APHC010242972022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.227 of 2022 Between: Iffco-Tokio General Insruance Company Limited, Represented by its Branch Manager, Branch Office, 3'^ floor, Kotireddy Circle, Kadapa - 516 001. ...Appellant/Respondent No.2 1. Ketham Reddy Lakshmi, W/o. Late Adhi Narayana Reddy, D.No.37/191, Balaji Nagar, S.N.Colony, Rayachoty Town and Mandal, Y.S.R. Kadapa District. 2. Ketham Reddy Neelavathi, W/o. Naga Subba Reddy, R/o. D.No.37/191, Balaji Nagar, S.N.Colony, Rayachoty Town and Mandal, Y.S.R. Kadapa District. 3. Ketham Reddy Naga Subba Reddy, S/o.Late Basi Reddy, R/o. D.No.37/191, Balaji Nagar, S.N.Colony, Rayachoty Town and Mandal, Y.S.R. Kadapa District. AND R/o. ...Respondents/Claimants 4. Polimera Jayabharatha Reddy, S/o. Nagi Reddy, Owner of the Motor car bearing No. AP 04 BF 1558, Residing at H.No.10/11-A, Eguvarachapali, Gunnikuntia, Rayachoty Town, Y.S.R. District. ...Respondent/Respondent Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in M.V.O.P. No. 22 of 2017 on the file of The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-Cum-V Additional District Judge, Rayachoty, dated 08*'^ day of December, 2021. .This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of ttion, the Order and Decree of the Trial Court and the material i:,; papers in the. Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Srinivasa Rao Vutia, representing on behalf of Sri Gudi Srinivasu, Advocate for the Appellant and of Sri O Udaya Kumar, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 and none appeared for Respondent No.4. This Court doth Order and decree as follows: 1. That the appeal be and is hereby dismissed; 2. That there be no order as to costs in this appeal. Sd/- G HELA NAIDU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER 1. The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-Cum-V Additional District Judge, Rayachoty, Kadapa District. 2. Two CD Copies To TK sree HIGH COURT DATED:01/07/2025 DECREE MACMA No.227 of 2022 DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS c APHC010242972022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.227 of 2022 Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in M.V.O.P. No. 22 of 2017 on the file of The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-Cum-V Additional District Judge, Rayachoty, dated 08*^ day of December, 2021. Between: Iffco-Tokio General Insruance Company Limited, Represented by its Branch Manager, Branch Office, floor, Kotireddy Circle, Kadapa - 516 001. ...Appellant/Respondent No.2 AND 1. Ketham Reddy Lakshmi, W/o. Late Adhi Narayana Reddy, R/o. D.No.37/191, Balaji Nagar, S.N.Colony, Rayachoty Town and Mandal, Y.S.R. Kadapa District. 2. Ketham Reddy Neelavathi, W/o. Naga Subba Reddy, R/o. D.No.37/191, Balaji Nagar, S.N.Colony, Rayachoty Town and Mandal, Y.S.R. Kadapa District. c 3. Ketham Reddy Naga Subba Reddy, S/o.Late Basi D.No.37/191. Balaji Nagar, S.N.Colony, Rayachoty Town and Mandai Y.S.R. Kadapa District. Reddy, R/o. ...Respondents/Claimants 4. foiimera Jayabharatha Reddy, S/o. Nagi Reddy, Owner of the Motor Car bearing No. AP 04 BF 1558, Residing at H.No.lO/11-A, Eguvarachapali, Gunnikuntia, Rayachoty Town, Y.S.R. District. ...Respondent/Respondent lA NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Order XLI Rule 5 & under Section 151 of 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 all further proceedings pursuant to the Judgment and Decree dated 08*^ day of December, 2021 passed in M.V.O.P. No. 22 of 2017 on the file of The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal- Cum-V Additional District Judge, Rayachoty, including proceedings, pending disposal of the main M.A.C.M.A. Counsel for the Appellant the execution : Sri Srinivasa Rao Vutia, representing behalf of Sri Gudi Srinivasu Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3: Sri O Udaya Kumar Counsel for Respondent No.4 The Court made the following order: on : None Appeared APHC010242972022 c IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH ATAMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE [3367] PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 227/2022 Between: 1.LFFCO-TOKIO GENERAL INSRUANCE COMPANY LIMITED,, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, BRANCH OFFICE, 3RD FLOOR, KOTIREDDY CIRCLE KADAPA-516 001. ...APPELLANT AND 1.KETHAM REDDY LAKSHMI, W/0. LATE ADHI NARAYANA REDDY, 2.KETHAM REDDY NEELAVATHI, W/0. NAGA SUBBA REDDY, 3.KETHAM REDDY NAGA SUBBA REDDY, S/0.LATE BASI REDDY, ALL ARE RESIDING AT D.NO.37/191, BALAJI NAGAR, S.N.COLONY, RAYACHOTY TOWN AND MANDAL, Y.S.R. KADAPA DISTRICT. 4.POLIMERA JAYABHARATHA REDDY, S/O. NAGI REDDY, OWNER OF THE MOTOR CAR BEARING NO. AP 04 BF 1558, RESIDING AT H.NO.10/11-A, EGUVARACHAPALI GUNNIKUNTLA, RAYACHOTY TOWN, Y.S.R. DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying that the High Court may be pleased to allow this appeal by setting aside the judgment and decree passed in M.V.O.P. No. 22 of 2017 on the file of The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-Cum-V Addl. District Judge, Rayachoty, Dated 08th day of December, 2021 and pass 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. 2 the High Court may be pleased pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the Judgment and Decree dated 08th day of December, 2021 passed in M.V.O.P. No. 22 of 2017 on the file of The Motor Accident Claims TribunahCum-V Addl. District Judge, Rayachoty, including the execution proceedings, pending disposal of the main M.A.C.M.A. and Counsel for the Appellant: GUDI SRINIVASU pass Counsel for the Respondent(S): O UDAYA KUMAR The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge at Rayachoty (hereinafter called as ‘the Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.22 of 2017 dated 08.12.2021. The appellant is the insurer of the Swift Dzire Car bearing No.AP 04 BF 1558 (hereinafter referred to as “crime car”). The respondent Nos.l to 3, who are wife and parents of one Kethamreddy Adhinarayana Reddy (hereinafter called as “the deceased”) respectively, are the claimants before the Tribunal. The respondent No.4 is the owner of the said crime car. 2. c 3 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as they arrayed before the tribunal. The case of the claimants, in the petition before the Tribunal is that: 4. i). On 30.10.2016 at about 11.00 p.m., while the deceased along with one Arjuna Naik proceeding in the crime car, when they reached near Devagudipalli of Chinnamandem Mandal, the deceased drove the said car at high speed and dashed against the roadside tamarind tree, resulted the deceased sustained grievous injuries. Then they were shifted to Government Hospital Rayachoty, where the said Arjun Naik was succumbed to injuries, in-tum, the deceased was referred to SVRRGG Hospital, Tirupati for better treatment, but on the way the deceased was died due to the said injuries. ii). By the date of accident, the deceased is working as driver, earning Rs. 14,000/- per month and contributed the same for the welfare of the family. Being 4 dependents, they claimed compensation of Rs. 12,00,000/- against the owner and insurer of the said crime car, respectively. The respondent No.3/insurer filed written statement denying the averments in the petition and pleaded that since the accident occurred due to self-negligence of the deceased, the claimants are not entitled for any compensation; that the claimants ought to have proved that the crime car is validly insured by the date of incident as well the deceased is having valid driving license to drive the same; that the compensation claimed by the claimants is excessive, thereby, prayed to dismiss the claim against this respondent. The Tribunal settled the following issues for enquiry basing on the material: 5. 6. 1.Whether the deceased met with road accident on 30.10.2016 at about 11.00 p.m. on Rayachoty to Madanapalle road Devagudipalli Chinnamandem mandal, the driver of the offending vehicle car bearing No.AP 04 BF 1558 and belonged to village, 1®^ respondent and insured with 2"'^ respondent, the driver drive the same in a rash and negligent manner r 5 with high speed and dashed against the Tamarind tree, as a result, sustained bleeding head injuries and succumbed to injuries, as contended by the claimants or not? 2. Whether the deceased was earning a sum of Rs. 14,000/- per month by working as driver and contribute the same to his family prior to the accident as contended by the claimants or not? 3.Whether the claimants are entitled to compensation, if so, how much and from which of the respondents? and 4.To what relief?' 7. During enquiry, on behalf of the claimant, P.Ws.l and 2 were examined, Exs.A.l to A.6 were exhibited. On behalf of the 2nd respondent, its official was examined as R.W.l and Exs.B.l and B.2 were marked. On the material, the Tribunal, having come to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and 8. negligent driving of the crime car, held that claimants are entitled for the compensation of Rs.7,04,678/-, with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of c 6 realization against the respondent Nos.l and 2, for the death of the deceased. 9. It is against the said award; the present appeal preferred by the appellant/insurer of the crime car. Heard Sri Sinivasa Rao Vutla, representing Sri Gudi Srinivasu, learned counsel for the appellant/insurer and Sri O.Udaya Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.l to 3/claimants. 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?” was 10. learned counsel 11. 12. POINT: It is not in dispute about the death of the deceased in the accident, involvement of crime car as well Ex.B.l policy issued in respect of the crime car is in force by the date of incident. It is also an undisputed fact that no appeal was preferred by the claimants against the findings of the Tribunal. It is only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that the application preferred by the claimants before 13. r 7 the Tribunal is under Section 166 of M.V. Act, but the award passed by the Tribunal is under Section 163-A of M.V. Act, L_ the case of self-negligence, thereby, the insurer is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants. In view of the said contention, this Court perused the record. Admittedly, initially, the claim petition in M.V.O.P.No.22 of 2017 was preferred under Section 163-A and 166 of M.V. Act. However, they filed I.A.No.435 of 2021, through which they amended their claim petition to under Section 163-A of M.V. Act, vide order dated 17.11.2021, before the Tribunal as well neat copy of claim petition also filed before the Tribunal. Thereby, the claim can be made by them even the ground of self-negligence. Now, it is apposite to refer a pronouncement of the HonT)le Supreme Court in Chandrakanta Tiwari v. New India Assurance Company Limited^, wherein it was categorically ....the claimant need not plead or establish that the death in respect of which the claim was made, was due to any m 14. material available on on 15. held that 1 2020 (7) see 386 8 negligence or default of the owner of the vehicle or of any other person. 16. In the present case on hand, since the claim petition is filed under Section 163-A of M.V. Act by the claimants, they need not to plead or establish that the death in respect of which the claim was made, was due to any negligence of the deceased. In view of the settled legal position. 17. facts, and circumstances of the case that the claimants made their claim before the Tribunal under Section 163-A of M.V. Act only, nothing remains before this Court to interfere with the findings arrived by the Tribunal. 18. It is needless to mention that the Tribunal, after considering the material on record, rightly calculated and awarded the compensation to which the claimants are entitled, which requires no interference of this Court. 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 19. V-- 9 passed by the Tribunal, the 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 20. no order as to costs. Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, stand closed Sd/- G HELA NAIDU ASSISTANT REGIS^TRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-Cum-V Additional District Judge, Rayachoty, Kadapa District, (with records if any) 2. One CC to Sri Gudi Srinivasu, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri O Udaya Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] 4. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi. (to dispatch the trial court records) 5. Two CD Copies TK sree HIGH COURT DATED:01/07/2025 JUDGMENT + DECREE MACMA No.227 of 2022 DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS