-10-2018 passed in MVoP No 25 ot2012 on the file of thecourtof the chairman lvlotor Accidents claims Tribunal-cum I Additional District Judge, at Kham mam. 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 case and upon hearing the argument of sri. srinivasa Rao veeramachaneni, Advocate for the Appellant and Mr. Nageswara Rao Repakula, Advocate for Respondents{,rc 1 aw{ 5y9 i{o.r.f,rpt-hn 4.dAq 5o v*o.-, A&lcrJ' &l ir,. eedpov.2,enl No-)- MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 54OF 2019 Between: ICICI Lombard cenreal Insurance Company Limited, D I'l .39-1-82A, 6th Floor, Anjaneya Tovrers, MG Road, Venkateswarapuram, Labbipe , Vijayawada. ...App e lant/2"d Respondent AND

1. Bhukya Dwali, W/o Late Veeranna, Aged 32 years, ,l Golya Thanda, Tekulaoalli It4andal, Khammam Districi i 2. Bhukya Nagaraju, S/o Late Veeranna, Aged- 15 Year Golya Thanda, Tekulapalli lr,4andal, Khammam District- r 3. Bhukya K.ishnamraju, S/o Late Veeranna, Aged- 13 R/o- Golva Thanda, Tekulapalli Ir.4andal, khamrra (Petitioners No.2 and 3 being minors are Rept. by the guardian, tetitioner no 1) ...Res;1 4. [/ Bhaska' Rao, S/o Raghavaiah, Aged- l\,4ajor, Occ- o No.AP 2z V 1 199, R/o- H No.3-277l3/8, Sneha Tr Kodada,NalgondaDistrict-508206. ...Responr Appeal filed under Section '173 of lV.V.Act, again l dated Dt. 12-10 /018 passed in tr/vop No 25 of 2012 on the Chairman Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-l Additio I )c- House hold, Rio- 7 002. , Occ- Student, R/o- 7 002. 'ears, Occ- Student, n District-507 002. - mother and natural ondents/Petitioners vner of Lorry bearin g nspofi, Main Road, ,)nt/1'' Respondent Order and Decree le of the court of the rl District Judge, at Kh a mma m. This apperal coming on for hearing and upon per I appeal, the judg'nent and Decree of the Lower Court and I the case and upon hearing the argument of Sri. Harinath F e for the Appell:rnt and Srr Srinivasa Rao Veeramach: Respondents.tvo \ le,r a.d 5,.rf 12 q{r.r ta Nog e,tkc\}q f..c Nolr ing the grounds of l nraterial papers in ldy Soma, Advocate reni, Advocate for AJ.vc cuJ e fuy ? p,I F' r-r(: rl This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the both lvtotor Accident Civil lvliscellaneous Appezrl IVACIVA Nos 119 and 154 of 2009 be and are dismissed;

2. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. //TRUE COPYi/ Sd/. I/ JAWAHAR REDDY ASsil ;TANT RFGISTRAR sEcr!ffi oFFrcER To,

1. The Cha rman Nlotor Accidents Claims Tribun. -cum-t Additional District Jr dge, at Khammam.

2. Two CD Copies KVR/DL \+ HIGH COURT DATED:2411112025 DE ICt- COMMON MACMA.Nos.l 19 and 1 54 of 2019 DISMISSING BOTH THE APPEALS L,\ ,d(\to fr"