Where a DCM goods-vehicle carrying passengers was collided by a passenger bus and several occupants including the deceased died, the Tribunal held both drivers negligent and applied the pay-and-recover rule, directing the insurer to pay compensation and recover from offending owners if entitled. The insurer contended that the goods-vehicle was unauthorised for carriage of passengers and that the owner had violated policy conditions. HELD, on facts the Tribunal’s conclusion that the insurer failed to prove that the deceased was a gratuitous/unauthorised passenger was correct: the owner of the goods-vehicle remained ex parte and the insurer did not examine the owner — the best evidence to establish hire/owner’s knowledge. The evidence of claimants (PW evidence) did not support the insurer’s plea. Liability on insurer therefore sustains subject to right of recovery.

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)
Before: The Honourable Sri Justice Challa Gunaranjan
Reserved on: 06-10-2025 Pronounced on: 06-11-2025
Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.156 of 2022
[2025:APHC:47030]

---

CASE TITLE

National Insurance Company Ltd., Vijayawada Division & Another

HEADNOTE

MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 — S.173 Appeal from award of Compensation — Collision between passenger bus and goods vehicle (DCM van) — Multiple fatalities — Liability — Insurer’s plea that passengers were gratuitous/unauthorised passengers because goods vehicle engaged for hire — Pay-and-recover principle —
Where a DCM goods-vehicle carrying passengers was collided by a passenger bus and several occupants including the deceased died, the Tribunal held both drivers negligent and applied the pay-and-recover rule, directing the insurer to pay compensation and recover from offending owners if entitled. The insurer contended that the goods-vehicle was unauthorised for carriage of passengers and that the owner had violated policy conditions.

HELD, on facts the Tribunal’s conclusion that the insurer failed to prove that the deceased was a gratuitous/unauthorised passenger was correct: the owner of the goods-vehicle remained ex parte and the insurer did not examine the owner — the best evidence to establish hire/owner’s knowledge. The evidence of claimants (PW evidence) did not support the insurer’s plea. Liability on insurer therefore sustains subject to right of recovery.

CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE / PASSENGERS’ POSITION —
Even if negligence attributable to driver of goods-vehicle was found, passengers had no control over the vehicle and therefore contributory negligence on their part does not reduce entitlement.

QUANTUM — LOSS OF DEPENDENCY, MULTIPLIER, FUTURE PROSPECTS, CONVENTIONAL HEADS —
Tribunal assessed annual income at Rs.48,000 and applied multiplier 17, arriving at compensation of Rs.6,00,000 (with interest). On appeal Court held enhancement necessary to award just and fair compensation: allowed future prospects @40% (Pranay Sethi), applied multiplier 17, and enhanced conventional heads (loss of consortium, loss of estate, funeral expenses) in line with precedents. Total compensation enhanced to Rs.9,43,100 with interest @ 7.5% p.a.; insurer directed to deposit enhanced amount within eight weeks (after deducting amounts already paid) — claimants to withdraw equally per Tribunal award.

AUTHORITIES / PRINCIPLES APPLIED —
Pay-and-recover; award of future prospects and reasonable enhancement to achieve just and fair compensation (Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680 and related decisions; precedents cited in judgment).

RESULT: Appeal dismissed. Appellants/Insurer directed to deposit enhanced award of Rs.9,43,100 with interest @ 7.5% p.a.; no order as to costs.