APHC010129532022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. SRINIVAS MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 115 OF 2022 Between: Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., Represented by its Branch Manager, Ananthapuramu. ...Appellant / 2"'^ Respondent AND 1. Abbili Narayanaswamy, S/o A.Akkulappa, Hindu, Aged- 34 years, Occ- Sheep rearing, R/o- Nethivarampalli Village, Bathalapalli Mandal, Ananthapuramu District-515 661. ...Respondent / Petitioner 2. Kudeti Viswanath, S/o K.Balanna, Hindu, Major, Owner of Crime car no.AP 02 AK 6669, R/o- D.No.3-29, K.M.Colony, Ananthapuramu-515 001. 3. C Subahanalla, S/o C.Mahaboob, Muslim, Major, Driver of crime car no.AP 02 AK 6669, R/o- D.No.28-3-1006, Engg. College Road, Ananthapuramu-515 001 ...Respondents /1®* & 3'^'’ Respondents Appeal filed under 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, the Judgment and Decree passed in M.V.O.P.No.151/2017, dated 19-05-2020, on the file of MACT I Additional District Judge, at Ananthapuramu . -cum- This appeal coming on for hearing and appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the trial in the Suit and upon perusing the grounds of J Court and the material upon hearing the arguments of Sri. HARINATH SOMA Advocate, on behalf of the Appellant and Sri. Respondent No.1 papers REDDY M KARIBASAIAH for This Court Doth Order and Decree as follows:- 1. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous dismissed. 2. That there be no order as to costs. Appeal be and is hereby Sd/-B PRASADA RAO assistant registrar SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, 1. The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Judge, at Ananthapuramu. 2. Two CD Copies -cum-1 Additional District PR vna f HIGH COURT DATED:25/06/2025 DECREE MACMA NO. 115 OF 2022 sf 1 1 SEP 2025 )g) ^^^M^jifrent Sectiop.xvy DISMISSING THE APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS APHC010129532022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSANDAND TWENTYFIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. SRINIVAS MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 115 OF 2022 Appeal filed under 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, the Judgment and Decree passed in M.V.O.P.No.151/2017, dated 19-05-2020, on the file of MACT-cum- 1 Additional District Judge, at Ananthapuramu . Between: Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., Represented by its Branch Manager, Ananthapuramu. ...Appellant / 2"'* Respondent AND 1. Abbili Narayanaswamy, S/o A.Akkulappa, Hindu, Aged- 34 years, Occ- R/o- Nethivarampalli Village, Bathalapalli Mandal, Sheep rearing Ananthapuramu District-515 661. ...Respondent / Petitioner 2. Kudeti Viswanath, S/o K.Balanna, Hindu, Major, Owner of Crime no.AP 02 AK 6669, R/o- D.No.3-29, K.M.Colony, Ananthapuramu-515 001. car 3. C Subahanalla, S/o C.Mahaboob, Muslim, Major, Driver of crime car no.AP 02 AK 6669, R/o- D.No.28-3-1006, Engg. College Road, Ananthapuramu-515 001 ...Respondents /1®* & 3'^'' Respondents lA NO: 1 OF 2022 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 operation of decree and judgement dated 19-05-2020 in M.V.O.P.No.151 of 2017 on the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-l Additional District Judge, Ananthapuramu. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. HARINATH REDDY SOMA Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI. M KARIBASAIAH The Court made the following order: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS M.A.C.M.A.No.115 of 2022 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge at Anantapuramu (hereinafter called as ‘the Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No. 151 of 2017 dated 19.05.2020. The appellant is the insurer of the Car bearing No.AP 02 AK 6669 (hereinafter referred to as “crime car”). The 2. respondent No. 1 is the claimant before the Tribunal. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 are the owner and driver of the said crime car. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as they arrayed before the tribunal. 3. 4. The case of the claimant, in the petition before the Tribunal is that: i). On 11.10.2016 at about 10.00 a.m., while the claimant along with his wife and daughter proceeding on the motorcycle bearing No.AP 02 M 068 to Gangavaradappaswamy temple, Atmakur, when they reached near Ananthalakshmi Engineering College, the crime car driven by the 3^^ respondent in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, dashed on the backside of the motorcycle, resulted the claimant as 2 well his wife sustained grievous injuries and his daughter died on the spot. Then he was shifted to G.G.H., Anantapuramu, in turn, G.G.H., Kurnool. ii). He claimed compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- against the owner, insurer, and driver of the crime car. 5. The respondent No. 1/owner filed averments in the petition and pleaded that counter denying the the accident occurred was due to the self-negligenee of the claimant, 3rd respondent; that the insurance policy issued i the crime car is of the but not in respect of m force by the date of incident; that the driver is having valid driving license; compensation claimed by the claimant i crime car that the excessive, thereby. IS prayed to dismiss the petition. The respondent No.2/insurer of the 6. crime car filed counter denying the averments in the petition and pleaded that the driver of the crime car is not having valid driving license to crime car is not having valid permit; compensation claimed by the claimant is excessive, thereby, prayed to dismiss the petition. drive the same; that the cri that the 3 7. The Tribunal settled the following issues for enquiiy basing on the material: “1.Whether the driver of Car bearing No.AP 02 AK 6669 has driven the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner on 11.10.2016 at about 10.00 a.m. and lost vehicle and dashed against the motorcycle bearing No.AP 02 M 068 and caused the accident in which the petitioner A.Narayanaswamy sustained grievous injuries in the accident? 2.Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation from the respondents, if so, what is the quantum of compensation is to be awarded? and 3.To what relief?” During enquiiy, on behalf of the claimants, P.Ws.l were examined and Exs.A.l to A.9 and C.l were exhibited. On behalf of the respondent No.2, none were examined, however, Ex.B.l policy is marked with consent. On the material, the Tribunal, having conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash negligent driving of the crime car by the respondent, held that claimant is entitled for the compensation of Rs.7,15,600/-, with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date control over 8. to 3 9. come to the 4 of realization against the respondents, for the injuries sustained in the aceident. It is against the said award; the present appeal preferred by the appellant/insurer. Heard Sri A.Sreeram, learned counsel representing Sri Soma Harinath Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant/insurer and Sri M.Karibasaiah, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1/claimant. 10. was 11. 12. Now, the point that arise for determination is “whether the order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside, if so, to what extent? 13. POINT: It is not in dispute about the injuries sustained by the claimant, involvement of the crime car as well quantum of compensation awarded to the claimant. It is also not in dispute that no appeal was preferred by the claimant as well owner of the crime car against the findings of the Tribunal. The foremost contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant/insurer is that there is contributory negligence 14. on 5 the part of the claimant in causing the incident since he allowed two pillion riders (wife and daughter) in his motorcycle at the time of accident. 15. In view of the above contention, this Court perused the material placed on record. To prove the rash and negligent driving of the respondent, cause of the incident, the claimant himself examined as P.W.l, who is rider of the said motorcycle, and Exs.A. 1 and A.4 F.I.R. and Charge Sheet, respectively. On perusal of Exs.A. 1 and A.4, the investigating agency, after thorough investigation, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime car by the S^d respondent. The testimony of P.W.l coupled with Exs.A. 1 and A.4 categorically show that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the crime car by the 3rd respondent. Nothing was elicited during cross examination to disbelieve the testimony of P.W. 1, Exs.A. 1 and A.4. Furthermore, none were examined on behalf of the respondents to prove any contributory negligence on the part of the claimant. More so, the 3rd respondent is the best witness to 16. 6 speak about the manner of the incident and the claimant, but he did not choose before the Tribunal to deny his rash and the incident. Thereby, in to deny the case of to enter into witness box negligence in causing view of the testimony of P.W. 1 coupled with Exs.A.l and A.4, it is categorical that the accident occurred was due to the rash and negligent driving of the 3^^ Now, it is relevant to refer respondent. 17. a pronouncement of the Hon-ble Supreme Court in B.V.NagaraJu v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd}, wherein also there condition because there a defence of branch of policy overloading of bus and passengers were travelling than the permissible capacity. It was categorically observed by Hon'ble Supreme overloading of bus had not played any role ir fhe roori oee.Vi.or was was more Court that as ^d was not prime cause of acHdent Insurance Company cannot repudiate the claim only on the ground of overloading and as the claim has been allowed so against the Insurance non-standard basis, then such award was found Company on justified. ' (1996) CPJ 18 (S.C.) 7 In the present ease on hand also, it is not the case of the appellant/insurer that the incident was occurred by riding the motorcycle with two pillion riders, which resulted to the of accident, thereby, in view of the categorical observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court no contributory negligence attributed against the claimant in causing the incident. The Tribunal after appreciating the above facts thoroughly and by relying upon the pronouncements of Apex Court came to the right conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the respondent No.3, which requires interference. 18. cause no Coming to the quantum of compensation entitled by the claimant is concerned, the Tribunal after considering the material on record i.e., testimony of P.Ws.2 and 3 coupled with Exs.A.2, A.5 to A.9 and C.l as well considering the disability sustained by the claimant under Ex.A.6 due to the injuries sustained in the accident, the Tribunal rightly calculated the compensation entitled by the claimant, which is not in dispute. 19. \ \ 8 20. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/insurer that the Tribunal erred in granting interest at 9% per annum. In Kumari Kiran v. Sajjan Singh and others^, the Apex Court set aside the judgment of the Tribunal therein awarding interest @ 6% as also the judgment of the High Court awarding interest @ 7.5% and awarded interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition. In Rahul Sharma & Another Insurance Company Limited and Others^, the Apex Court awarded @ 9% interest per annum from the date of the claim petition. Also, in Kirthi and another v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited^, the Apex Court allowed interest @ 9% per annum and in Smt.Anjali and others v. Lokendra Rathod and others^, the Apex Court while referring to Malarvizhi & Ors. v. United India Insurance Co.Ltd. & V. National / 2(2015) 1 see 539 2 (2021) 6 see 188 ''(2021)2 see 166 ^ (2022) see OnLine Se 1683 9 Ors.6 allowed interest @ 9% per annum. Thereby, in view of the above precedents, this Court has no hesitation to the Tribunal rightly granted interest @ 9% the date of the claim petition till realization. Having regard to the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that no valid grounds urged by the appellant to interfere with the finding arrived by the Tribunal, as there is no need to disturb the well-articulated order passed by the Tribunal, appeal preferred by the appellant is liable for dismissal. Thus, the point is answered accordingly. In the result, M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed. There shall be order as to costs. Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, stand closed. say that per annum from 21. the 22. no ®(2020) 4 see 228 Sd/-B PRASADA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE eOPY// SEeTION OFFieER To . The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-1 Additional District Judge, at Ananthapuramu . (with records) 2. One CC to Sri. Harinath Reddy Soma Advocate [OPUC] 1 -0 3. One CC to Sri. M Karibasaiah Advocate [OPUC] 4. The Section Officer, V.R Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. 5. Two CD Copies PR vna HIGH COURT DATED:25/06/2025 JUDGMENT + DECREE MACMA no. 115 of 2022 m 1 I SEP 2025 1€: * 1 $ectio|X>^ DISMISSING THE APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS