APHC010728382017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3367] THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 869/2017 Between: The Reliance General Insurance Co Ltd., Krishna Dist ...APPELLANT AND Dasari Venkateswara Rao Guntur Dist 2 Others and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant: 1. N RAMA KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. SIVA PRASAD KATAKAMSETTY The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed against the order, dated 28.12.2015, in M.V.O.P.No.589 of 2013 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Guntur (hereinafter called as „the Tribunal‟). 2. The appellant is the insurer of Hyundai Accent Car bearing No.AP 10 AB 9329 (hereinafter referred to as “crime vehicle”). The Respondent No.1 herein is the claimant. The Respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein are the owner and driver of the crime vehicle, respectively. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as they arrayed before the Tribunal. 4. The case of the claimant, in the petition before the Tribunal is that: i). On 25.07.2012 at about 10.30 a.m., while the petitioner and another coming on a motorcycle bearing registration No.AP 07 AD 6477, at that time, the driver of Hyundai Accent Car, who is the 3rd respondent bearing registration No.AP 10 AB 9329 while driving the same in a rash and negligent manner coming from opposite direction came extreme wrong side and hit the motorcycle, as a result of which, the petitioner sustained severe injuries including fracture of both bones of right leg and immediately, he was shifted to the nursing home of Dr. G. Srinivasa Reddy, Narasaraopet and after administering first aid he was brought to Government Hospital, Narasaraopet. ii) Due to the said injuries, he claimed compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- against the respondents. 5. The Respondent No.3 was remained set ex parte before the Tribunal. 6. The Respondent No.1 filed written statement denying the averments of the petition and further submits that his car bearing No.AP 10 AB 9329 was insured with the 2nd respondent and having policy valid from 22.02.2012 to 21.02.2013 and the accident was in policy duration period and that in event the Court may pass any award, the 2nd respondent is liable to pay the compensation and that there are no policy violations and sought for dismissal of the petition. 7. The Respondent No.2/Insurance Company filed written statement denying the averments of the petition and further submits that the 2nd respondent did not receive any information with regard to the alleged accident and that the crime vehicle is not insured with the 2nd respondent and that the driver of the car is not having valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident and as such the 2nd respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner. He further stated that the compensation claimed by the petitioner is exaggerated and highly excessive and that the petitioner is not entitled for the same and that there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the car and sought for the dismissal of the petition. 8. The Tribunal settled the following issues for enquiry basing on the material: 1. Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of Car bearing No.AP 10 AB 9329? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and against whom? 3. To what relief? 9. During the course of enquiry before the Tribunal, on behalf of the petitioner, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and got marked Exs.A1 to A3 and Ex.X1. On behalf of the Respondents, no oral and documentary evidence were adduced. 10. On perusal of the material, the Tribunal, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred only due to the negligent driving of the crime vehicle by its driver and held that the petitioner is entitled for the compensation of Rs.1,25,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization against the Respondent Nos.1 to 3. 11. It is against the said order, the present appeal was preferred by the appellant/insurer. 12. Heard Sri N. Ramakrishna, learned Standing Counsel for appellant/Insurance Company and Sri K. Siva Prasad, learned counsel for the Respondent No.1/Claimant. 13. Now, the only point that arises for determination is “whether the award passed by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside, if so, to what extent?” 14. POINT: It is not in dispute about the injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident and that the claimant did not prefer any appeal against the order of the Tribunal. 15. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant/insurer is that the Tribunal erred in not apportioning negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle, who is the negligent in causing the accident while head on collusion. 16. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent No.1/Claimant submits that no evidence was adduced by the Insurance Company to prove that there is negligence on the part of rider of the motorcycle in the said accident and no evidence at all on record to appreciate the said fact. 17. This Court perused the material available on record, admittedly, the petitioner was hale and healthy prior to the accident and he was aged about 45 years at the time of accident. On 25.07.2012 at about 10.30 a.m., while the petitioner and another coming on a motorcycle bearing registration No.AP 07 AD 6477, at that time, the driver of Hyundai Accent Car, who is the 3rd respondent bearing registration No.AP 10 AB 9329 while driving the same in a rash and negligent manner coming from opposite direction came extreme wrong side and hit the motorcycle, as a result of which, the petitioner sustained severe injuries including fracture of both bones of right leg. Immediately, he was shifted to the nursing home of Dr. G. Srininvasa Reddy, Narasaraopet and after administering first aid he was brought to Government Hospital, Narasaraopet. 18. On perusal of the written statement, there was no defense raised regarding negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle involved in the accident. In the absence of such pleadings and evidence, the Tribunal appropriately considered and determined the compensation. 19. Therefore, this Court does not find any fault with the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal. As such, this Court is of the considered opinion that the award passed by the Tribunal warrants no interference. Thus, this point is answered accordingly. 20. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Interim orders granted earlier if any, shall stand vacated. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS Date:23.01.2025 KNN