APHC010371942012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3365]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

FRIDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE DR V R K KRUPA SAGAR MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 3882/2012 Between:

Menchikalapati Chandra Rao ...APPELLANT AND R Govinda Reddy And 2 Others and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Appellant:

1. KAVITHA GOTTIPATI Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. V V N NARASIMHAM

2. .

The Court made the following:

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR MACMA No.3882 of 2012

JUDGMENT:

1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1968 is filed by the claimant impugning the order dated 15.11.2005 of the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Ongole, in MVOP No.75 of 2003.

2. Ms. K. Anuradha, the learned counsel representing Smt. Kavitha Gottipati, the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri V. V. N. Narasimham, the learned counsel for respondent No.3/ Insurance company submitted arguments.

3. Sri M. Chandar Rao, aged 50 years was travelling in an auto rickshaw bearing Registration No. AP 16 TT 7412 on 26.12.2002 and at about 01:30 PM, near Mangamuru Village, an unfortunate accident has occurred and he sustained serious injuries. The injured seeking compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- as against the owner of the offending vehicle/ Sri R. Govinda Reddy and its driver/ Sri S. Srinivasa Reddy and the insurer/ respondent No.3, preferred M.V.O.P/75/2003 before the claims tribunal. The Insurance company laid its contest. After considering the rival pleadings on both sides, the claims tribunal settled the following issues for trial:

1. Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the auto rikshaw bearing No. AP 16 TT 7412?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation?

3. To what relief?

4. For claimants, PW.1 and 2 testified and Exs.A1 to A27 were marked and one of the officers of the insurance company testified as RW.1 and Ex. B1 was marked. After considering the material on record and submissions made on both sides, the learned claims tribunal found that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending auto rickshaw and recorded various reasons and the learned claims tribunal granted Rs.20,748/-and fixed liability on owner/R2 and driver/R1 of the offending vehicle and exonerated the Insurance company from any liability.

Aggrieved by that, the claimant has come up with this appeal.

5. The only question that falls for consideration is “Whether on facts and law, the trial court committed any error in absolving the Insurance company from liability.

Point

6. The learned counsel for the appellant strongly contends that since there exists Ex.B1/ Insurance company, the claims tribunal committed error in not fastening the liability on the Insurance company.

7. Sri V. V. N. Narasimham, the learned counsel strongly contended that there were gross violations of terms and conditions and the learned claims tribunal below rightly considered all that and therefore there is no warrant for interference and leaned counsel further submits that the auto rickshaw was permitted to carry only 4 persons including the driver, whereas, at the material point of time 11 passengers were travelling, which is also mentioned in Ex.A3 charge sheet. It cannot be denied that there were such gross violations of Act and thereby there is violation of policy conditions. The violation is substantial in nature and therefore, one cannot dispute the order of the tribunal.

8. In addition to that, it is to be recorded here that the appellant failed to takeout steps to issue notice to respondent No.1/ owner of the offending auto rickshaw and the appeal was dismissed for default on 21.12.2011 against the owner. Despite that, no remedial steps have been taken. In such circumstances when the insured is not on record, the insurer cannot be held liabl