The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI N.CHANDRASEKHAR RAO, rep SRI. A RAMAKRISHNA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1 and 2:SRl B PARAMESEWARA RAO The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT ...RESPONDENTS // HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI M.A.C.M.A. No.917 OF 2005 JUDGMENT: Heard Mr. N.Chandrasekhar Rao, learned counsel representing ltlr.A.Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel for appellanUrespondent No.2/insurer and Mr. B.Parameshwra Rao, learned counsel for the respondent No. t/claimant.

2. This appeal has been preferred by the insurer/respondent No.2 challenging the liability fastened to pay and recover the compensation amount from the owner of the crime vehicle /respondent No.1 in decree and judgment dated 17.12.2004 in O.P.No.562 of 2000 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-ll Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

3. Learned counsel for the insurer/respondent No.2 would plead that even as per the petition on the date of the occurrence i.e. on 07.09.1999 the claimant boarded a tanker lorry/crime vehicle and at Akupamula village, the driver drove the vehicle in rash and negligent manner and caused the accident whereby the claimant suffered grievous injuries. Further pleads that though 2 NTR,] MACI.{A_g r7_2OO5 the tribunal recorded that the claimant is an unauthorized passenger directed the insurer/respondent No.2 to pay the awarded amount of Rs.1,50,000/- with interest at 9% per annum and recover the same from its insured/owner of the crime vehicle. As it has been held that the claimant is an unauthorized passenger, the insurer ought not have been lretd liable to pay compensation, thus, the direction to pay and recover is unsustainable.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent No.'llclaimant supported the impugned order passed by the Tribunal.

5. I have perused the materials on record.

6. The issue falls for consideration is whether the direction to pay and recover is sustainable in law and on facts?

7. Admittedly, the crime vehicle/lorry was insured with the insurer/respondent No.2 and by the date of accident the policy is in force. Further the accident, injuries to the claimant are evidencing that the claimant was travelling in the tanker lorry as passenger. Thus the status of the unauthorized/gratuitous passenger of the claimant can safely be concluded. 3 NTR,J MAO'IA 917_2005

8. Similar aspect fell for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court: in the authority between Anu Bhanvara and others v. lffco Tokio General lnsurance Company Limited and others - (202C) 20 SCC 632. The relevant observations are extracted hereunder: "The next question is as to which of the respondents, that is the owner and driver, or the insurer of the vehicle, would be liable for payment of such compensation. As regard the liability for payment of compensatron, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that since the vehicle was admittedly insured with the respondent no.'tinsuranoe company, the principle of pay and recover would be invoked even in case of a gratuitous passenger in a goods vehicle. The insurance company should thus be made liable for the payment of compensation to the appellants and in turn they would have the right to realise/recover the same from the owner and driver of the vehicle. ln support of his submission, learned counsel for the appellants has relied on the following decisions of this Court, namely, Manuara Khatoon v. Rajesh Kumar Singh (2017\ 4 SCC 796, Puttappa v. Rama Naik (Civil Appeal No.4397 of 2016, disposed of on 2 nd April, 2018); Manager, National lnsurance Co. Ltd. v Saju P. Paul (2013) 2 SCC 41; New lndia Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Vimal Devi (Civil Appeal Nos.15781579 of 2OO4, disposed of on 5th October, 2010); National lnsurance Co. Ltd. v. Challs Upendra Rao (2004) 8 SCC 517; I'lew lndia Assurance Co. Ltd. v. C. M. Jaya (2002) 2 SCC 278; Amrit l-al Sood v. Kaushalya Devi Thapar (1998) 3 SCC 744.

10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent insuranc,e company has contended that since the claimants were gratuitous passengers in a goods vehicle, in which case the liability for payment of compensation for death or body injury to the passengers of such 4 t[r&J MACMA_g r7_2005 goods vehicle would not be covered, hence the principle of pay and recover would not apply. It has thus been contended that the order of the High Court is perfectly justified in law and calls for no interference by this Court. ln support of her submission, learned counsel has relied on following decisions, namely, New lndia Assurance Co, Ltd. v. Asha Rani (2003) 2 SCC 223; National lnsurance Co. Ltd. v. Baljit Kaur (2004) 2 SCC 1, National lnsurance Co. Ltd. v. Kaushalya Devi (2008) 8 SCC 246; National lnsurance Co. Ltd. v. Rattani (2009) 2 SCC 75; National lnsurance Co. Ltd. v. Prema Devi (2008) 5 SCC 403; Bharat AXA General lnsurance Co. Ltd. v. Adani [VIANU/TN/650312018; Bajaj Allianz General lnsurance Co. Ltd. v. Lal Singh (2015) SCC Online Del 7508.' 1 1 . We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record as well as the various decisions cited by learned counsel for the parties. The insurance of the vehicle, though as a goods vehicle, is not disputed by the parties. The claimants in the present case are young children who have suffered permanent disability on accotrnt of the injuries sustained in the accident. Thus, keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the considered view that the principle of "pay and recoved'should be directed to be invoked in the present case."

9. Having regard to the pleading of dependency of the petitioners, in the light of above dictum and the admitted fact of existence of insurance policy, fixing liability against the insured/respondent No.1 and granting liberty to the insurer/respondent No.2 to recover from the insured based on the principle of pay and recover is found justified. ln the absence of any impropriety or illegality, this appeal fails on merit. I 5 NTR,] MACr,rA,g17_2005

10. ln the result, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs;. As a seqr.rel, pending miscellaneous petitions if any' stands closed. \ To I Sd/. P PADMANABHA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// S CTION OFFICER l.TheChairman,MotorAccidentClaimsTribunal-cum-llAdditionalDistrict i;;q;, R;;s;'neiiay oistrict. (lf anv-L9y91pourt record). - -. z b"Jdc t" "sCr. r' nerr,tAkntSHun REDD-Y,Advocate-toJupl 3 il; cc i" sni. a pnnnrrrtesewnRA RAo, Advocate [oPUC] 4. Two CD CoPies @-) HIGH COURT DATED: 0310112025 \ t JUDGMENT MACMA.No.917 of 2005 F. ST Ie: ( .-) o o \ [5 l{r$ t[6 (, .!,. I * a) t.eil DISMISSED t )> IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI MOTOR ACCI DENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOU S APPEAL NO: 917 OF 2005 Between: M/s. United lndia Insurance Company Limited, Rep. by its Regional Manager Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. ..-APPELLANT/RESPONDENT No.2 AND

1. Sharada Ganga Rao, S/o. Sharada Chintalu, aged about 50 years, Occ: Business PJo. H.No. 3-54, Dilsukhnagar, R.R.District.

2. Sri K. Gopala Krishna, S/o. not known to the petitioner, aged Major, Occ: Business R/o. SFD Rao Towers, Nasrasimhanagar, Visakhapatnam. (R2-Disd for default vide C.O. dated: 03101112) (R2 restored vide C.O. dated 13.06.2022 in l.A.No. 2 of 2015) ...RESPONDENTS Appeal filed under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the Judgment and decree in o.P.No. 562 0f 2000 daled 17-12-2004 0n the file of the court of the ll Additional District Judge, R.R.District. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and.Decree of the court below and the material papers in the case and upon hearing the arguments of SRI N-CHANDRASEKHAR RAO' representing sRl. A RAMAKRISHNA REDDY, Advocate for the appellant and sRl B PARAMESEWARA RAO, Advocate for the Respondent No.1 and 2 ' This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: 1 . That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is d ismissed;

2. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. //TRUE COPY// Sd/- P PADMANABHA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR L SdCTION OFFICER To

1. The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-ll Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

2. Two CD Copie:; '% HIGH COURT DATED: 03/0112025 DECREE MACMA.No.917 of 2005 DISMISSED q t