Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J.
National Ins. Com. Ltd - Appellant
Versus
G Pichamma, Prakasam DIST & Others - Respondents
M.A.C.M.A. Nos.127, 140 and 153 of 2017
Decided on : 28-03-2025
(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 147 - Liability of insurance company for compensation claims arising from accidents involving unauthorized passengers - The court upheld the MACT's decision that the insurance policy covers the risk of coolies engaged for loading and unloading, despite the insurance company's claims of unauthorized travel. (Paras 11, 24, 30)
(B) Negligence - The court found sufficient evidence of the driver's rash and negligent driving leading to the accident, supported by eyewitness testimony and police reports. (Paras 15, 16)
Facts of the case:
The appeals were filed by the insurance company against awards for compensation due to the deaths of coolies in an accident involving a lorry. The claimants argued that the deceased were engaged in loading and unloading activities. (Paras 1-4)
Findings of Court:
The MACT's findings were upheld, establishing the insurance company's liability and modifying compensation amounts for the claimants. (Paras 30-32)
Issues: The main issues included whether the deceased were unauthorized passengers and the extent of the insurance company's liability. (Paras 14)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the insurance policy covers coolies traveling for loading and unloading, and the insurance company cannot deny liability based on claims of unauthorized travel. (Paras 24, 30)
Result: Appeals dismissed; compensation modified to Rs.4,62,000/-, Rs.3,94,000/-, and Rs.4,70,000/- for the respective claimants with interest at 7.5%. (Paras 32)
JUDGMENT :
I. Introductory:-
1. Questioning sustainability of three awards and decrees dated 24.03.2016 passed in M.V.O.P.Nos.652, 653 and 654 of 2013 by the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District judge, Guntur (for short “the MACT”), three appeals are filed by the National Insurance Company Limited, arrayed as Respondent No.2 in all the three M.V.O.Ps., now under consideration and being disposed of under this common judgment.
2. Details of case numbers, compensation claimed by the claimants and the amount awarded by the learned MACT are as follows:
| M.V.O.P. No. | M.A.C.M.A. No. | Claimants & Relationship with Deceased | Respondents | Name of the deceased. | Amount claimed (in Rs.) | Amount Awarded (in Rs.) |
| 652 of 2013 | 153 of 2017 | 1. Y.Arogyam 2. Y.Rama Lakshmamma 3. Y.Anil (Wife & Children of Deceased) | 1. Tahir Gurakasar(owner of lorry) 2. National Insurance Company (Appellant) | Y.Venkateswarlu | 4,00,00/- | 3,21,500/- @7.5% p.a. |
| 653 of 2013 | 140 of 2017 | Y. Arogyam (Mother of Deceased) | 1.Tahir Gurakasar(owner of lorry) 2. National Insurance Company (Appellant) | Y. Yedukondalu | 4,00,00/- | 3,59,000/- @7.5% p.a. |
| 654 of 2013 | 127 of 2017 | 1. G. Pichamma 2. G.Koteswari (Wife & Daughter of deceased) | 1. Tahir Gurakasar(owner of lorry) 2. National Insurance Company (Appellant) | Gudipati Kotaiah | 5,00,00/- | 4,10,000/- @7.5% p.a. |
3. In all the appeals, Insurance Company is the appellant. Claimants and owner of the vehicle are arrayed as Respondents. The owner remained ex parte before the learned MACT. Liability was imposed on the appellant Insurance Company jointly and severally along with the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident.
4. Heard both sides at length. Perused the record.
II. The contentions common in all the three cases are as follows
Case of claimants:
5(i). Deceased persons and some others along with their mastry / contractor went to Nagireddypalem for loading Papaya fruits in a lorry bearing Registration No.HR 28G 0620 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”) at about 8:00 A.M. After completing the loading work, while they were returning in the same lorry and when the lorry reached near Ramabhadrapuram Village at about 10:00 AM, the driver of the offending vehicle drove the same in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and lost control of the same. Thereby the vehicle turned turtle. The deceased and other coolies engaged for loading etc., purposes fell down under the load. Four deaths occurred apart from injuries to some others.
(ii). Claimants are legal heirs and dependents on the income of the deceased. They lost valuable support of deceased due to sudden demise.Hence, they are entitled for compensation claimed in their respective petitions.
(iii) A case in Crime No.26 of 2013 was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle and he was subsequently charge sheeted.
Case of Insurance Company:
6. The Insurance Company / Respondent No.2 in all the three M.V.O.Ps pleaded that, respective claimants in all the claim petitions shall prove the pleaded accident, negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, age, occupation of deceased etc. relevant aspects. Specific contention of the Insurance Company is that the deceased and the others were not supposed to travel in the lorry even though coolies and they are not engaged by the owner of the lorry / offending vehicle and that they are unauthorized passengers.
Hence, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation.
III. Issues before the learned MACT:
7. On the strength of pleadings, the identical issues were framed in all the three claim petitions. They are as follows:
| M.V.O.P.No.652 of 2013 | M.V.O.P.No.653 of 2013 | M.V.O.P.No.654 of 2013 |
3 1) Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing registration No.HR 28G 0620 (Lorry) on 04.05.2013 at about 10:00 a.m., within the limits of Talluru P.S., of Prakasam District and caused death of the deceased(Yedduladoddi Venkateswarlu) ? 2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, and i |
Insurance policies covering commercial vehicles include risks for coolies engaged in loading and unloading, regardless of claims of unauthorized travel.
The insurer is liable to pay compensation for passengers in a transport vehicle if the insurance policy covers such passengers, regardless of the driver's alleged lack of a valid license.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principle of 'pay and recovery' in directing the Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount to the claimants first and....
The liability of the insurer under a statutory policy is restricted to indemnify the insured in respect of claims made by third parties and the owner of goods or their authorized representatives who ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
