The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellant: Sri Kadaru Prabhakar Rao Counsel for the Respondents: Sri V. Sambasiva Rao The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA I)EVI EADA M.A.C.M. A.NO.544 oF 2012 JUDGME NT: This appeal is filed by thc claimant aggrici,r,rl by thc Order and Dccree datcd l3.06.20l t in M.V.O.l).No.75S c,l .?OO3 passcd by the Motor Vehiclc Accident Claims Tribunal-r: rrn I Adclitional District Judge, Khammam (for short ,,thc Tribunal,,

2. F'or r:onvenience and clarity, thc l.larties hert.; r are relcrred to as they \ve.e arraycd beforc tl-rc Tribunal.

3. The,:ase of the petitio.ers beforc the Tribr.r. rl w,ets that the petitioncr is thc onner o[ the k;rry and ht, rrsecl to carn Rs.2O,O00/- per month by running the lorry. On 1t0.08.2002, the driver of the lorry lty name Ismail took a cement r l:d on thc said Iorry at Chillakallu Village to transport l.he same to ,.izag and when the lorry reachcd the outskirts of .JclugumalL \ r11age of West Godavari District at about 5:40 p.rn., the driver o the lorry has driven it in a rasl.r and negligent manner and cl;:,hed against a toddy tree c,n rhe lcft side of thc road, as a result rl,c lorry turned turtle and was compretely dzrmagcd and the drir.r r died in the accident. It is his case that he paid Rs.2,50,O0Ol torvards the repair of thr: lorry and that the vchiclc was kept in thc workshop till the reprairs were complcted and he lost t:t irtcomc of Rs.2O,000/ per month and also has spcnt Rs.10 (rOOl_ towards ETD,] MACMA No.544-2012 2 transportation of the damaged vehicle' Thus' he claimed a comPensation of Rs 3,00,000/ -' submitted the age,

4. The responclcnt filcd counter denying the averments of the avocation and income of the petition with regard to that the resPondent-insurance deccased. It is further company has issued a policy lor the lorry and that as per the said policy, the lorry is a heavy goods vehicle to carry the goods and that the owner has violated Lhe terms and conditions of the policy by carrying 17 persons in thc crime vchicle without any goods on thc date of the accident and Lhat the insurancc company is liable to pay the compensation tle has further submitted that the petitioner has approached their company for reimbursing his loss' but it was refused and the matter was referred to Ombudsman and after conducting due enquiry' the Ombudsman rejected the claim of lhe petitione r vide order dated 17 'Ol '2OO3 holding that there was gross violation o[ the terms of the policy' It is their case that suppressing the above said iacts' the present O P is ftled Thus' prayed to dismiss the Petitiot-t '

5. Based on thc above plcadings' trial Court has framed the following issues for trial:

1. Wlether gudugumun L.Lkshmi Reddg''s lgny beanW No AP-12-T' 2869 uas a.t^o'gJa'o7J fr os-.zooz iut to the ro-sh and flegligent 'alaiinq 2. WhethPr the pettttota'r Ls entiled lo anA-danages? If so' to uhat - ol Lne toil tonlt ba ils dAl)er? i*o,,n, a'td irom tulrrh of thP responlienl/ __t- 6 3 ETD,] MACMA No.544 2012 3 To tuhat relief? 'lo prove their case, petitioners got exami rcd pWl and got respc,r I dents, RW 1 was marked Exs.Al to A5. On behalf of thc examined and Exs.B 1 and 82 werc marked_ 7 . Based on the evidence on record, the Tri6u r a I h:rs dismissed the petition. Aggrieved by thc said award, the Irrcsent appeal is preferred by the claimant.

