1 MACMA.No.1247 of 2012 APHC010501912012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3365] WEDNESDAY ,THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE DR V R K KRUPA SAGAR MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1247/2012 Between: Divisional Manager, ...APPELLANT AND Kuruva Eswaraiah and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant: 1. A JAYANTHI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. . The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: This Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the Insurance Company under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (herein after referred to as “M.V.Act”), challenging the Award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Court, Kurnool, in MVOP No.53 of 2006, dated 05.07.2011, wherein and whereby the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.64,725/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization jointly and severally payable by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to deposit the compensation amount within 30 days. 2. Sri.Ravi Teja T, learned counsel representing on behalf of Ms.A.Jayanti, learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance company, submitted his 2 MACMA.No.1247 of 2012 arguments. None appeared for the respondents. 3. The facts of the case are that Sri.K.Eswaraiah, aged about 28 years was travelling in the auto rickshaw bearing registration No.AP 21 V 8163 on 14.05.2005 about 6.50 am, when auto rickshaw reached near Bavapuram village, there came in the opposite direction a mini lorry bearing registration No.AP 22 T 4757 and out of rash and speed and negligent driving of the said mini lorry driver, it dashed on the front side of the auto rickshaw and as a result Sri.K.Eswaraiah, who was travelling in the auto rickshaw sustained fractures to his right leg and other injuries. Pertaining to this accident, Kurnool Taluk Police registered a case in Crime No.71 of 2005 as against the driver of the offending mini lorry. After due investigation, a charge sheet was also laid. Smt.M.Mangamma is stated to be the owner of the mini lorry, which was insured with New India Insurance Company. The injured/claimant filed M.V.O.P.No.53 of 2006 making the owner and the insurer as respondent No.1 and 2 and sought compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-. 4. Before the claims tribunal, owner of the mini lorry, did not choose to appear and contest. The Insurance Company, filed its counter and denied the version narrated in the claim petition. A specific defense was taken that the injured was sitting by the side of the driver of the auto rickshaw, keeping out his leg and due to his negligent posture, resulted in injuries to him. There was no negligence on part of the driver of the offending mini lorry. At the material 3 MACMA.No.1247 of 2012 point of time, the mini lorry was carrying a load of 1 ton cement, therefore there is no possibility of speed driving. It prayed for dismissal of the claim. 5. The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Court, Kurnool, considered the rival pleadings and framed the following issues: i. Whether the accident dated 14.5.2005 occurred due to collision between Auto bearing No.Ap 21 V 8183 and mini lorry bearing No.AP 22 T 4757? ii. Whether the accident dated 14.5.2005 occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the mini lorry bearing NO.AP 22 T 4757 by its driver, resulting in injuries to the petitioner? iii. Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation and if so to way extent and from which of the respondents? iv. To what relief? 6. During the enquiry, claimant testified as PW1 and the Doctor who treated him testified as PW2 and Ex.A1 to A5 were marked. On behalf of respondents, RW1 to 3 were examined and Ex.B1 to B6 were marked. Ex.X1 was marked for claimant and Ex.X2 to X4 were marked for the Insurance company/respondents. 7. After considering the entire material on record and the evidence on 4 MACMA.No.1247 of 2012 both sides and the contention raised on both sides, claims Tribunal, agreed with the version spoken to by the claimants/PW1 and held that the accident was out of rash driving of the offending mini lorry. The theory of contributory negligence was negatived. It held that claimant received injuries. On considering the sworn evidence of the doctor, it recorded that claimant sustained 2 grievous injuries and 1 simple injury. Claims Tribunal granted Rs.20,000/- for the grievous injury and Rs.5,000/- for the simple injury and Rs.19,725/- towards actual medical expenses thus a total compensation of Rs.64,725/- was granted. The Award was passed in the following terms: “In the result, the petition is partly allowed with proportionate costs awarding compensation of Rs.64,725/- (Rupees sixty four thousand seven hundred and twenty five only) to the petitioner with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition to the date of realization jointly and severally payable by the respondents 1 and 2. The respondents 1 and 2 are directed to deposit the awarded amount within 30 days from the date of this order. On such deposit, the petitioner is entitled to withdraw the entire amount. Advocate fee is fixed at Rs. 1,500/-“. 8. Aggrieved by the said award, the Insurance Company has come up with the present appeal. In the memorandum of grounds of appeal, it is urged that the compensation awarded is not based on evidence available on record and order of the Tribunal is contrary to the rulings of Hon’ble Supreme Court 5 MACMA.No.1247 of 2012 of India and that the interest granted was 9% which was excessive. The strenuous submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that, only because the injured was keeping his legs outside of the auto rickshaw and sitting by the side of the driver of the auto rickshaw, and there was no elbow space for the driver of the auto rickshaw, consequently, it dashed the mini lorry and therefore from the evidence, one can see contributory negligence and the claims Tribunal failed to appreciate the evidence in right perspective. 9. As noticed earlier, none entered appearance for the respondent Nos.1 and 2. 10. The point that emerges for consideration is: Whether the impugned award is erroneous on the facts requiring interfere in this appeal? Point: 11. The fact that claimant/PW1/respondent No.1 sustained injuries in an automobile accident on 14.05.2005 is not in dispute. The nature of injuries he sustained and Ex.A3, wound certificate and Ex.A4, bunch of medical bills and Ex.A5 disability certificate and the genuineness of these documents are also not in dispute. 12. Ex.A2 is the certified copy of charge sheet and Ex.B2 is also certified copy of the same charge sheet. After duly investigating, Crime No.71 of 2005, Kurnool Taluk Police prosecuted the driver of the mini lorry bearing 6 MACMA.No.1247 of 2012 registration No.AP 22 T 4757. The contention before the Tribunal as well as before this Court rested on the basis of Ex.X4. The submissions of learned counsel for the appellant is that evidence of RW2 and 3 and EX.X4, driving license would show that one Sri.Gola Srinu was possessed of only non- transport LMV license and did not possess transport license for driving LMV and at the material point of time the offending mini lorry was used for carrying goods and thus Sri.G.Srinu was driving a transport vehicle. From the material on record, learned counsel for the appellant argued that in the charge sheet, the name of the driver of the mini lorry was shown as Gola Srinivasulu s/o G.Chinnamasulu whereas Ex.X4 driving license indicates the name as Sri.G.Srinu S/o G.Hanumanthu. Thus a discrepancy is brought to the notice of this Court. In the opinion of this Court, this discrepancy does not take the case of the appellant any further. It is not the case of any one that if the man who was charge sheeted by the State police was the man who was at the steering wheel of the offending mini lorry at the material point of time and if the description of that accused is taken as correct it is the dictate of the logic that X4 driving license does not pertain to him. If on the other hand, the description particulars mentioned in Ex.X4 driving license are taken to be correct, then the question would crop up whether the driver who was possessed of driving license of LMV class vehicles for non-transport was at the material point of time found driving a transport vehicle of the same class. 7 MACMA.No.1247 of 2012 In fact that was the question argued and considered by the claims tribunal. The claims tribunal acted upon the ratio of this Court in E.Rajeswari & others Vs.T.S shekhar and another1, and held that one who possesses license of LMV class vehicles is entitled to drive either category of the vehicle of the same class. Nothing contrary to this is brought to the attention before this Court by the Appellant/Insurance Company. Therefore, in whichever way the discrepancy as to the name of the individual as detailed in the earlier paragraph is considered it does not come to the avail of the Insurance Company. 13. The other serious submission raised by the Insurance Company is about claimant sitting beside the driver and keeping his legs outside the auto rickshaw. RW1 to 3 were not witnesses to the incident. PW2/Doctor is also not a witness to the incident. PW1/claimant is the only person who witnessed the incident. The theory canvassed by the Insurance Company was put to PW1 during his cross examination and the witness denied it as incorrect and false. A perusal of evidence did disclose that he positively said that he was sitting in back side seat and there were only three passenger and all the 3 of them were in the back seat and he was flanked by two of the passenger on either side in the back seat of auto rickshaw. He further said that on the right front side of the auto rickshaw the offending mini lorry came and dashed. To 1 2010 (3) L.S. 321 8 MACMA.No.1247 of 2012 think anything contrary to this there should be some evidence. There is absolutely no evidence brought on record by the Insurance Company. One tends to say that the factual assertion made by the Insurance Company without having firsthand knowledge or second hand knowledge, veering around imaginative surmises and lingering under those surmises it has been prosecuting this appeal. For Insurance Company, such attitude cannot be appreciated. The finding of the claims tribunal is based on evidence and this Court finds the same is in accordance with law. This Court finds no reasons to interfere with the impugned award. Point is answered against the appellant. In the result, this appeal is dismissed, confirming the award passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Court, Kurnool, in MVOP No.53 of 2006, dated 05.07.2011. It is made clear that since there is no contest on behalf of the respondents, parties do bear their own costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions if any, shall stand closed. Interim Stay if any granted, shall stand vacated. DR V R K KRUPA SAGAR, J Dt: 12.02.2025. RSD 9 MACMA.No.1247 of 2012 THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE DR V R K KRUPA SAGAR MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1247/2012 Dt: 12.02.2025. RSD