Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
New India Assurance Company Limited vs Ede Sriramulu on 21 April, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH,
AMARAVATI
*****
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS
M.A.C.M.A.No.188 of 2024
Between:
New India Assurance Company Limited, Represented by
its Authorized signatory Divisional Office, MNR
Building, near Santa Market, KN Road, Tadepalligudem,
West Godavari District.
... Appellant
AND
1.Ede Sriramulu, S/o.Narayana Rao, Aged about 34 years,
R/o.Lingala Village, Krishna District, presently residing at
Pushpaleela Nagar, Tangellamudi, Eluru.
2.Shaik Silar, S/o.Mastan, Aged about 35 years, R/o.D.No.2-
198, Alingaram, Kanuollu, Mandavalli Mandal, Krishna
District.
3.Shaik Mahabhu Subhani, S/o.Mastan, R/o.D.No.2-198,
Alingaram, Kanuollu, Mandavalli Mandal,
Krishna District.
...Respondents
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 21.04.2025
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers Yes/No
may be allowed to see the Judgments?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be Yes/No
Marked to Law Reporters/Journals.
3. Whether Their ladyship/Lordship wishes Yes/No
to see the fair copy of the Judgment?
______________________
JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS
2
* HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS
+ M.A.C.M.A.No.188 OF 2024
% 21.04.2025
#
New India Assurance Company Limited, Represented by
its Authorized signatory Divisional Office, MNR
Building, near Santa Market, KN Road, Tadepalligudem,
West Godavari District.
...Appellant
Vs.
$
1.Ede Sriramulu, S/o.Narayana Rao, Aged about 34 years,
R/o.Lingala Village, Krishna District, presently residing at
Pushpaleela Nagar, Tangellamudi, Eluru.
2.Shaik Silar, S/o.Mastan, Aged about 35 years, R/o.D.No.2-
198, Alingaram, Kanuollu, Mandavalli Mandal, Krishna
District.
3.Shaik Mahabhu Subhani, S/o.Mastan, R/o.D.No.2-198,
Alingaram, Kanuollu, Mandavalli Mandal,
Krishna District. ...Respondents
! Counsel for the Appellant : Sri Naresh Byrapaneni,
................................................learned counsel.
Counsel for Respondents/claimants: Sri Eluru Sesha
Mahesh Babu, learned counsel.
<Gist :
>Head Note:
3
? Cases referred:
1. 2008 LawSuit(SC) 206
2. 2018 LawSuit(SC) 722
3. MANU/AP/0025/2015, decided on 19.01.2015
4. AIR 2018 SC 1290
5. (2017) 4 SCC 796
6. (2013) 2 SCC 41
7. 2011 ACJ 1
8. 2017(6) ALT 60 (SC)
9. 2013 ACJ 1403 (SC)
10. 2014 ACJ 627
11. 2012 ACJ 48 SCJ
This Court made the following:
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is directed against the order of the
Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-VII
Additional District Judge, West Godavari at Eluru
(hereinafter called as ‘the Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.556 of
2017 dated 22.05.2023.
2. The appellant is the insurer of the motorcycle bearing
No.AP 16 CX 2389 (hereinafter referred to as “crime
motorcycle”). The respondent No.1 herein is the claimant
before the Tribunal. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 are the
driver and owner of the crime motorcycle respectively.
4
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter
referred to as they arrayed before the tribunal.
4. The case of the claimant, in the petition before the
Tribunal is that:
i). On 15.03.2017 at about 08.00 p.m., while the
claimant returning to his home, when he reached in
front of shop of one Polagani Nageswara Rao,
Mandavalli, Lingala Village, Mandavalli Mandal, the
crime motorcycle driven by the 1st respondent in a
rash and negligent manner dashed against the
claimant, resulted he sustained multiple grievous
and bleeding injuries. Then he was shifted to
Government Hospital at Gudivada and in-turn
M.J.Naidu Hospital at Vijayawada for better
treatment.
ii). He claimed compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-
against the driver, owner and insurer of the crime
motorcycle.
5
5. The respondent No.3/insurer filed written statement
denying the averments in the petition and pleaded that the 1st
respondent rider of the crime motorcycle is not having valid
driving license to ride the same, thereby, violated the terms
and conditions of the policy; that there is delay in lodging the
F.I.R.; that the compensation claimed by the claimant is
excessive, thereby, prays to dismiss the petition against this
respondent.
6. The Tribunal settled the following issues for enquiry
basing on the material:
“1.Whether the petitioner Ede Sriramulu sustained
injuries in the motor vehicle accident dated
15.03.2017 at about 08.00 p.m., in front of Polagani
Nageswara Rao shop at Mandavalli, Lingala Village,
Mandavalli Mandal, Krishna District, due to rash and
negligent driving of crime vehicle i.e., motorcycle
bearing No.AP 16 CX 2389 by its driver/1st
respondent?
2.Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim
compensation? If so, to what amount and from which
of the respondents? and
6
3.To what relief?”
7. During enquiry, on behalf of the claimant, PWs.1 and 2
were examined, Exs.A.1 to A.4 were exhibited. On behalf of
the respondent No.3, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and
Exs.B.1, B.2 and X.2 were marked.