8. Heard the submissrons ol Sri liadaru )r.abhakar lcarned c()unsel for Lhe appcllar)1 anc.l Sri V. .jambasiva Iearned counsel for the respondent Rao, Rao, 9 Learnecr counser for the appclrant has surr,nitted that the policy undr:r Ex.Bl is issucd by tir. rcspondcrt ar cr th.t he used to pay a prcmium of Rs.8,695/_ and as per he policy, the Insurance Company has to indcmnify the risk r,_ | the vehicle damages to an extent of Rs.3,50.0OO/_, but the .I.:ibunal wrong in dismissing the O.p. Hc lurthcr argued rL.r, t the l.ribunal lailed to appreciate the evrdencc on record hc i:Lng that the claimant is not a third party. Ift: lu rtl'rer cor-rtr.rrclcd that the respondent_,lompany has lailed to provc the viola[ior s if any which was committed by him. But the Tribunal believed rhe version of rnsurance company and has dismissed his clairr petition. He u,ent ETO,J MACMA No.544-2012 therefore, prayed to allow his appeal by sctting aside the order and decree Passed bY the Tribur-ral' 10. l,earned counsel for thc rcspondent on the other hand has submitted that after thorough enquiry' the company as well as OmbudsmanhasrejectedtlreclaimfoiiowingwhichtheO.Pwas filed before the Tribunal and the Tribunal was also right tn therefore, PraYed to dismissing the claim o[ tl-rt: petitioner' He uphold thc order and decrcc passed by the Tribunal' The counsel has further argued that PW I is not the owner of the lorry' Hc has admitred in his cross exatnination that he has sold away the Iorry and has failed to file thc RC It is further contended that the petitioner has submltted only the esdmation of expenses for repairs, but has noL actualiy repaired the vehicie' He contended that thcre is no prool as to his expenditure on the saicl repairs and he there fore, prayed to uphold the samc' 11. In view of the abovc rival contentions' the points that arise for conside ration in this Appcai are as foliows:- I . wheth the cloinlant is entitled t !9::1: to the lotry in the accident that ataanq No'ai'i'z)'i )8dg '"o"'n"d oti''Za o" 30'08 2002? Whether the ord'er and decree oJ the tribuftal rleed anA 2 3 interference? To uhot relief ? ETD,J MACMA No 544._2012

