APHC010145932022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 135/2022 Between: 1. SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, REP. BY ITS MANAGER, DONDAPARTHI, VISAKHAPATNAM. HOLDING ITS OFFICE AT VIJAYAWADA REP, BY ITS MANAGER. ...APPELLANT AND 1. CHINTALA ADINARAYANA, S/O. LATE JAGGU NAIDU, AGED 55 YEARS, CHINTALA VEEDHI, GOLLAPALLI VILLAGE, BOBBILI MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 2. ATTADA SRINIVASA RAO, S/O. RAMINAIDU, AGED 35 YEARS, AGURU VEEDHI, D.N0.30-15, BOBBILI VILLAGE AND MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 3. CHINTALAPATI KRISHNAM RAJU, S/O. SATYANARAYANA RAJU, OWNER OF THE TRAILER, VUTTARAVALLI VILLAGE, MERAKAMUDIDAM MANDAL,VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 4. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, REP, BY ITS MANAGER, 403, ESWAR PARADISE, DWARAKANAGAR MAIN ROAD, VISAKHAPATNAM. ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be pleased toto set aside impugned decree and judgment of Motor Accident claims Tribunal cum II Additional District judge, Parvathipuram dated 08.12.2021 passed in M.V.O.P. No.24 / 2018 and allow this appeal with costs in the interest of justice. IA 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 stay the execution of decree and judgment dated 08.12.2021 passed in MVOP NO. 24/2018 on the file of Motor Accident claims Tribunal cum lI Additional District Judge, Parvathipuram pending disposal of Appeal and pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. D RAVI KIRAN Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. N RAMA KRISHNA 2. The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.135 OF 2022 JUDGMENT: Present appeal is preferred under Section 173 of M.V. Act, assailing order dated 08.12.2021 passed in M.V.O.P. No.24 of 2018 on the file of Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – II Additional District Judge, Parvathipuram, by which Tribunal has awarded compensation of ₹1,50,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization. 2. For the sake of convenience, parties herein will be referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. (a) It is a case of injuries. The claimant, being labourer, was engaged in unloading of goods on tractor bearing No.AP 35V 8773. On 16.09.2011, when he was proceeding on tractor sitting beside the driver, the tractor reached Nambiyar Venugopala Rao Rice Mill, on account of sudden application of brakes, he fell down and thereby sustained injuries. He was treated at K.G.H., Visakhapatnam, for treatment. Even case was registered vide Cr.No.307/201 under Section 338 IPC against driver of tractor. 2 CGR, J MACMA. No.135 of 2022 (b) He claimed to be aged 52 years and was earning about ₹250/- per day by doing labour work, therefore, claim was made for an amount of ₹1,50,000/-, which includes even the medical and other incidental expenses. The driver – cum – owner of tractor and owner of trailer were set ex parte. 2nd respondent, being insurer of the tractor, filed written statement. Likewise, even 4th respondent insurer of trailer also filed written statement. They have denied the manner in which accident occurred and that the driver of tractor was negligent and responsible for cause of accident. Even the quantum of compensation claimed was also disputed. The 2nd respondent, in particular, pleaded that even as per the FIR, the injured was sitting on tractor cabin, therefore, as he fell from there, inasmuch as there is no premium covering for any person other than driver of tractor, he has to be treated as unauthorized or gratuitous passenger, therefore, it cannot be fastened with any liability. (c) Upon considering the pleadings on record, the Tribunal framed following issues: 1. Whether the accident occurred resulting in injuries to the petitioner, is due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor bearing No.AP 35V 8773 by its driver – R1? 3 CGR, J MACMA. No.135 of 2022 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, at what quantum and from whom? 3. To what relief? (d) To support the case, claimant was examined as P.W.1 and also doctor, who treated the claimant was examined as P.W.2 and marked Exs.A1 to A8 and Ex.X1. For 2nd respondent, its officer was examined as R.W.1 and Junior Assistant of RTA, Vizianagaram, as R.W.2 and got marked Exs.X1 to X3. So also, the 4th respondent got examined its officer as R.W.3 and got marked Exs.B1 and B2. After analysing the documentary and oral evidence on record, the Tribunal answered first issue in affirmative, holding that the accident had occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of tractor. Then, it proceeded to determine the amount of compensation as under:- S.No. Head Compensation 1. Towards fracture, injury, medical expenses incurred and future probable medical expenditure, transport etc. ₹40,000.00 2. Towards loss of earnings during the period of treatment and future earnings ₹90,000/- 3. Compensation for transport to hospital, medicines and extranourishment ₹20,000/- Total ₹1,50,000/- 4 CGR, J MACMA. No.135 of 2022 (e) Assailing the same, the present appeal is preferred. 