APHC010576522004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] Thursday, the Sixth day of March 2025 Present The Honourable Ms Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 952/2004 Between: United India Insurance Co., Ltd., ...Appellant. AND Thoti Puneeda and Others .... Respondents Counsel for the Appellant: 1. Naresh Byrapaneni Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. A Chandraiah Naidu The Court made the following judgment : This appeal is preferred under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award and decree dated 29.10.2003 in M.V.O.P.No.482 of 2000 on the file of the Chairman-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Tirupathi awarding compensation of Rs.3,06,800/- with interest thereon @ 9% p.a., from the date of petition i.e., 09.11.2000 till the date of realization and costs against the respondents No.1 and 2. 02. The appellant is the second respondent. 2 BSB,J CMA. No.952 of 2004 03. The case of the claimant is briefly as follows: On 17.05.2000 at 5.30 a.m on Puttur-Nagalapuram main road near I.R.Kandriga bus stop, while the deceased Ekambaram who was doing business in vegetables, along with a load of 15 bags of mangoes and drumsticks was travelling in the lorry of the 1st respondent bearing No.AP 16 U 7446 at Narayanavanam in order to go to Periyapalyam, and sat on the cement sheets in the lorry, the driver of the lorry drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and lost control over it as a result of which the lorry turned turtle and fell down across the road resulting in his spontaneous death. Based on a complaint given by VAO, Narayanavanam police registered a case in Cr.No.20/2000 under section 304-A, 337 and 279 of IPC. The deceased was hale and healthy before the accident and earning Rs.120/- per day. Hence, the 1st respondent is liable to pay compensation. The 1st respondent insured his vehicle with the 2nd respondent and the insurance was in force by the date of accident and hence, the 2nd respondent has to indemnify the 1st respondent. 04. Though the 1st respondent appeared through counsel, no counter was filed. The 2nd respondent filed counter. 05. On behalf of claimants, the 1st petitioner was examined as PW1 and an eye witness was examined as PW2. Exs.A1 to A4 were marked. Ex.A1 CC of FIR in Cr.No.20/2000 of Narayanavanam PS, Ex.A2 CC of charge sheet in Cr.No.20/2000, Ex.A3 CC of inquest report, Ex.A4 CC of PM report of Ekambaram. 3 BSB,J CMA. No.952 of 2004 06. On behalf of the 2nd respondent, no witness was examined, but a copy of insurance policy issued by 2nd respondent was marked as Ex.B1. No evidence was lead by the 1st respondent. 07. After hearing both parties, the Tribunal passed the award as above said. Aggrieved by the same, this appeal was filed by the 2nd respondent mainly contending that the Tribunal erred in concluding that deceased was the owner of the goods and that the Tribunal ought to have held that the deceased was an unauthorised passenger and dismissed the claim. 08. The learned counsel for the appellant reiterated the grounds of appeal. The learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 3/claimants submitted that the Tribunal correctly appreciated the evidence and the award does not require interference. Though the notice to the 4th respondent was served through the method of substitute service, no appearance has been made. 09. The evidence on record clearly established that the deceased was travelling along with the load of vegetables as alleged in the claim petition. In the usual course, vegetable vendor doing petty business would not secure documentary evidence about engaging a vehicle for carriage of the goods. As such, merely because there was no documentary evidence in that regard, it cannot be held that the deceased could not be the owner of the goods of vegetables being carried in the lorry. The Tribunal rightly appreciated the evidence, both in respect of the liability and 4 BSB,J CMA. No.952 of 2004 the quantum of damages. Therefore, no interference is required in the decree and award under challenge. 08. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this civil miscellaneous appeal shall stand closed. ___________________ ___ JUSTICE B.S. BHANUMATHI Dated 06.03.2025 GRL 5 BSB,J CMA. No.952 of 2004 77 THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI C.M.A No952 of 2004 Date: 06.03.2025 GRL