Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 44 (AP)

Bhojyam Ganganna v. D. Pothulaiah

2020-01-23

R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO

body2020
JUDGMENT : R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J. 1. Heard Sri. Maheswara Rao Kunchem, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants, Sri. Venkateswarlu Kakani, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent and Sri. M. Srinivasa Rao, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 4th respondent. 2. The present appeal is filed against the order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Anantapur (Fast Track Court), dated 04.08.2005 in O.P. No. 206 of 2001. 3. The case of the petitioners is that the deceased had passed away in an accident, which occurred on 15.03.2001 at about 8 p.m. near Gummalanka Cross Road on Anantapur- Kadiri Road, due to a collision between the lorry he was going in and another lorry bearing No. AP-020T-5266. It is submitted that four persons including the deceased has passed away on the spot. It is the case of the petitioners that this accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry No. AP-020T-5266 and as such respondents 1 and 3 being the owners of the said vehicles and respondent Nos. 2 and 4 being the insurers would be liable to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/-. It is the case of the petitioners that the deceased was a lorry cleaner and as such would be covered by the insurance policy and the insurers would also be liable to pay compensation. 4. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal framed the following issues: 1. Whether the accident occurred on 15-03-2001 due to the rash and negligent driving of lorry No. AP-020T-5266 its driver and caused the death of deceased? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation and if so, to what amount and from which respondent? 3. To what relief? 5. After trial in the matter, in which the petitioners examined two witnesses and marked 11 exhibits and the respondents examined one witness and marked one exhibit, viz. the Insurance Policy, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal held issue No. 1 in favour of the petitioners. 6. However, on the question of Issue No. 2, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal held that only the owners of the lorry would be liable and the insurers would not be liable on account of the fact that the deceased was not a worker in the lorry and was only a passenger. 7. On the basis of these findings, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awarded Rs. 7. On the basis of these findings, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awarded Rs. 1,92,872/- towards compensation for the death of the deceased, with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of payment with costs. 8. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners are in appeal before this Court. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondents. 10. The main issue urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the insurers would also be liable for payment of compensation and the finding of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal on this count is liable to be set aside. 11. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal took into account the certified copy of the F.I.R. filed by the cleaner of the vehicle, who stated that the deceased was a passenger. The learned counsel for the petitioners has not placed any material to find any fault in the said finding. On the basis of this finding the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal relying on the judgments of this Hon'ble Court T. Hanumantha Rao vs. Motepalli Venkataratnam, (2004) 5 ALD 391 , Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Kakinada vs. Degala Satyanarayanamma, (2004) 6 ALD 584 , K. Yesamma and Others vs. D.V. Subba Reddy and Another, (2004) 4 ALD 726 and a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2004 (1) Andhra Weekly Reporter 93 (SC) had held that a passenger travelling in a goods vehicle would be in contravention of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act itself and as such, he would not be entitled to be compensated by the insurers as the insurance policy would not cover such cases. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioners has not placed any subsequent judgment, which reverses this principle of law laid down by this Hon'ble Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 13. In the circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. Hence the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.