APHC010276252022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] MONDAY,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 208/2022 Between: 1. M/S. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,, REP.BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, VIJAYAWADA. ...APPELLANT AND 1. GOVADA SEETHARAMAIAH DIED, GOVADA SEETHARAMAIAH (DIED) 2. GOVADA RANGAMMA, W/O. SEETHARAMAIAH, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, R/O. BARLAPUDI VILLAGE, MOVVA MANDAL,KRISHNA DISTRICT. 3. GOVADA RAMAKRISHNA, S/O. SEETHARAMAIAH, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, COOLIE, R/O. BARLAPUDI VILLAGE, MOVVA MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 4. GOVADA RAGHAVENDRA RAO, S/O. SEETHARAMAIAH, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, COOLIE, R/O. BARLAPUDI VILLAGE, MOVVA MANDAL,KRISHNA DISTRICT. 5. KURAPATI VENKATESWARA RAO, S/O. PANDU, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, DRIVER OF TRACTOR, R/O.BARLAPUDI VILLAGE, MOVVA MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 6. KANCHARLA BABU RAO, S/O. KRISHNAIAH, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, OWNER OF THE TRACTOR, RIO. D.NO. 2/107, BARLAPUDI VILLAGE, MOVVA MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be pleased toThe above named appellant/Insurance Company prefer this memorandum of appeal having aggrieved by the decree and judgment passed in M.V.O.P. No. 331/2013. dt. 16.11.2021, on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-I Additional District Judge, Krishna 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 pleased to stay of all further proceedings in Pursuance of the order and the decree dt. 16.11.2021 passed in MVOP No. 331/2013 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Krishna and pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. KRISHNANAND VADAKATTU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. K VENKATESH 2. The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.208 of 2022 JUDGMENT: Present appeal arises against the orders dated 16.11.2021 passed in M.V.O.P. No.331 of 2013 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – I Additional District Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam, by which an amount of ₹90,300/- came to be awarded towards compensation. 2. For the sake of convenience, parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. Brief facts relating to the present appeal in a nutshell are as follows: (a) The injured deceased initially preferred claim by filing M.V.O.P. for compensation on account of injuries sustained in the motor vehicle accident. Later, during the pendency of the said O.P., as he died, his wife and children got impleaded and continued the proceedings. (b) The injured deceased, while attending to paddy harvesting work along with 15 other male persons, was hit by tractor bearing No.AP 24A 8023, which was driven by 1st respondent driver in a 2 CGR, J MACMA. No.208 of 2022 rash and negligent manner, which stated to have occurred on 07.01.2013 at 04.30 p.m. Resultantly, deceased sustained bleeding injuries on left side of head, nose, below chin and chest, thereby he was shifted to Government Hospital at Machilipatnam. Later, he was taken to private hospital namely Vijetha Hospital, Vijayawada, where he underwent treatment for 15 days. Injured deceased had thereafter laid the claim for compensation of ₹2,50,000/- on account of various heads namely Pain and suffering, medical expenses, transport to hospital, extra nourishment and attendant and miscellaneous expenses etc. (b) While the matter was being pursued, he died on 04.05.2017, nearly after four years. Legal heirs came to be added as LRs as per orders dated 21.09.2017 in I.A. No.230 of 2017. (c) The injured deceased claimed to be aged 55 years at the time of accident and was earning ₹300/- per day as coolie. In support of claimant, injured deceased himself got examined as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A6. 1st respondent – Driver of vehicle and 2nd respondent – owner of vehicle remained ex parte. The 3rd respondent insurer filed counter denying the allegations in 3 CGR, J MACMA. No.208 of 2022 claim made, also maintained that there is a contributory negligence on the part of injured deceased, besides disputing the authenticity and quantum of medical bills and other heads of claims made. No evidence was let in nor any documents were marked. (d) Based on the aforesaid pleadings available on record, Tribunal framed following issues: 1. Whether there is contributory negligence on the part of petitioner in sustaining injuries or whether there is negligence on the part of the R1 – Tractor Driver? 2. Whether Insurance Policy with R3 company is in force? 3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation as prayed for? If so, from which of the respondents? 4. To what relief? (e) Regarding the 1st issue, the Tribunal found that except making a vague statement by respondent Insurance Company that there is contributory negligence on the part of injured deceased, in the absence of examination of either driver of the vehicle or any other witnesses, the stand taken was negatived. The Tribunal found that the incident occurred on account of rash and negligent act of driver of the vehicle. Regarding the issues 4 CGR, J MACMA. No.208 of 2022 2 and 3, after appreciation of evidence, the Tribunal found that the policy was very much in force and valid from 10.10.2012 to 09.10.2013, therefore, in view of the negligence attributable to the driver, injured deceased was entitled for compensation, however, only to the extent of pecuniary loss to the estate of injured deceased. The same came to be ultimately arrived and determined as ₹55,265/- towards medical expenses, ₹15,000/- towards transport to hospital, ₹10,000/- towards extra- nourishment and ₹10,000/- towards Attendant & miscellaneous expenses, in total, granted ₹90,265/- by rounding to ₹90,300/- with an interest of 9.5% per annum from the date of petition till date of deposit or realization. The said liability was fastened on all three respondents jointly and severally. (f) Assailing the said judgment, the 3rd respondent insurance company preferred present appeal. 