The High Court · 2025

This appeal is filed by the lnsurance Compan 7 aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 17.03.2021 in M.A.T.O.F, No.84 of 2016 passed by the Chairman, l\Iotor Vehicle Accident Cl rims Tribunal- cum-V Additional District Judge, Kothagudem (t,,r short 'the Tribunal"). 2 For convenience and clarity, the parties herein , rre referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal 3 The case of the petitioner before the tribun tl is that on 14042015, the petitioner and some other coolies v ent to cooile wori and were returning after completion of leir work at Viswanadha ltlining by Tractor bearing No.TS-04 I :E-'l 886 with Trailer bearing No.TS-04-EE-1887 and when they re rched l\Iango Garden, the driver of the tractor has driven it in a rasl- lnd negligent manner, lost control over it, thereby the tractor, trailer turned turfle and the coolies sustained grievous injuries and amor g them, one lruapa Laxmi and Nakka Baby died, the petitioner sur; ained severe bleeding injuries. Immediately after the accident, he I as shifted to hospital for treatment. He sought a compensation of Rs; 1,S0,OOO/-. ) \ I I 2 ITD,J MACMA No.504 2021

4. The respondent No.1 filed counter denying the averments of the petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident, age, avocation and income of the petitioner lt is further contended that he is the owner-cum-driver of the tractor- trailer and that his vehicle is insured with respondent No.2 and that the lnsurance Policy is valid as on the date of the accident. Thus, in case if any liability is fixed. it is only respondent No.2 who is liable to pay any compensation. And that he also possessed valid driving licensee as on the date of the accident, therefore, respondent No.2 is liable to pay compensation if any.

5. Respondent No.2 has filed counter denying the averments of the petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident, age, avocation and income of the petitioner. lt is further contended that the respondent No.1 has not furnished the original documents of the vehicle and the driving license. lt is further contended that their liability is strictly based on the terms and conditions and that if there is any violation of the conditions, they are not liable to pay any compensation. 6. Based on the above pleadings, trial Court has framed the following issues for trial:- 3 EID,J MACMA No.504 2021 1 2 3 Whether the accident occurred due to the rash r d negligent driving of the driver of Tractor and Trailer bearing t\! ).TS_14_EE' 1886 and 1887? Whether the clatm petitioner is entitted for compensi ion, it so, to t ,ltat amouut and from whom2 Tc \1/hat rettef2"

7. 1-o prove their case, petitioner got examinec pWs 1 and 2, Exs.Al to 47 were marked. On behalf of the respon,j:nts, RW1 was examined and Exs.B1 to 83 were marked. B Based on the evidence on record, the Tribuna ras awarded a compensation of Rs.1,40,3901 and directed the Insu. tnce Company to pay the said amount and then recover the same fro n the owner of the tractor. Aggrieved by the said award, the prerr ent appeal is preFerred by the lnsurance Company. L Heard the submlssion of Sri A. Rama Krishna F eddy, Iearned counsel for the appellant. No representation on tehalf of the respondents 10 Learned counser for the appeflant submitted th^ the petitioner was travelling as an un-authorized passenger in the tractor-trailer and thus, their company is not liable to pay any com::nsation. The tribunal has applied the pay and recovery principre arr has directed the lnsurance Company to deposit the compensatior amount, but \ 4 l. tD,l MACMA No.504 2021 infact they are not all liable to pay any compensation as the petitioner was an unauthorized passenger. Thus, prayed to exonerate the insurance company from its liability. He further argued that the tractor-trailer is a goods carriage and it is not supposed to carry any passengers. However, it is borne out by record that the petitioner along with few other labourers were traveling in the tractor which is not permissible as per the terms and conditions of the policy and therefore, their company is not liable to pay any compensation He therefore, prayed to set aside the order and decree passed by the tribunal.

11. ln view of the above contentions, the points that arise for consideration in this Appeal are as follows:- Whether the petitioner is an un-aulhorized passenger tt lhe Tractor-Trailer beaflng Nos. fS-O4-eE-1886 and 1887 whtch ntet with an accident on 14.04.2015. lf so, whether the lnsurance Company is liable to pay any compensation? Whether the Order and Decree of the Tribunal need any inteierence ? To what relief ? 2

