APHC010633752005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] Thursday, the Tenth Day of April Two Thousand and Twenty Five Present The Honourable Ms Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No: 2364 of 2005 Between: Rao Venkata Satya Ramana Rao ...appellant and V Chanti Babu and others ...respondents Counsel for the appellant: 1. Josyula Bhaskara Rao Counsel for the respondents: 1. R Briz Mohan Singh (Died) 2. M Venkateswarlu 3. Manimma Medida The Court made the following: 2 MACMA.No.2364 of 2005 JUDGMENT: This appeal is preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking enhancement of the compensation granted by the Motor Vehicles Claims Tribunal and also to fasten liability against the respondent No.3, challenging the award and decree dated 03.12.2004 in M.V.O.P.No.374 of 2001 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Vehicles Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, East Godavari, Kakinada. 02. The case of the petitioner / appellant is briefly as follows: The petitioner is aged 40 years and is doing business in prawn culture. He was earning Rs.6,000/- per month. On 17.07.2000, while the petitioner, along with his wife, was returning to Kakinada on his Hero Honda motorcycle, at about 05.00 P.M., when they reached the outskirts of U.Kothapalli Village, the respondent No.1 drove the Ambassador car in a rash and negligent manner in the opposite direction with high speed and dashed against the motor cycle. As a result, the petitioner and his wife fell down due to which the petitioner sustained fracture to his right leg. On a report given by the petitioner, the police of U.Kothapalli registered a case in Crime No.59 of 2000 under Section 337 I.P.C. against the respondent No.1. The petitioner was taken to the Care Hospital for treatment, where he took treatment for three days. Later, he was shifted to Kamineni Hospital, Hyderabad where he underwent treatment for twenty days. Later, he joined in Mahatma Sri Ramachandra Centenary Memorial Hospital, Vijayanagar Colony, Hyderabad and took treatment for more than twenty days. In view of the injuries sustained, he became completely handicapped and was forced to close his business. Therefore, he claimed compensation 3 MACMA.No.2364 of 2005 of Rs.3,00,000/- against the respondents No.1 to 3 who are the driver, the owner and the insurer of the offending vehicle i.e., car respectively. 03. The respondents No.1 and 2 filed counter denying the rash and negligent driving of the respondent No.1 and contended that the amount of compensation claimed is highly excessive. The respondent No.3 filed counter resisting the claim while denying the averments in the petition. Later, the respondent No.3 filed additional counter stating that the offending vehicle had no valid policy of insurance as on the date of the accident and therefore, the respondent No.3 is not liable to pay any compensation. 04. The petitioner was examined as PW1. Dr.Y.Kalyanachakravarthi, Medical Officer, Care Hospital, Kakinada was examined as PW2. No witness was examined on behalf of the respondents, but copy of policy of insurance was marked on behalf of the respondent No.3 as Ex.B1. The following documents were marked on behalf of the petitioner: Exhibits Dated Ex.A1 18.07.2000 Attested xerox copy of FIR in Crime No.59 of 2000 of U.Kothapalli Police Station. Ex.A2 - Prescriptions of Care Emergency Hospital, Kakinada. Ex.A3 - Medical bills. Ex.A4 - Discharge summary of Kamineni Hospitals, Hyderabad. Ex.A5 - Medical bills. Ex.A6 14.09.2000 Discharge summary of Mahatma Sri Ramachandra Centenary Memorial Hospital, Hyderabad. Ex.A7 - Medical bills. Ex.A8 - Medical bills. Ex.A9 - Train tickets. Ex.A10 - Photos with negatives. Ex.A11 17.06.2004 Disability certificate. Ex.X1 - Case sheet with x-ray. 4 MACMA.No.2364 of 2005 05. Holding the respondent No.1 responsible for rash and negligence in causing the accident in which the petitioner sustained injuries, the tribunal granted compensation of Rs.60,000/- consisting of Rs.5,000/- towards transportation charges, Rs.30,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs.5,000/- towards damages to clothes and articles, Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering and another amount of Rs.15,000/- towards fracture injury to the right leg. The tribunal held the respondents No.1 and 2 alone liable to pay jointly and severally compensation to the petitioner with interest @9% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of deposit. The tribunal dismissed the claim against the respondent No.3 holding that the accident occurred on 17.07.2000 at about 05.30 P.M., whereas Ex.B1 covers the period commencing from midnight of 18.07.2000 to 17.07.2001. 06. Aggrieved by the award, the petitioner filed the appeal contending that the tribunal ought to have appreciated that the insurance company is also liable as the premium must have been paid in advance and quantum of damages granted is very low. 07. As per the office endorsement, notice sent to the respondent No.1 was returned unserved and notice sent to the respondent No.2 was returned unserved as refused. The respondent No.3 is appearing through counsel and she is present today. 08. Insofar as the quantum is concerned, the tribunal gave reasons adequate to quantify the damages, hence there is no need to interference with the same. 09. As there is no evidence other than Ex.B1, there is no reason to interfere with the findings of the tribunal about the period of policy of 5 MACMA.No.2364 of 2005 insurance which obviously does not cover the time at which the accident occurred. Hence, this Court does not find any merit in the appeal. 10. In the result, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Interim orders granted earlier, if any, shall stand vacated. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI Date: 10.04.2025 NSM 6 MACMA.No.2364 of 2005 37 HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No: 2364 of 2005 Date: 10.04.2025 NSM