Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
National Insurance Company Limited vs Shaik Hanu At Abdul Hanu And 2 Ors on 18 September, 2025
APHC010500602006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3311]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
Thursday,
hursday, the eighteenth day of September,
two thousand and twenty five
Present
The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi
M.A.C.M.A. No.560 of 2006
Between:
National Insurance Company Limited ...Appellant
and
Shaik Hanu @ Abdul Hanu (died) by L.Rs and others ...Respondents
Respondents
Counsel for the appellant:
ppellant:
1. S.A.V.Ratnam
Counsel for the respondent
espondents:
1. Yallabandi Ramatirtha
The Court made the following:
2
BSB, J
M.A.C.M.A.No.560 of 2006
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award and the decree, dated 27.12.2005, on the file of the Court of VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, F.T.C. Krishna at Machilipatnam.
2. The respondent No.1 in the appeal filed the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- for the injuries suffered by him in the accident. He pleaded that on 25.06.2001, while he was waiting for a bus in Mudinepalli village, he was hit by a lorry bearing No.WB 33/2876, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and he sustained injury to his left leg as the tyres of the lorry ran over him and that the case was registered in crime No.70 of 2001 under Section 338 I.P.C. by the police. The claim was contested by the insurance company / respondent No.3 / appellant herein on the ground that the claimant was gratuitous passenger and the policy does not cover his risk. It was also contended that the amount of the compensation claimed is excessive.
3. The Tribunal held that branch manager was examined as R.W.1 and denied liability since it was stated in the F.I.R. marked as Ex.A.1 that the claimant sustained injury while he was alighting the lorry. Even then, the Tribunal held that since the claimant was not travelling at the moment of the accident, he was not a gratuitous passenger and that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry. Accordingly, while granting compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-, fastened the liability on the respondents No.1 to 3 jointly and severally to pay the compensation to the claimant.
4. Aggrieved by the same, this appeal was filed by the insurance company mainly contending that the claimant was unauthorized 3 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.560 of 2006 passenger in goods vehicle and insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation. The amount of compensation awarded was also challenged.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the claimant shall be regarded as a passenger even while alighting a vehicle and it is not necessary that he should travel at the moment of the accident and that he was a mere passenger not covered by the policy of insurance. She placed reliance on the decision in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Asha Lata Rout & others 1.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the legal representatives of the deceased / claimant submitted that the Tribunal rightly observed that the claimant was not a gratuitous passenger as he had not travelled to any distance and was just alighting the lorry, even if it is so considered. He further submitted that, in fact, the accident occurred while the claimant was waiting for a bus not while alighting the lorry. There is no cross appeal filed by the claimant challenging the findings of the Tribunal against his contention that he was hit by the lorry while waiting for bus.
7. Under the above circumstances, this Court examines whether the claimant was a passenger in the insured vehicle or a third party involved in the accident caused by the insured vehicle.
8. In the case of National Insurance company (1 supra), the deceased, Maheswar Rout was travelling in the bus and when the bus dashed against the level crossing and became immobile, seeing an approaching train, the deceased got down and ran away to a distance of 1 1993 LawSuit (Ori) 239 # 1994 ACJ 1137 4 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.560 of 2006 fifty feet when the train collided with the bus and the bus overturned and capsized and fell on the deceased as a result of which the deceased died. Section 95(2)(b)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 fell for consideration. The provision made it mandatory to get insurance by public service vehicle in respect of a passenger. The question fell for consideration was whether a person will continue to be a passenger even though he has alighted from the vehicle seeing some impending danger. The answer given to this question was negative. It was observed that the expression 'passenger' must mean a person moving in the vehicle by making some payment, but the moment he gets down from the vehicle, he cannot be held to be a passenger particularly in the circumstances in that case. Therefore, this decision would not render any assistance on the question whether a person alighting or boarding a vehicle is a passenger of that vehicle.