12. Point No.1: a) The contention of the appellant counsel is that the tractor- trailer is a goods vehicle and that the petitioner is not supposed to travel in the said vehicle, since he travelled as an unauthorized passenger, the company is not liable to pay any compensation. / / 5 ETO,] MACMA No.504 2021 b) A perusal of Ex Bl reveals that it is a policy ssued to both the tractor bearing No,TS-04-EE-1886 and trailer beil ing No.TS-04- EE-1887 and the B-register of tractor is exhibited urr er Ex.83. It is mentioned that it is meant for agricultural purposes i nd it exists in the name of respondent No.1. The same thing is mert oned in the B- register of the trailer bearing No.TS-04-EE-1886. Un< er Ex.83, it is mentioned that it is meant for agricultural purposes. Ti e policy under Ex Bl mentions the limitations as that it has tc, be used for agricultural and forestry purposes and the policy doo not cover its use for hire or reward or for racing pace making rt: ability trial or speed testing or use for carrying passengers on tr "e or reward. Thus, the case of the petitioner falls under Clause(ii) mentioned in the limits as to use in the Ex.B1. lt is clearly mention€( that both the tractor and trailer are meant for agricultural purposes rnd the policy also mentions the same that it has to be used only l)r agricultural and forestry purposes. But, it is borne out by rc :ord that the petrtioner was travelling along with few other labouren; in the tractor- trailer. The petition itself discloses that two persons ci ld in the said accident. Therefore, it is elicited that there is clear vicl rtion of terms and conditions of the policy and the petitioner is an rn-authorized passenger. lt is contended by the appellant cour sel that the company is not liable to pay any compensation. I I 6 LI D,J MACMA No.504 2021 c) ln Shivaraj Vs. Rajendra'; it was held that, the driver of the tractor driven it in a rash and negligent manner, as a result of which the tractor dashed a big mud stone, the tractor turned turtle, and the appellant suffered grievous injuries. The Tribunal held that the appellant was travelling as a person to do the loading in the tractor and not as a gratuitous passenger. Thus, the Tribunal held that the compensation awarded to the appellant is payable jointly by the owner and insurer of the vehicle d) ln the appeal, the High Cou( has held that, appellant was travelling as a passenger which is in breach of the policy condition and thus, has absolved the lnsurance Company from its liability "] When the matter reached the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court has held that the High Court ought to have directed the lnsurance Company to pay the compensation to the claimant/appellant with a liberty to recover the same from the tractor owner, since a consistent view has been taken in this regard by the Apex Court in National lnsurance Company Limited Vs. Swaran Singh & Others, Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental lnsurance Company Limited, Rani & Others Vs. National lnsurahce Company Limited ' AIR 20t8 scc 4252 I I I I 1 ETO,I MACMA No.504 2021 & Others and including Manuara Khatun & Othtl s Vs' Raiesh Kumar Singh & Others. f) The Apex Court furlher held that the lnsurancr: Company can be directed to pay compensation with liberty to reo )ver the same even in respect of gratuitous passenger or an un-authorized passenger in a goods vehicle. ln light of the above cited decision, it is helrl that since the S) petitioner is an un-authorized passenger' the insu' tnce company shall pay the compensation and then recover from t- -- owner of the vehicle ) Point No.1 is answered accordingly. '1 3. Point No.2:- ln view of the findings arrived at Point No.'1 , ti ere is no need to interfere with the order and decree passed by ttr I Tribunal and t therefore, the same is uPheld. Point No.2 is answered accordingly. I ! 8 D.l M^CN4A No 504 ?021

14. Point No.3:- ln the result, the appeal is dismissed upholding the Order and Decree dated 17.03.2021 in M.A.T.O.P.No.84 of 2016 passed by the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge, Kothagudem. No costs Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appeal, shall stand closed SD/- M JAWAHAR REDDY AS ISTANT REGIST //TRUE COPY// CTION OFFICER To,

1. The Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunalcum-V Additional pistrict Judge, Kothagudem. (with records, if any)

2. One CC to SRl. A RAMAKRISHNA REDDY Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CD Copies GE/ABK ,!H- HIGH COURT DATED:18/09/2025 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.504. ot 2021 nE ic ^it (- 3 $ lN 1$1[ 'i.. ', ! .,1 a > * DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS b )x. IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT 134441 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLAN EOUS APPEAL NO: 504 OF 2021 Between: M/s. Cholamandalam M.S. General lnsurance Co Ltd.,, Represented by its Authorized Signatory' Park Road' Hyderabad ...AppELLANT/RESpoNDENT No.2 AND

1. Yetti Purna @ Purnamma, Wo Venkanna, Ag9, 40 years, Occ. Coolie R/o Seripuram Village, Gada Mandal, Khammam District 2 Banoth shankar, s/o Harya, Ase Maior, o". ng;i;rlfr?i"Jt"J.dd"3)Sl'5r"+l:tJi:; and Trailer bearing Nos. TS-04 EE'1886 and1887, R/o H.No5-16, Kotha Thanda, Tekulapallf Mandal, Khammam DEtlig!: - ...RESPONDENT NO.2/RESPONDENT NO.1 Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V Act, against Order and Decree dated 17t0312o2 1 passed in M.V.o.P.No.B4 OF 2016 on the file of the court of the chairnlan, Motor Vehicle Accident claims Tribunalcum-V Additional District Judge, Kothagudem. 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 SRl. A. RAMAKRISHNA REDDY, Advocate for the Appellant and none appeared for the Respondents. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and is hereby dismissed.

2. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal ll-f rue Copy/l SDI- IVI JAWAHAR REDDY AS,I ISTANT REGISTRAR \\\ sEc'nto N OFFIC ER To '1. The Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tr I unalcum-V Additional District Judge, Kothagudem. (with records, if any)

2. f wo CD Copies GEiABK W HIGH COURT DATED:18/09/2025 DECREE MACMA.No.504 oI 2021 DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS l,f4 6 t lh