4. Heard Sri D.Ravi Kiran, learned counsel for appellant and Sri N.Rama Krishna, learned counsel for 4th respondent. Despite service of notice, none appeared for respondents 1 to 3. 5. Learned counsel for appellant mainly contended that the Tribunal has committed error in not appreciating the evidence on record in proper perspective, in particular that of P.W.1, who clearly stated in his chief affidavit that he sat beside driver of the tractor, therefore, there was no requirement for the insurer to adduce any further evidence to prove that the injured was sitting on mudguard of the tractor. The finding recorded by Tribunal to the said extent is clearly perverse. Except for aforesaid issue, no other grounds have been canvassed. In support, he placed reliance on the judgment of the Madras High Court in Branch Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Perambalur v. Chinnapillai (died) and others1. 6. Learned counsel for 4th respondent submitted that as liability has been fastened only on appellant and 4th respondent has not 1 AIR Online 2021 Mad 2699 5 CGR, J MACMA. No.135 of 2022 been fastened with any liability, he has no grievance in the present appeal. 7. Perused the record and considered rival submissions. 8. The only issue that falls for consideration of this Court is as to whether the finding recorded by Tribunal with respect to confirmation of liability on the appellant suffers from any perversity. There is no dispute with respect to the occurrence of accident and injuries sustained by the claimant. There is no challenge to the quantum of compensation. The only contentious issue is whether the injured travelled by sitting on the mudguard of tractor, if so, does it disentitle him to claim compensation by pinning down liability on the insurer. 9. As per the claim, injured stated that he was sitting beside the driver’s seat when the accident occurred. Whereas, it is the case of insurer that he was sitting on mudguard of tractor. While dealing with aforesaid aspect, the Tribunal, after considering the evidence on record has rendered definitive finding that since the insurer has taken stand that injured was sitting on mudguard, it was for it to prove and establish the said fact, for which purpose, inasmuch neither any eyewitness nor the driver of tractor came to be 6 CGR, J MACMA. No.135 of 2022 examined, aforesaid plea came to be rejected. The Tribunal also went a step ahead in observing that the insurer has not produced the file maintained by it with respect to the accident in question, which would contain investigator’s report to support their claim that injured was sitting on mudguard. Further, the Tribunal has drawn strength from the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and another2 to come to conclusion that the liability on the insurer would not get dissolved even if the injured was sitting on the mudguard. In the absence of any evidence in the present case, even such scenario does not arise. Though learned counsel for appellant has tried to persuade this Court that injured was sitting on mudguard, based on the evidence on record and also the judgment in Raj Kumar’s case2, this Court is not impressed. 10. The finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal is sound and with reasons. The judgment of Madras High Court that has been relied upon by the appellant really does not come to his aid, inasmuch as in that particular case, there was no dispute regarding the deceased sitting on mudguard of tractor while incident has occurred, whereas in the present case, the evidence on record 2 (2011) 1 SCC 343 7 CGR, J MACMA. No.135 of 2022 does not conclusively establish aforesaid facts. When insurer has raised plea that injured was sitting on mudguard, it is for it to establish in clear terms, which it miserably failed to do so, as found by the Tribunal. This Court cannot find any perversity in the findings of the Tribunal. 11. In view of the same, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. Accordingly, this appeal stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration, if any, in this case shall stand closed. _______________________ CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J 24.09.2025 SS