APHC010223862022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3367] THURSDAY,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 185/2022 Between: 1. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED.,, REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, TP HUB, NEAR ANNAPURNA THEATER, VIJAYAWADA. KRISHNA DISTRICT ...APPELLANT AND 1. GEDDANM SURESH, S/O. SUBBA RAO HINDU, MALE, 34 YEARS, RODBENDING WORK. D.NO. 6-78, KOTHAPETA,VELIVENNU VILLAGE, UNDRAJAVARAM MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DIST., 2. SHAIK PAKEER SAHAB, S/O. SURJAHAN MUSLIM, MALE AGE 25 YEARS, DRIVER OF THE MOTOR CYCLE RESIDENT OF PERUSHOTHAPALLI VILLAGE OF NIDADAVOL MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT 3. SHEIK MEERA VALLI, S/O. NAGURMEERA SAHAB OWNER OF MOTORCYCLE BEARING NO. AP 37 BZ 2342 RESIDENT OF D.NO. 1/65, RAJAKA VEEDHI PERUSHOTHAPALLI VILLAGE OF NIDADAVOL MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying that the High Court may be pleased to begs to present this Memorandum of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 173 of M.V. Act, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in M.V.O.P. No. M.V.O.P. No. 93 of 2016 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - CUM- IV Addl. District Judge, Tanuku, West Godavari dated 20th day of December, 2021 2 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 the decree and Judgment in M.V.O.P. No. 93 of 2016 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - CUM- IV Addl. District Judge, Tanuku, West Godavari dated 20th day of December, 2021 pending disposal of the appeal and pass IA NO: 2 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 permit the Petitioner to withdraw the amount as deposited by the Respondent No.1 herein in compliance of the order dated 05.05.2022 made in 1.A No. 1 of 2022 in M.A.C.M.A No. 185 of 2022 and pass such other order o Counsel for the Appellant: N RAMA KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent(S): A K KISHORE REDDY The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge at Tanuku (hereinafter called as ‘the Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.93 of 2016 dated 20.12.2021. 3 2. The appellant is the insurer of the Motorcycle bearing No.AP 37 BZ 2342 (hereinafter referred to as “crime motorcycle”). The respondent No.1 is the claimant before the Tribunal. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 are the rider and owner of the said crime motorcycle. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as they arrayed before the tribunal. 4. The case of the claimant, in the petition before the Tribunal is that: i). On 03.05.2015 at about 01.00 p.m., while the claimant proceeding on a motor cycle bearing No.AP 37 CC 1477 along with one Sheik Nagoor Saheb, when they reached outskirts of Purushothapalli of Nidadavol Mandal, the rider of the crime motorcycle ride the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motorcycle of the claimant in opposite direction, resulted he sustained fracture injury on his right femur, tibia, fibula and toes of right foot. Then he was shifted to Sri Sai Orthopedic Hospital for treatment. 4 ii). He claimed compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- against the rider, owner, and insurer of the crime motorcycle, respectively. 5. The respondent No.3/insurer filed written statement denying the averments in the petition and pleaded that the accident occurred was due to the rash and negligent riding of the claimant, but not 1st respondent; that the claimant as well 1st respondent are not having valid driving license to ride the motorcycle, thereby, prayed to dismiss the claim against this respondent. 6. The Tribunal settled the following issues for enquiry basing on the material: “1.Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% per annum as prayed for or not? and 2.To what relief?” 7. During enquiry, on behalf of the claimant, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined, Exs.P.1 to P.6 and X.1 were exhibited. On behalf of the 3rd respondent, its official was examined as R.W.1 and Ex.D.1 policy was marked. 5 8. On the material, the Tribunal, having come to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime motorcycle by the 1st respondent, held that claimant is entitled for the compensation of Rs.4,55,000/-, with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization against the respondent Nos.1 to 3, for the injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident. 9. It is against the said award; the present appeal was preferred by the appellant/insurer of the crime motorcycle. 10. Heard Sri Gudi Srinivasu, learned counsel representing Sri N.Rama Krishna, learned counsel for the appellant/insurer and Sri SK.Rafi, learned counsel representing Sri A.K.Kishore Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent No.1/claimant. 11. 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?” 12. POINT: It is not in dispute that the claimant sustained injuries in the accident, the policy marked as Ex.D.1 issued in respect of 6 the crime lorry was in force on the date of the incident. It is also undisputed that no appeal was preferred by the claimant, the driver, or the owner of the crime motorcycle against the findings of the Tribunal. 13. It is the main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the incident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the claimant, but not 1st respondent. 14. To prove the negligence on the part of the 1st respondent, the claimant himself examined as P.W.1 coupled with Exs.P.1 and Ex.P.4 F.I.R. and Charge Sheet, respectively. It is the categorical testimony of P.W.1 that the 1st respondent driven the crime motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motorcycle in opposite direction on which the claimant was proceeding, resulted he sustained injuries. Furthermore, on perusal of Exs.P.1 and Ex.P.4 F.I.R. and Charge Sheet respectively, the investigating agency, after thorough investigation, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the 1st respondent only in riding the crime motorcycle. 7 15. More so, the 1st respondent/rider of the crime motorcycle is the best witness to speak about the manner of the incident and deny the case of the claimant, but he did not choose to enter into witness box before the Tribunal. Even the owner of the crime motorcycle remained exparte before the Tribunal. Furthermore, except self-serving testimony of R.W.1, who is official of insurance company, no substantial piece of evidence placed before the Tribunal to prove any contributory negligence against the claimant. 16. It is also contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/insurer that the 1st respondent is not having valid license to ride the crime motorcycle, thereby, the insurer is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimant. 17. To prove the said contention, except bare testimony of R.W.1, who is official of the insurance company, the appellant/insurer did not produce any piece of material before the Tribunal. Thereby, the said contention raised by the learned counsel has no legs to stand. 8 18. It is needless to mention that the Tribunal, after considering the material on record i.e., testimony of P.W.2 coupled with Exs.P.2, P.5, P.6 and X.1, rightly calculated and awarded the compensation to which the claimant is entitled, which requires no interference of this Court. 19. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that no valid grounds urged by the appellant to meddle with the findings arrived by the Tribunal in all aspects, as there is no need to disturb the well-articulated order passed by the Tribunal, the appeal preferred by the appellant is liable for dismissal. Thus, the point is answered accordingly. 20. In the result, M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, stand closed. _____________________ JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS Date: 19.06.2025 Krs 9 345 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS M.A.C.M.A.No.185 of 2022 (J U D G M E N T) DATE: 19.06.2025 Krs