9. In case of United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Santhamma M.G & others 2, the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam dealt with a point for consideration whether a person who attempted to enter into a private vehicle but fails in his attempt, is a gratuitous passenger so as to disentitle him from claiming compensation under Section 166 of the M.V.Act. In that case, the deceased was travelling in the jeep, but the vehicle was stopped enabling the deceased to pass urine and later, when he attempted to board the vehicle, the accident occurred as the driver of the vehicle took the vehicle forward. In that context, the High Court of Kerala referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Noorjahan (Tmt.) Vs. Sultan Rajia Tmt and 2 2024:KER:95922 : 2024 SCC OnLine Ker 7373 5 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.560 of 2006 others3, National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Asha Lata Rout and others (1 supra), Oklahoma Ry. Co. Vs. Roebuck4. In the decision of the Supreme Court in Noorjahan (3 supra), Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act fell for consideration and the term 'passenger' was examined and held that it includes persons being carried in or upon or entering or mounting or alighting from the vehicle at the time of occurrence. It was held in paragraph No.7 therein as follows:
"It is clear that the legislature intended that such persons, viz., passengers who are in the process of alighting from a public service vehicle, should be covered by the policy of insurance, which requirement is mandatory under Section 95(1)(b)(ii) of the Act. Further, once such persons, viz., those who are entering or alighting from the vehicle are treated as passengers, the limit of liability of the insurance company has to be located in clause (ii) of Section 95(2)(b) of the Act. The limit at the relevant time was Rs.10,000/-."
10. In the case of Asha Lata Rout (supra), referred by the High Court of Kerala, it was held that a person boarding or alighting from the vehicle also comes within the definition of passenger within the scope of Section 95(1)(b) of the M.V. Act, 1939 has been now omitted in the M.V.Act, 1988. It also referred the previous decision of the Supreme Court in Noorjahan (Tmt.) (supra) and held in paragraph No.9 as follows:
3(1997) 1 SCC 6 4 1951 OK 348 6 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.560 of 2006 "Section 95(1)(b) makes it clear that a policy of insurance shall not be required to cover liability in respect of death or bodily injury to persons boarding or alighting from a motor vehicle but clause (ii) of the proviso thereto engrafts an exception and says that where the vehicle is one in which passengers are carried for hire or reward or by reason of or in pursuance of a contract of employment, it shall be necessary to cover liability in relation to persons carried in or upon such vehicle which would include cases of each or bodily injury caused while entering or mounting or alighting from such vehicle. The words 'alighting from the vehicle' are plain and simple and clearly mean 'while getting down from the vehicle'.
The legislature intended that such persons, viz., passengers which are in the process of alighting from a public service vehicle, should be covered by the policy of insurance, which requirement is mandatory under Section 95(1)(b)(ii) of the Act. Further, once such persons, viz., those who are entering or alighting from the vehicle are treated as passengers, the limit of liability of the insurance company has to be located in Clause (ii) of Section 95(2)(b) of the Old Act. The limit at the relevant time was Rs. 10,000/-. Therefore, if a person is still in the process of boarding or alighting from the vehicle, such person would be entitled to the coverage, no doubt within the limit of liability fixed under the statute at the relevant point of time. This was a beneficial provision engrafted by way of an exception to provide an insurance cover to passengers. However, in the new Act, 7 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.560 of 2006 proviso (ii) to Section 95(1)(b) of the old Act on which the present interpretation rests has been omitted. This aspect was highlighted by the Apex Court in Noorjahan (TMT) v. Sultan Rajia TMT alias Thaju and Ors.:
[1996:INSC:1282.]"
11. The other decision in Oklahoma (supra), referred by the Kerala High Court, the plaintiff was stuck in the door of the vehicle after placing one foot on the vehicle and the Court held that the plaintiff was a passenger. The same view was also held in Burger Vs. Omaha & C.B.St. Ry. Co. 5 and Smith Vs. St. Paul City R.Co. 6 which were referred by the High Court of Kerala in its decision.
12. The High Court of Kerala distinguished application of all the above decisions to the facts in the case by observing that all such cases involve a person while boarding or alighting from a passenger vehicle, whereas in the case before the High Court of Kerala, the vehicle involved is not a passenger vehicle but a private vehicle. It was further observed that the provision for awarding compensation to victims of road traffic accidents, being a beneficial legislation, is to be interpreted in favour of the victims of such accidents. To fortify the observation, the decision of the Supreme Court in Jayasree N. and others Vs. Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Ltd. 7 and the 5 139 lowa 645 6 32 Minn. 1 7 AIR 2021 SC 5218 8 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.560 of 2006 decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Mamta and others Vs. Happy and others8, were referred.
13. In Jayasree N. (supra), it was held at paragraph No.16 as follows:
"In our view, the term "legal representative" should be given a wider interpretation for the purpose of Chapter XII of the M.V.Act and it should not be confined only to mean the spouse, parents and children of the deceased. As noticed above, the M.V.Act is a benevolent legislation enacted for the object of providing monetary relief to the victims or their families. Therefore, the M.V. Act calls for a liberal and wider interpretation to serve the real purpose underlying the enactment and fulfill its legislative intent..."
(ii) In Mamta (8 supra), the Punjab & Haryana High Court held as follows:
"There cannot be any dispute that the Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial piece of legislation and, therefore, endeavour has to be made as to how best the intention of the legislation can be achieved so as to safe- guard the interest of the victims of the accident, rather than defeating the same. The statute has to be construed according to the intent of the makers and it is the duty of the Courts to interpret the statute in such a manner that the true intention of legislature is achieved."8
MANU/PH/2851/2024 9 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.560 of 2006
14. Therefore, in the light of the principles of interpretation of statutes, particularly, the beneficial legislation, the High Court of Kerala went on deciding the point for consideration before it, by further referring to the decision of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Polaki Sarojini Devi and Others 9 wherein the deceased was boarding the tipper by placing his foot on the foot board and the driver of the lorry moved the vehicle without observing him, resulting in the death of the person boarding as he slipped from the vehicle and it was held that until and unless he enters the vehicle, he shall not secure the status of a passenger and therefore, he was treated as a third party to the vehicle. Agreeing the said view of this High Court, the High Court of Kerala held that if a person, failing in an attempt to board a public vehicle, falls down and sustains injuries due to the negligence of the driver, he is not a passenger in the said vehicle but a third party. The High Court of Kerala was dealing with an accident occurred on 16.01.2008 and therefore, it was a case covered by M.V.Act, 1988 as is the case on hand in this appeal.
15. In the light of the decision of this High Court in Polaki Sarojini Devi (supra) referred and relied on by the High Court of Kerala, agreeing with the same view, this Court is of the view that the claimant, in the present case, shall also be regarded as a third party insofar as the insured vehicle of the appellant is concerned, even if the contention of the appellant, as accepted by the Tribunal, is accepted by this Court that the claimant was alighting the lorry and was not standing at a distance as pleaded by him.
9MANU/AP/1577/2003 10 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.560 of 2006
16. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the appellant contended that the Tribunal grossly erred in awarding the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- without analyzing the medical evidence and the probable loss of future income of the claimant. The evidence established by the claimant shows that he sustained crush injury to his left foot and fracture to his bone of left leg and was operated for treating the fracture and further skin grafting was also performed subsequently, about one month thereafter. As per the opinion of the doctor examined as P.W.2, the fracture is united in mal-position and the movements are lost. Basing on the physical condition of the claimant, the disability was assessed at 25% and observed that he cannot drive lorry and carry heavy weights. Further, he cannot sit or squat like a normal person. Considering all these facts, the Tribunal awarded a lump sum amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. The amount awarded is not on high side and does not call for any interference in this appeal.
17. Therefore, this Court does not see any reason to interfere with the award and the decree impugned in the appeal.
18. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________ B.S.BHANUMATHI, J 18-09-2025 Note:- L.R copy to be marked (B/o) RSD / RAR