APHC010118342006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] WEDNESDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 2263/2006 Between: V. SEETHARAMAIAH, S/O POLAIAH CULTIVATION, OWNER OF THE VEHICLE R/O NELAPATTU VILLAGE, D.V.SATHRAM MANDAL, NELLORE DISTRICT ...APPELLANT AND VALIPI CHENGAIAH, S/o Venkataswamy R/o Arigundram Village, D.V.Sathra mandal, Nellore District. ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC before the High Court Counsel for the Appellant: S V MUNI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: M VENKATA NARAYANA The Court made the following: 2 JUDGMENT: 1. The present appeal arises out of the award dated 04.08.20061 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge at Nellore2, in M.V.O.P.No.418 of 20023. 2. The appellant is the owner of the Tractor bearing No.AP26E 23814. The respondent herein is the claimant before the Tribunal.For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as they arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. The case of the claimant, in the petition before the Tribunal is that: a. On 30.06.2002 at about 08.45 p.m., while the claimant was proceeding on the road near Electricity Office, Doravari Satam Village of Nellore District, the crime vehicle driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed the claimed, resulted the claimant sustained multiple injuries. Hence, the petition claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- against the respondent/owner. 4. The respondent/owner filed written statement denying the averments in the petition and pleaded thatthe compensation claimed by the claimant is excessive, thereby, prayed to dismiss the petition. 5. During enquiry before the Tribunal, on behalf of the claimant, PWs.1and 2wereexamined and Exs.A.1 to A.6wereexhibited. On 1hereinafter called as „Impugned award‟ 2 hereinafter called as „the Tribunal‟ 3 hereinafter called as „Claim petition‟ 4 hereinafter called as „crime vehicle‟ 3 behalf of the respondent,himself was examined, but no documentary evidence was adduced. 6. Upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle.Accordingly, a sum of ₹90,000/- was awarded as compensation to the claimants, together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization, payable by theRespondent, for the injuries sustained in the accident. 7. Aggrieved by the same, the owner of the crime vehicle has preferred the present appeal seeking dismissal of the claim petition. 8. Heard Sri S.V.Muni Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant/owner and Sri M.Venkata Narayana, learned counsel for the respondent/claimant. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant/owner submits that the accident did not occur due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. He further contends that no material was placed on record by the claimant to prove the injuries allegedly sustained by him in the accident. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the Tribunal erred in awarding compensation to the claimant. Accordingly, he prays for allowing the present appeal. 4 10. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/claimant submits that the Tribunal, upon proper appreciation of the material available on record, rightly came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. He further submits that the Tribunal, by considering the testimony of P.W.2 coupled with Ex.A.1, rightly awarded compensation to the claimant. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the present appeal is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed. 11. Now, the point that arises for determination is; “Whether there are any valid grounds to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal in awarding compensation to the claimant?” 12. It is not in dispute regarding the injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident that occurred on 30.06.2002, as well as the involvement of the offending vehicle. However, the principal contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle in causing the accident. 13. As held and reiterated by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Geeta Dubey and Others vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., and Others5in claim cases, in case the accident is disputed or the involvement of the vehicle concerned is put in issue, the claimant is 52024 INSC 998 5 only expected to prove the same on a preponderance of probability and not beyond reasonable doubt. 14. In order to prove the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle, the claimant, who is an injured eye-witness, examined himself as P.W.1. He categorically deposed regarding the manner in which the accident occurred and the cause thereof. The testimony of P.W.1, coupled with Exs.A.1, A.3, and A.4, namely the FIR, Charge Sheet, and certified copy of the judgment in C.C.No.272 of 2002, wherein the accused-driver was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 338 of IPC, clearly establishes the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver. On the other hand, except for a bare denial and the testimony of R.W.1, who admittedly was not an eye-witness to the accident, no material was placed on record to substantiate the contention of the appellant. Therefore, the Tribunal, upon considering the aforesaid material, rightly came to the conclusion that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor. 15. Another contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that there is no substantial material to establish the nature of the injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident. The said contention has no merit, as Ex.A.2-Wound Certificate clearly records the injuries sustained by the claimant, namely fracture of the right hemipelvis with disruption of the right S.I. joint, undisplaced 6 comminuted fracture of the right acetabulum, and a lacerated injury to the left foot. The said document, coupled with Ex.A.6-Discharge Summary, Ex.A.5-series of medical bills, and the testimony of P.W.2- doctor, clearly proves both the nature of the injuries and the treatment undergone by the claimant. A perusal of the testimony of P.W.2, who treated the claimant at Bollineni Super Specialty Hospital, further reveals that the claimant was experiencing difficulty in passing urine, which was attributable to the injuries sustained in the accident. 16. Having regard to the nature of the injuries sustained by the claimant and the material available on record, the Tribunal rightly assessed and awarded compensation of Rs.90,000/- to the claimant for the injuries sustained in the accident, as against the claim of Rs.2,00,000/-. The said award does not warrant any interference by this Court, as the order passed by the Tribunal is well reasoned and based on proper appreciation of the evidence on record. Accordingly, the appeal preferred by the appellant/owner is liable to be dismissed. Thus, the point is answered accordingly. 17. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. 7 Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, stand closed. ________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 17.06.2026 Krs 8 163 THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA M.A.C.M.A.No.2263 of 2006 ( JUDGMENT ) DATE: 17.06.2026 Krs