8. On the material, the Tribunal, having come to the
conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and
negligent driving of the crime motorcycle by the 1st
respondent, held that the claimants are entitled for the
compensation of Rs.12,28,000/-, with interest at 9% per
annum from the date of petition till the date of realization
against the respondent Nos.1 to 3, for the injuries sustained
by the claimant in the accident.
9. It is against the said award; the present appeal was
preferred by the appellant/insurer.
10. Heard Sri Naresh Byrapaneni, learned counsel for the
appellant/insurer and Sri Eluru Sesha Mahesh Babu,
learned counsel for the respondent No.1/claimant.
7
11. Sri Naresh Byrapaneni, learned counsel for the
appellant/insurer vehemently contended that the Tribunal
erred in fixing the liability against the appellant/insurer in
the absence of driving license to the 1st respondent in riding
the crime motorcycle; that the Tribunal wrongly interpreting
that one having L.M.V. license is entitled to drive vehicle with
unladen weight below 7500 kgs., which requires interference
of this Court; that the testimony of R.W.2 coupled with
Ex.B.1 demonstrates that the 1st respondent is not having
driving license to ride the crime motorcycle, thereby, the
order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside. In support of
the above contention, he relied upon a judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sardari v. Sushil Kumar1,
wherein it was held that “The owner of the vehicle has a
statutory obligation to see that the driver of the vehicle whom
he authorized to drive the same hold a valid licenses”.
1 2008 LawSuit(SC) 206
8
12. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimant submits
that the Tribunal after elaborate consideration of the matter
rightly fastened the liability on the appellant/insurer to pay
the compensation to the claimant, since the 1st respondent is
authorized to drive the crime motorcycle which unladen
weight is below 7500 kgs. and there are no valid grounds
urged by the appellant to meddle with the well-articulated
order passed by the Tribunal, thereby, the present appeal has
no merits and liable for dismissal.
13. Now, the short point that arises for determination is
“whether the insurer is liable to pay the compensation
amount to the claimant/third party in the absence of specific
driving license to the 1st respondent to ride the crime
motorcycle by the date of incident ?”
14. POINT:
It is not in dispute about the death of the deceased in
the incident, involvement of crime motorcycle, rash and
negligent driving of the same by the 1st respondent in causing
9the incident, the crime vehicle was validly insured with the
3rd respondent/insurer by the time of accident under Ex.B.2.
It is also a fact that no appeal was preferred by the claimant,
driver and insurer of the crime motorcycle against the
findings of the Tribunal.
15. In view of the above contentions, firstly, it is apposite to
refer the certain provisions made in Motor Vehicle Act
(hereinafter referred to as “M.V. Act“), as per Section 2(21) of
M.V. Act “light motor vehicle” means a transport vehicle or
omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a
motor car or tractor or road-roller the unladen weight of any
of which, does not exceed 7,500 kilograms.
16. As per Section 2(27) of M.V. Act “motor cycle
means” a two-wheeled motor vehicle, inclusive of any
detachable side-car having an extra wheel, attached to the
motor vehicle.
17. As per Section 3 of M.V. Act; Necessity for driving
license. — (1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle in any
10
public place unless he holds an effective driving license
issued to him authorizing him to drive the vehicle; and no
person shall so drive a transport vehicle [other than 3[a
motor cab or motor cycle] hired for his own use or rented
under any scheme made under sub-section (2) of section 75]
unless his driving license specifically entitles him so to do.
18. As per Section 10(2) of the M.V. Act form of driving
license needs by the holder to drive the different class of
vehicles, which reads as follows:
10. Form and contents of licenses to drive.–(1)
Every learner’s license and driving license, except
a driving license issued under section 18, shall
be in such form and shall contain such
information as may be prescribed by the Central
Government.
(2) A learner’s license or, as the case may be,
driving license shall also be expressed as
entitling the holder to drive a motor vehicle of one
or more of the following classes, namely:–
(a) motor cycle without gear;
(b) motor cycle with gear;
(c) invalid carriage;
11
(d) light motor vehicle;
2[(e) transport vehicle;]
(i) road-roller;
(j) motor vehicle of a specified description.
19. In the present case on hand, the testimony of R.W.2,
who is Senior Assistant, R.T.O. at Gudivada, is very much
clear that the person possessing LMV Transport or non-
transport license is not entitled to drive the motorcycle with
gear. A person is entitled to drive a motorcycle if he possesses
motorcycle with gear or without gear license. By 15.03.2017,
the 1st respondent does not possess the license to drive the
motorcycle and he obtained endorsement to drive the vehicle
with gear from 01.07.2017 onwards, which is subsequent to
the accident. Thereby, this Court conceded with the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the
appellant/insurer that by the date of incident, the 1st
respondent is not having driving license to ride the crime
motorcycle. But, the Tribunal ignoring the said fact made an
interpretation that the person having LMV license is entitled
to drive the motorcycle, which is nothing but perverse. It is
12
an admitted fact that the mechanism of vehicles in both
classes is completely different, the person must have
efficiency to operate the same and requires particular
authorization as per the rules made in the M.V. Act specified
supra. Thereby, this Court has no hesitation to say that by
the date of incident, the 1st respondent is not having driving
license to ride the crime motorcycle, as such, violated the
terms and conditions of the Ex.B.2 policy by the 2nd
respondent/owner.