3. Heard Sri Vadakattu Krishna Nand, learned counsel for appellant and Sri K.Venkatesh, learned counsel, appearing for respondents 2 to 4. 4. Learned counsel for appellant mainly contended that the Tribunal had brushed aside the plea raised by Insurance 5 CGR, J MACMA. No.208 of 2022 Company regarding contributory negligence on the part of injured deceased and secondly that it erred in awarding compensation, which is on higher side. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents/claimants tried to sustain the award passed by Tribunal by contending that the findings on the plea of contributory negligence as well as quantum of compensation are based on appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence, therefore, the findings of fact recorded are neither erroneous nor perverse. 6. Perused the record and considered the rival submissions. 7. The question that falls for consideration of this Court is: 1. Whether the order passed by the Tribunal suffers from any infirmity or the findings recorded therein in relation to contributory negligence and determination of quantum of compensation suffer from perversity? 2. To what relief? 8. There is no dispute with respect to the fact of happening of incident on 07.01.2013 and the involvement of tractor vide bearing No.AP 24A 8023. Further, it is also not in dispute that the said vehicle had valid insurance policy covering the period from 6 CGR, J MACMA. No.208 of 2022 10.10.2012 to 09.10.2013. The injured deceased was attending to work at fields for harvesting paddy heaps. The tractor driven by 1st respondent dashed into him, causing injuries. Ex.A1 is the copy of FIR which came to be registered in Cr.No.4/2013 for offences under Section 337 of IPC against the driver of tractor. Ex.A4 is the charge sheet laid against the 1st respondent later. Ex.A3 is the copy of Motor Vehicle Inspector’s report, which confirmed the subsistence of policy and its validity. The Tribunal on appreciation of these Exhibits has come to conclusion that the incident happened on account of rash and negligent act of driver of vehicle. However, the appellant reiterating their stand, as projected before Tribunal, once again tried to persuade the court attributing contributory negligence on the part of injured deceased. Unfortunately, except for statement made in the counter and ground raised in the present appeal, neither the driver of tractor who drove the vehicle nor any other eyewitness nor any other documents are exhibited in support of their plea. The Tribunal being conscious of aforesaid aspect has categorically rendered finding that in the absence of any iota of evidence at the instance of 3rd respondent – Insurance Company to support its contention of contributory negligence, nor eliciting 7 CGR, J MACMA. No.208 of 2022 anything from P.W.1 in the cross-examination regarding occurrence of accident or sustaining injuries, has to come to definitive conclusion, which is neither perverse nor call for interference. This Court is in agreement with the aforesaid conclusion regarding the said aspect. 9. Coming to the other aspect of quantum of compensation, learned counsel for appellant vehemently contended that there is no basis for awarding ₹90,300/- towards compensation when the injured claimant himself has later died after more than four years and that there is no nexus between the cause of death and accident. The Tribunal has appreciated aforesaid contention and by referring to various judgments rendered by this Court, has authoritatively pronounced that in a case of claim for personal injury later resulting in death of claimants, when there is no nexus between cause of death and injuries sustained in the accident, the legal heirs are not entitled for any compensation other than for transportation charges, medical expenses, attendant charges and other general damages in the nature of pecuniary loss, and accordingly, only granted pecuniary damages as quantified. 8 CGR, J MACMA. No.208 of 2022 10. Insofar as medical expenses are concerned, though a claim was made for ₹1,11,348/- under Ex.A5, having considered the suggestions in the cross-examination of P.W.1, on reverification, medical bills were found to be only ₹55,265/-, the Tribunal has rightly allowed only to that extent. The factum of injured deceased undergoing treatment for a period of 15 days at Vijetha Hospital, Vijayawada, has been fortified by Ex.A2 wound certificate and Ex.A6 discharge summary, therefore, as there is no dispute with respect to the incident, the injuries caused and treatment availed, the Tribunal has rightly awarded damages on account of medical expenses for ₹55,265/-. Similarly, it had also considered ₹10,000/- towards extra nourishment, ₹15,000/- towards transportation and ₹10,000/- towards attendant and miscellaneous charges. All these quantums are determined based on the evidence and after due appreciation of the injuries sustained and treatment undergone. 11. This Court does not find that the aforesaid amounts are awarded much shockingly disproportionately and require any interference. As this Court is not convinced by the contentions of counsel for appellant and having regard to the reasons provided above, there is merit in the appeal. 9 CGR, J MACMA. No.208 of 2022 12. Accordingly, this Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending consideration, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J 21.07.2025 SS