Back
2026 Supreme(AP) 346
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J.
Sirigidi Nanaji, S/o. Srinivasa Rao – Appellant
Versus
Vuta Shiva, S/o. Koteswara Rao – Respondent
Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1 of 2015
Decided On : 15-07-2026
For the Appellant : G. Sai Narayana Rao
For the Respondents: Taddi Nageswara Rao, Amancharla Satish Babu
Important Points
Subject
Motor Accident - Compensation and Liability
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Compensation - Assessment of damages - Pain and suffering - Loss of earnings - In absence of permanent disability evidence, loss of earning capacity is not assumed, but compensation for temporary loss of income during the period of treatment is permissible. (Paras 24-25)
Facts of the case:
The claimant sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident involving the offending motorcycle. The Tribunal dismissed the claim against the insurer citing the driver's lack of a driving license. The claimant appealed for higher compensation and to hold the insurer liable.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the Insurance Company failed to adequately prove the lack of a valid license through formal inquiry or evidence, thus maintaining their liability to indemnify the third party under the 'pay and recover' principle. Compensation was enhanced to Rs. 1,00,000/-.
Issues: Whether the insurer's liability for third-party risks can be avoided due to the alleged absence of a driver's license and whether the awarded compensation was inadequate.
Ratio Decidendi: The insurer must satisfy the award in third-party risk cases even if a breach of policy condition is alleged, provided the breach is not proven through cogent evidence. The insurer may subsequently recover the amount from the insured as per the 'pay and recover' doctrine.
Result: Appeal allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. summary of accident facts and procedural history. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. determination of negligence and initial assessment of liability. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 3. burden of proof regarding driver license validity and 'pay and recover'. (Para 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 4. assessment of quantum of compensation for injuries. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 5. final orders and disposal of the appeal. (Para 27) |
JUDGMENT :
A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J.
Introductory :
The claimant in M.V.O.P. No.179 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Special Judge for Trial of cases under S.Cs. and S.Ts.(P.O.A.) )-cum-Additional District Judge Court, Vizianagaram [for short “the learned MACT”], dissatisfied with the judgment and decree dated 16.09.2014 passed in the said case, where under the claim was allowed against the driver and owner of the offending vehicle and dismissed against the Insurance Company, awarding a compensation of Rs.80,000/- as against a claim made for Rs.2,00,000/-, filed the present appeal questioning the dismissal against the Insurance Company-respondent No.3 therein, and inadequate compensation.
2. Respondents No.1 to 3 herein are the respondents 1 to 3 before the learned MACT. Respondent No.1 is the driver, respondent No.2 is the owner and the respondent No.3 is the Insurance Company with which the motor cycle bearing No.AP 09 AS 9886 was insured and the appellant is the claimant.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as the claimants/petitioners and the respondents, with reference to their status before the learned MACT.
Case of the claimants:
4. [i] On 23.03.2009 the petitioner/claimant was travelling on Hero Honda Splendor Plus motor cycle bearing No.AP 31 AL 9585 along with one Kuppa Ramana, near RTC Zonal work shop, Vizianagaram, the 1st respondent being the rider of the motor cycle baring No.AP 09 AS 9886 [herein after referred as the offending vehicle], came in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the motor cycle on which the petitioner was traveling, whereby the petitioner fell down and sustained injuries.
[ii] The petitioner was aged about ‘43’years working as a regular Mazdoor in the BSNL Office and earning Rs.15,100/- per month; due to the accident he became permanently disabled and lost his earning capacity. Hence, entitled for compensation.
[iii] The 1st respondent being the rider of the offending vehicle, the 2nd respondent being the owner and the 3rd respondent being the insurer of the offending vehicle, liable to pay the compensation.
[iv] A case in Crime No.41 of 2009 of Vizianagaram Rural Police Station vehicle was registered and charge sheet was laid against the rider of the offending vehicle.
5. The 2nd respondent remained ex-parte. The 1st respondent filed counter before the learned MACT and the 3rd respondent contested the matter.
Case of the 1st respondent:-
6. The petition allegations are false and the compensation claimed is excessive.
Case of the 3rd respondent:-
7. [i] The petitioner shall prove the pleaded accident, negligence of the rider of the offending vehicle, nature and effect of the injuries, age, occupation and income of the petitioner, loss of income etc.,
[ii] There was no fault on the part of the rider of the offending vehicle. Rider of the motor cycle on which the petitioner was travelling was negligent.
[iii] Valid and effective driving licence to the rider of the offending vehicle shall be proved.
[iv] In any event the compensation claimed is excessive and the respondent No.3 is not liable to pay any compensation.
Evidence before the learned MACT:-
8. [i] The claimant was examined as PW.1.
[ii] Dr.C.V.Subba Reddy, Doctor, who treated the petitioner/claimant was examined as PW.2.
[iii] the claimant relied on the copies of the Ex.A1-FIR, Ex.A2-wound certificate, Ex.A3-Motor Vehicles Inspector report and Ex.A4-Charge Sheet and Ex.X1-Case Sheet.
[iv] On behalf of the respondent No.3, Ex.B1-Inusranec Policy wa