12. Point No.1: a) Thc :rccident is not in dispute. The 1:,,111sn1ion of the claimant is that he suffered damages to his lorrv lcirring No.Ap-12_ T-2869 irr the accident lr,herein the lorry \vcr)t a_:l hit against the toddy trer:, and that he is cntitled to reimbursem( lt ol damages to an extent of Rs.3,5o,oo0/- according to trre policr trncler Ex.p9. In support ot'his con[ention, he has filcci Ex.A I to Ai) b) Ex.A3 is the MVI Report which disclose s th, Lhe accidcnr is not due to any mechanical defect of the vehicle, ,,r lriie the damages to the vehick: are noteri by rhe Motor vchicrt. Inr; rr:ctor. Dx.A4 is thc e stimation report for rcpair of vehicle bearing r r.Ap- l2_T_2g69 which was submitted to United India Insurance , ompany by the mechanic that is youth Friends Auto Works. l.hus; rt includes the expenditurrt toq.ards the sparc parts ar)d tht: lzrbolLr crtarges. fJut it is nou,here specihed that the said amount is paicl ;. rhe pctitioner herein or it does not disclose any details of paymrr rr or reccipt of the amolrnl by the New Fricnds Auto Works, thLrs. rt is onJy an estimation cf the expenses. Bx.AS is a Mcmo un.1,..r rvhich the Advocate of ttre petitioner has requested the Sullr:t.intendcnt of Police to issue the attested copies of FIR, ( harge Shcet, by enclosing a challan ol ls.1ee7,_ 1.66 panchanamzr ancl CDF. Tribunal has wrongly noted it as a Memo of Bills ETD,] MACIVIA No.544-2012 6 c) A perusal of his evidence of PWl reveals ttrat' in his cross examination he has stated that he has sold away his lorry after the accident and afler getting it rcp:rired He has not filed any RC Book or any proof o[ his selling au'ay the vehicle or any proof of the present owner or any proof of the repairs which'were done by the petitioner. He iurther stated that at Lhe time of accident along with lhe driver and the cleaner of the lorry' there rvere three to four passengers travelling in the lorry' d) The contention ot thc responden[ is that the petitioner has not filed any bills and thaL he has alrcady sold away his vehicle' and that they cannot pay him any amounts under the claim ln support of their contention' RW1 was examined' In his evidence it is rcvealed that the policy trnclcr Ex B 1 is a comprehensive policy and that thc or,r'ner o[ the vchicle is er-rtitlcd to personal damages' terms and conditions, theY are not but in case of anY violation of . He has stated that theY have also liable 1o PaY any comPcnsat'ion appointed a Surveyor' aftcr lhc accident to inspect the vehicle' he has also filed a survey report' but the same is not fiied in this Court. They have filed Dx'B2lsetof bills submitted by the owner of the vehicle ctaiming the amounL undcr the bills' e) A perusal of Ex'82 discloses that they are a set of automobile bills issued by different companles' wherein the name of the 1 ITD,J MAClr'lA No.544 2012 petitioner-Laxmi Reddy is mentioned and he hz,s bought certain spare parts from the automobile shops and t lso certain cash receipts issued by Ne,,l, Friends Autr; Se rvic:: rvr th regard to rcceiving arnounts towards labor.tr chargcs .tl,l irlso clcctrical rviring ctLargcs, carpentry materiar/Iabour cfa-rt.s, brack srnith labour ctrarges and further another cash recei; t tor towing the accident vehicle to the workshop rvas issued r,\ onc Srrr_rivas Reddy. TtLen: is a list of cight pcrsons ar-rnexed L r l,jx.R2 u,ho arc stated to havc suslained injuries in the accidenr . rvhich occurred nith the vehiclc bearing No. Ap_12_T_2869 in Crirr r: No.44 of ,2OO2 a'd it is srgned by the S.r of poricc. Jeluguma i de r .,r r4. l l.2oo2. f) Thus, the contention of the Insurance Corn rztny appears to be true tlLat there were several persons travell : g in the lorry. Though, it is rncntioned thaL the lorr,y is supposecl r ,) cil.ry on1l. the goods, apart from rvhich the conte ntlon o[ Lhe p .lrtroner starnds proved that he got the repairs of thc auto clone ar rc,i h:rs incurred expenditurc. These original bills are lying witl- lho insurance company and are produced by thcm under trx.B2 ,rrl rhcse bills arc annexerl to the order copy of Ombuclsman. d A perusal of the order copy under Ex.B2 :., r r:als lhat the Ombudsman has clismissed the applicaLion of tl claimant by obscrving thal the FIR disclose that thcre q..ere L/ passengers ETD,J MACMA No 544 2012 8 travelling in the vehicle' rvhich is against the terms and conditions and that it was supposed to be used only as goods vehicle' Thus' as there was gross violation of terms and conditions of the policy' the claim of the petitioner was rejected' h) A perusal of Ex Al/FIR revcals that several persons got down at evcry stage and several othcr persons got into the vehicle and it is uscd as a stagc carricr apart from being used as a goods vehicre. It is also revealed frorn lhe contents that there werc cement bags in the lorry and therc were scveral other Passengers travelling in the 1orry at the time of accidenl' A perusal of the t''inal Rcport under Ex A2 reveals that the i) drivcr of the lorry has allou'cd passcngers at V M tsanjar and driven it in a rash and neg[gent manner' The Iist of in-1ured persons and thc persons wtro died in the accident is mentioncd in the charge sheet. 'lhereforc, it is quitc clcar from the evidence on record that thcre were several passengers travelling in the lorry' though it was a goods vehicle j) n Perusal of Ex.B 1 / lnsurance Policy reveals that the insured an<l stipulates under 'Limitation as to petitioner is the use" that the vehicle is to bc used only for carriage of goods within the meaning of Motor Vehicles Act' 1988 [t is clearly mentioncd that it does no!' cover LI.tc risk' when it is used for carrying ; \ 9 ETD,] N4ACMA No.544 2012 passengers in the vehicle. So, every liability o[ irrrurance con]pany dcpends,tn the terms and conditions laid doii,n n the policy. It is rrcr]' cleai from the conditions laid dor,l,n in thc policy undcr the column limitation that "use for car4ling passer?r,r.?7.s in the uehicle except em.plogees (other than the diuer) not e_xcee,-tittg sLr [n nttntber coming under the puruieut of Workmen's Comperr:atlort Act, 1923,,. Therefore. it is very clear that from the terms anc conditions of the polir;v, that it does covers the risk of the [ona, ri,lttn the policy is valicl, subject to c.rtain limitaLions. Under the sirr i Iimitatiors onc of the clauses rncntioned is with regard Lo c:Lrrying o1. Lhe passcngers jn the said vehicle, whenever it is usr l tbr carryrng the pzlsscngers, tt docs not cover thc risk. So, in thc l,rcscnt casc it is clear from the evidence on record that tht_. lo r r _r rvas carrying passengers at the time of accident. Thercforc, rherc is gross violation of tenns and condiLions of the pol .:i.. I{encc, the pe titioner is nol e ntil-led to any claim. Point No. 1 is answered accordingly.