20. Now, to decide the above point, it is relevant to refer the
certain pronouncements of Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Shamanna v. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance
Company Limited2, wherein it was held that “where the
driver did not possess the valid driving license and there are
breach of policy conditions, “pay and recover” can be
ordered in case of third party risks….. While so, in our
view, the High Court ought not to have interfered with the
2 2018 LawSuit(SC) 722
13
award passed by the Tribunal directing the first respondent
to pay and recover from the owner of the vehicle.”
21. In Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company
Limited v. Gujjala Ramulamma3, this Court categorically
observed at paragraph No.10 that:
“10. In the light of above decision, though driver
possessed license for a different vehicle, the
Insurance company could not establish that
was the fundamental cause for accident and
further the owner deliberately violated the terms
of the policy. Hence, it is a fit case to direct the
Insurance Company to pay compensation at first
and later recover from the insured.”
22. It is also required to refer another Three Judge Bench
pronouncement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Singh Ram v.
Nirmala4, wherein it was categorically held at paragraph
Nos.8 and 9 that:
“8.In the present case it is necessary to note, as
observed by the Tribunal, that the owner did not3 MANU/AP/0025/2015, decided on 19.01.2015
4 AIR 2018 SC 1290
14depose in evidence and stayed away from the
witness box. He produced a license which was
found to be fake. Another license which he sought
to produce had already expired before the accident
and was not renewed within the prescribed period.
It was renewed well after two years had expired.
The appellant as owner had failed to take
reasonable care (proposition (vii) of Swaran Singh)
(AIR 2004 SC 1531) since he could not have been
unmindful of facts which were within his
knowledge.
9.In the circumstances, the direction by the
Tribunal, confirmed by the High Court, to pay and
recover cannot be faulted. The appeal is
accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as
to costs.”
23. Furthermore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Manuara
Khatun v. Rajesh Kumar Singh5, by referring and relying
on its earlier pronouncement in National Insurance
5 (2017) 4 SCC 796
15
Company Limited v. Saju P.Paul6, categorically observed at
paragraph Nos.15 and 21 that:
“15…..This Court keeping in view the benevolent
object of the Act and other relevant factors arising in
the case, issued the directions against the Insurance
Company to pay the awarded sum to the claimants
and then to recover the said sum from the insured in
the same proceedings by applying the principle of
“pay and recover.
21. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the
view that the direction to United India Insurance
Company (Respondent No. 3) – they being the insurer
of the offending vehicle which was found involved in
causing accident due to negligence of its driver needs
to be issued directing them (United India Insurance
Co. Ltd. Respondent No.3) to first pay the awarded
sum to the appellants (claimants) and then to recover
the paid awarded sum from the owner of the offending
vehicle (Tata Sumo) Respondent No.1 in execution
proceedings arising in this very case as per the law
laid down in Para 26 of Saju P. Paul‘s case quoted
supra.” (emphasis supplied)
6 (2013) 2 SCC 41
16
24. Having regard to the above categorical precedents, in
view of the facts and circumstances of the case, since it is
benevolent legislation and Ex.B.2 policy issued in respect of
the crime vehicle is in force by the time of incident, a
direction can be issued against the insurer of the crime
vehicle to pay the awarded sum to the claimant at first
instance and then recover the same from the
insured/owner/2nd respondent, because as stated supra the
accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent riding of
the crime motorcycle by the 1st respondent, resulted the
incident.
25. It is needless to say that the Tribunal by following the
renowned pronouncements of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Raj
Kumar v. Ajay Kumar7, National Insurance Company
Limited v. Pranay Sethi8, Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh9, Syed
Sadiq v. United India Insurance Company Limited10 and
7 2011 ACJ 1
8 2017 (6) ALT 60 (SC)
9 2013 ACJ 1403 (SC)
10 2014 ACJ 627
17
Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Association of Victims
of Uphaar Tragedy11, calculated the compensation entitled
by the claimant and awarded just compensation, thereby,
this Court has no reason to interfere with the said
calculations and conclusion arrived by the Tribunal.
26. In view of the above discussion, the order passed by the
Tribunal warrants interference only regarding liability to pay
the compensation by the insurer at first instance and then
recover the same from the owner of crime motorcycle. Thus,
this point is answered accordingly.
27. In the result, M.A.C.M.A. is allowed in part by
modifying the order to the Tribunal to the extent that the
appellant/respondent No.3/insurer is directed to pay the
awarded sum to the claimant at first instance and then
recover the same from the owner/2nd respondent by filing
execution petition. The rest of the order passed by the
11 2012 ACJ 48 SCJ
18
Tribunal shall remain intact. There shall be no order as to
costs.
Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated.
Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, stand closed.
______________________
JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS
Date: 21.04.2025
Krs
19
3
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS
M.A.C.M.A.No.188 of 2024
DATE: 21.04.2025
Krs