1 APHC010001312019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3505] THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 185/2019 Between: 1. KAVURI KRISHNAIAH, DRIVER OF TRACTOR AND TRAILER, BEARING NO. AP07X4763 AND 4764, R/O. KOPPALU, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 2. KAVURI SUBBA RATNAM, DRIVER OF TRACTOR AND TRAILER, BEARING NO. AP07X4763 AND 4764, R/O. KOPPALU, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT(S) AND 1. PINAPATI RATNA DIVAKAR, R/o. D.NO. 40-6-5 (28), KAMMAPALEM, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT - 523001 ...RESPONDENT Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC before the High Court Aggrieved by the order and Decree dated 23-08-2018 passes in M.V.O.P.No.412 of 2012 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - Cum - VIII Additional District Judge, Prakasam at Ongole. IA NO: 1 OF 2019 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may 2 be pleased to condone the delay of 66 days in representing the M.A.C.M.A.Sr.No. 110 of 2019 and pass. IA NO: 2 OF 2019 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 27 days in filing the appeal and pass. IA NO: 3 OF 2019 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of the operation of the Order and Decree, dated 23-08-2018 in M.V.O.P.No.412 of 2012 on the file of Chairman ( M.A.C.T.) - Cum - VIII Additional District Judge, Prakasam at Ongole, Pending disposal of the main appeal and pass. IA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit the petitioner to withdraw the amount credited to the M.V.O.P.No.412 of 2012, on the file of the Court of the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VIII Additional District Judge, Prakasam at Ongole, as per the order passed in I.A.No.3 of 2019 in M.A.C.M.A.No.185 of 2019, dated 27.03.2019, and pass Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. SRICHARAN TELAPROLU Counsel for the Respondent: 1. SRICHARAN TELAPROLU Counsel for the Respondent: 1. MADHAVA RAO NALLURI The Court made the following: 3 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO:185/2019 J U D G M E N T: Aggrieved by order dated 23.08.2018 passed in M.V.O.P.No.412 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VIII Additional District Judge, Prakasam at Ongole, the present appeal is preferred by the driver and owner of Tractor and Trailer bearing Registration Nos. AP 07 X 4763 and AP 07 X 4764. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they were mentioned before the Tribunal. It is the case of the petitioner that he was on his way to Dreams High School, Koppolu, to bring his children home after school hours on his motor cycle bearing Registration No. AP 27 AL 2438. On the way, the 1st respondent/driver of the tractor and trailer came in a rash and negligent manner, without blowing horn, dashed the petitioner. As a result of which the petitioner fell down and sustained grievous injuries all over his body and his right leg got fractured. Immediately, the petitioner was shifted to Venkataramana Nursing Home, Ongole, for treatment and was discharged on 01.08.2013. It was further stated that the petitioner incurred an amount of Rs.30,000/- towards treatment and other medical expenses. After discharge, he also taken follow up treatment for the said injuries. It was 4 further stated that the petitioner was working as Manager in Reebok Showroom, Ongole, and was earning Rs.20,000/- per month. In view of the injuries sustained by him, he approached the Tribunal by filing the above petition seeking compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) together with interest at 12 % per annum. 3. The respondents resisted the claim of the petitioner, stating that the accident was occurred due to the negligence of the petitioner himself, inasmuch as he drove the motor cycle in a rash and negligent manner and thereby lost control over the same in the process of crossing the road so as to reach the petrol bunk. It was further stated that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the tractor. Inter alia, the respondents also denied the income of the petitioner by stating that he was earning only Rs.6,000/- (Rupees Six Thousand only) per month, and prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 4. In order to prove the case of the petitioner, he was examined as PW-1 and examined Dr.Ch.Jeevan, who treated the petitioner as PW-2. To substantiate his case, the petitioner filed documents, which were marked in exhibits as Exs.A1 to A9. On the other hand, the 1st respondent was examined as RW-1 and one Sri Sk.Mastan was examined as RW-2 (eyewitness). They also marked documents in Exs.B1 and B2. Considering the oral and documentary evidence put 5 forth by the parties, the Tribunal, by order under challenge, awarded compensation of Rs.74,857/- (Rupees Seventy Four Thousand Eight Hundred and Fifty Seven only) together with interest at 6% per annum, to be paid to the petitioner, fastening the liability on respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally. Questioning the same, the present appeal is filed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 6. Perused the record. 7. It is the case of the appellant that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the petitioner himself. In order to prove the same, the driver of the tractor-cum-trailer was examined as RW-1 and one Sri Sk.Mastan, eyewitness to the accident was examined as RW-2. On the other hand, the petitioner himself was examined as PW-1. A perusal of the evidence of the petitioner and the respondents, it is clear that they have reiterated what has been stated in their respective pleadings. 8. In such circumstances, the evidence of the parties cannot be taken into consideration for determining negligence. However, the petitioner filed copies of FIR and Charge Sheet, which were marked as Exs.A1 and A3. A perusal of the contents of the said documents would 6 show that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent-driver of the Tractor-cum-Trailer. Though the learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the 1st respondent-driver was acquitted in the criminal case, the same cannot be accepted, in view of the fact that any judgment rendered in the criminal case will not have any bearing while deciding the claim of the petitioner. Therefore, it can be held that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent-driver of the tractor-cum-trailer. Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of the petitioner/respondent. 9. Coming to the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is concerned, the petitioner, in order to prove his case, he has filed copies of medical bills, X-rays and discharge summary along with claim petition. It is a specific case of the petitioner that he incurred an amount of Rs.30,000/- towards treatment and other medical expenses. It was further categorically stated in the claim petition that he had also taken follow up treatment for the injuries sustained by him. In order to prove the same, he also got examined the doctor who treated him as PW-2. 10. A perusal of the evidence of PW-2 would show that the petitioner was diagnosed to have fracture of small bone of right leg, which was treated conservatively with plaster support on 01.08.2012. Further, the 7 petitioner was also advised to take bed rest for three months. Though PW-2 was cross-examined at length, nothing was elicited to disprove his evidence. Further, the evidence of PW-2 is also supported by the documents filed by the petitioner along with the claim petition. Though, during the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was excessive, this Court does not find any merit in the said contention of the appellant inasmuch as the petitioner/claimant had filed all the documentary evidence in support of his claim. In such circumstances, the argument advanced by the leaned counsel for the appellant does not merit consideration. 11. Viewed from any angle, there are no merits in the present appeal and, accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. It is further made clear that the appellant is directed to deposit the amount awarded by the Tribunal together with interest at 6% per annum within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR Dt.18.06.2026 Pmk 8 76 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR M.A.C.M.A.No.185 of 2019 18.06.2026 Pmk