Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 18310
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Tuhin Kumar Gedela, J
Sadhu Lakshamma – Appellant
Versus
Jagadabi Ramesh – Respondent
MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1048/2016
For the Appellants/Petitioners: K Koutilya
For the Respondents: Srinivasa Rao Vutla
A coolie or laborer engaged in loading or unloading goods on a tractor-trailer is legally categorized as an authorized passenger under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, and the transportation of agricultural produce constitutes an agricultural purpose, upholding the insurance company's liability for compensation.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 147 and 166 - Motor accident claim - Compensation - Authorized passenger - Status of coolie travelling in tractor-trailer for loading/unloading goods - Establishing negligence through FIR and charge sheet - Principles of liability - Determining agricultural vs public purpose of agricultural vehicle.
(B) Compensation - Enhancement - Calculation of loss of consortium, funeral expenses, loss of estate, and loss of care and guidance for minor children - Adherence to Supreme Court guidelines in Pranay Sethi and Rajesh vs. Rajbir Singh - Re-calculation of total compensation - Liability of insurance company to pay and recover from owner/driver if violation is proven.
Facts of the case:
Dependents of the deceased claimed compensation for his death in a motor accident while working as a coolie in a tractor-trailer. The Tribunal held the insurance company not liable, citing the vehicle's usage for public purpose (transporting paddy husk) as a violation of the policy condition (agricultural use). The claimants appealed for enhancement and to fix liability on the insurance company.
Findings of Court:
Evidence showed the paddy husk was agricultural produce, proving the vehicle was used for agricultural purposes. The deceased, as a coolie, was an authorized passenger under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The court applied Supreme Court guidelines to enhance compensation for consortium, funeral expenses, loss of estate, and care for minor children.
Issues: Whether the deceased was an authorized passenger; whether the vehicle was used for agricultural or commercial purposes; and the correct quantum of compensation including conventional heads.
Ratio Decidendi: A coolie or laborer engaged in loading/unloading goods on a tractor-trailer is an authorized passenger under Section 147 of the Act. Use of the vehicle to transport agricultural produce constitutes agricultural usage. Appellate courts must award just compensation by conforming to established constitutional bench norms regarding conventional heads.
Result: Appeal allowed; compensation enhanced and insurance liability affirmed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background and issues concerning accident liability and policy conditions. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. establishing negligence through official criminal records like fir and charge sheet. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 3. interpretation of agricultural purpose versus public purpose for insurance policy liability. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. status of coolies as authorized passengers and proper computation of compensation heads. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 5. final modification of compensation award and recovery rights for the insurer. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
The Court made the following:
JUDGMENT:
Heard,
Sri K.Koutilya, learned counsel for the claimants and Sri Srinivasa Rao Vutla, learned counsel for respondent No.3. None appeared for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
1. Embittered with the Award, dated 28.10.2010, in M.V.O.P.No.410 of 2009 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Ongole (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”), the present appeal is preferred by the claimants on the settled principles that the Award is totally in contravention to the principles laid down by the Constitution Bench in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi 12017 (16) SCC 680.
2. The parties are arrayed as arrayed in the M.V.O.P. before the Tribunal.
3. The petition was filed by the claimants/appellants/petitioners under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the death of Sadhu Kondaiah, who died in the motor vehicle accident. The 1st petitioner is the wife, petitioners 2 and 3 are the sons and the 4th petitioner is the mother of the deceased. The facts are not denied regarding the age of the deceased as 45 at the time of accident and was working as a coolie in a tractor and trailer and earning Rs.5,000/- per month. On 06.07.2009 in the evening, the deceased, his wife and other coolies, went to Botlaguduru village to load paddy husk in the tractor and trailer and while coming to the village after loading the husk, the driver of the vehicle drove the tractor and trailer in a rash and negligent manner which resulted in the falling of the deceased from the tractor and died instantaneously. The tire of the trailer ran over his head, which caused the accident. A crime was registered, Crime No.91 of 2009 of Pamuru Police Station under Section 304-A of IPC against the 1st respondent, who is the driver and the compensation was claimed against the respondents 1 to 3.
4. After receipt of the notice, respondents 1 and 2 remained ex parte, while 3rd respondent represented through counsel, filed written statement denying the allegations including age, income, avocation etc., and the claimants were put to strict proof regarding the driving license of the driver and the insurance policy. The 3rd respondent, in the counter, categorically admits that the tractor was insured for agricultural purpose and at the time of accident, the vehicle was being used for public purpose and further contends that the very policy conditions are violated. The aspect of the tractor being insured for agricultural purpose is widely amplified. It is further contended that the deceased is categorized as authorized passenger and the deceased is covered under the policy.
5. Basing on the pleadings contained in the M.V.O.P. and the counter, the Tribunal framed the following issues:
i. Whether the death of the deceased Sadhu Kondaiah, S/o. Late Ramaiah is occurred on 06.07.2009 at about 08:00 p.m. due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor and trailer bearing No.AP26R2868 & 2869 by its driver?
ii. Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim any compensation? and if so, to what amount and against whom?
iii. To what relief?
6. To prove their case, the 1st claimant examined herself as PW1 and one Mannem Nageswara Rao, eye-witness as PW2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A5. On behalf of 3rd respondent, Smt.A.Sussela Devi, Administrative Officer, was examined as RW