13. Point No.2:- In view of the finding arrivecl at point No. l, hcre is no rreed to interfere with the order and decree passed by rl Tribunal and the refore, the same is upheld. Poin- No.2 is answered accordingly. 10 ETD,] MACMA No 544-2012 L+. Point No.3:- In the result, the appeal is dismissed upholding the Order and I)ecree dated 13.06 2011 in M V'O'P No 755 of 2003 passed by the Motor Vehicle Accid cnt Claims 'lribunal-cum-l Additionat District Judge, Khammam' No costs' Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appeal, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/. M. OSMAN ALI BAIG ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (/, SECTION OFFICER To, 'l.TheMotorAccidentsClaimsTribunal-cum-lAdditionalDistrictJudgeat . Khammam. (with records' if anY)

2. One CC to Sri Kadaru Prabhakar Rao' Advocate [OPUCI 3. One CC to Sri V. Sambasiva Rao' Advocate [OPUCI 4. Two CD CoPies VH/ghI - :::: ' _ ,'_l;;:]. r'i - (l ''1; ,-- '"'i ' '< .'j,,:'-.. ->. .\ t''l' rr ,r liftT 2ffi j.'"1 :t/tt .l: l . ..i:.;' )' ,'' il J j- ,.,-....-,. -.-.'-i, .-'' ' '- ltl-.5">. t- " - -' HIGH COURT DATED: 1810712025. ,!t":,. l '.. ' l'.1."- ti ':..1 ii -.' JUDGMENT+DECREE MACMA.N o.544 of 2012 DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS V - IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEA,L NO: 544 OF 2012 Between: G. Lakshmi Reddy S/o Konda Reddy, Aged 37 years, Occ: Business and Owner of Lorry Bearing No. AP 12 T 2869 R/o Thallada Village and Mandal, Khammam District. ...APPELLANTS/CLAIM PETITIONER \) AND United lndia lnsurance Co Branch, Office lll, Dr.No Vijayawada.ll Ltd., Rep.by its Branch Manager, Viiayawada 29-2, Ramamandiram Street, Governorpet, ...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V.Act against the Order and decree dated 13-06-2011 made in OP.NO. 755 ot 2003 on the file of the Court of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-l Additional District Judge at Khammam. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Court and the material papers in the case and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Kadaru Prabhakar Rao, Advocate, for the Appellant, and of Sri V. Sambasiva Rao, Advocate for the Respondent. :t i.' **)' This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: 1 . That the MACMA be and hereby is dismissed uph clding the Order and Decree dated 13.06.201'l in M.V.O.P. No. 755 of 2001 passed by the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-l Additional District Judge, Khammam;

2. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. //TRUE COPY// SD/- M. OSMAN ALI BAIG ASSiISTANT REGISTRAR a SECTION OFFICER Tribunal-cum-l Additioral District Judge at To, 'l . The Motor Accidents Claims Khammam.

2. Two CD Copies VH $) HIGH COURT DATED: 1810712025 DECREE MACMA.N o.544 ot 2012 DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS