APHC010835972015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 354 OF 2025 Between: The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Rep. by its Divisional Manager, Dwaraka Nagar, Visakhapatnam. ...Appellant/Respondent No.3 AND 1. Smt Rayavarapu Laxmi, W/o.Late Venkata Musali Naidu, aged 46 years, Occ: House wife, R/o.Kottha Alugubilli Village, S.Kota Mandal, Vizianagaram District. 2. Boddu Aruna Kumari, W/o.Srinu, D/o.Late Venkata Musali Naidu, aged 26 years, R/o.Kottha Alugubilli Village, S.Kota Mandal, Vizianagaram District. 3. Rayavarapu Nirmala, D/o.Late Venkata Musali Naidu, aged 23 years R/o.Kottha Alugubilli Village, S.Kota Mandal, Vizianagaram District. ...Respondents/Petitioners 4. Upparapalli Venkata Siva Suryanarayana, S/o.Suryanarayan Murthy, aged 41 years, Driver of Oil Tanker No.AP-31-W-1577, R/o.Mamidivada Village, Yelamanchali of Ramabilli Mandal, Visakhapatnam. 5. Smt P.Vara Lakshmi, W/o.Koteswara Rao, aged 38 years. Owner of Oil .Tanker No.AP-31-W-1577, R/o.27-8-53, Sri Rama Nagar, Near " 4f-- ‘ St.Maries Convent, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam. - .% (R-4 and R-5 are not necessary) ...Respondents/Respondents Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the Judgment and Decree, dated 16-05-2014 passed in MVOP N0.443 of 2012 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Judge, Family Court-cum-lll Additional Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram District. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Award and Decree of the Trial Court and material papers in the petition and upon hearing arguments of Sri Gudi Srinivasu, Advocate for Appellant, and none appeared for Respondent Nos.1 to 3. THIS COURT DOTH ORDER AND DECREE: 1. That the MACMA be and the same hereby is dismissed; 2. That the appellant be and hereby is directed to deposit the balance amount of compensation as determined and awarded by the Tribunal under the impugned Order, after deducting the amount, if any, already paid, within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Order; 3. That on such deposit being made, respondent Nos.1 to3/claimants be and hereby are permitted to withdraw the amount in terms of the impugned Order; 4. That in default, the respondents/cfaimants be and hereby are at liberty to take steps for recovery in accordance with law; and 5. That there be no order as to costs in this MAGMA. Sd/- M SRINIVAS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Judge, Family Court- cum-lll Additional Sessions Judge), Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram District. 2. Two CD Copies vna HIGH COURT DATED:06/08/2025 DECREE MACMA NO. 354 OF 2025 DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS APHC010835972015 THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI IN B' WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN LANEQUS APPEAL NO: 354 OF 2025 THE MnTOR ACCIDENT CIVJL Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the dated 16-05-2014 passed in MVOP N0.443 of 2012 Accidents Claims Tribunal (Judge, Family Judgment and Decree the file of the Chairman, Motor Additional Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram on , Vizianagaram Court-cum-lll District. Between: Limited, Rep. by its Divisional The Oriental Insurance Company Manager, Dwaraka Nagar, Visakhapatnam. ...Appellant/Respondent No.3 AND 1. Smt Rayavarapu Laxmi, W/o.Late Venkata Musali Naidu, aged 46 years. Occ: House wife. R/o.Kottha Alugubilli Village, S.Kota Mandal. Vizianagaram District. D/o.Late Venkata Musali Naidu, aged .Kottha Alugubilli Village, S.Kota Mandal, Vizianagaram 2. Boddu Aruna Kumari, W/o.Srinu 26 years, R/o District. rnsseiumssssms 3. Rayavarapu Nirmala, D/o.Late Venkata Musali Naidu, aged 23 years, R/o.Kottha Alugubilli Village, S.Kota Mandal, Vizianagaram District. ...Respondents/Petitioners Upparapalli Venkata Siva Suryanarayana, S/o.Suryanarayan Murthy, aged 41 years. Driver of Oil Tanker No.AP-31-W-1577, R/o.Mamidivada Village, Yelamanchali of Ramabilli Mandal, Visakhapatnam. Smt P.Vara Lakshmi, W/o.Koteswara Rao, aged 38 years. Owner of Oil Tanker No.AP-31-W-1577, St.Maries Convent, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam. 4. 5. R/o.27-8-53, Sri Rama Nagar, Near (R-4 and R-5 are not necessary) ...Respondents/Respondents lA NO: 1 OF 2017fMACMAMP 716 OF 2017) Petition filed 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 to stay the execution of decree and Judgment passed in MVOP No.443 of 2012 dated 16.05.2014 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Judge, Family Court-cum-lll Additional Sessions Judge), Vizianagaram pending the final disposal of the main appeal. Counsel for the Appellant: Sri Gudi Srinivasu Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: None appeared The Court made the following: 1 APHC010835972015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) ■I [3506] WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSANDAND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 354/2025 Between: 1.THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REP.BY DML.MANAGER, ITS DWARAKA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNAM. ...APPELLANT AND 1.RAYAVARAPU LAXMI W/0.LATE.VENKATA MUSALI NAIDU, AGED 46 YRS, OCC HOUSE WIFE, R/0 KOTTHA ALUGUBILLI VILLAGE, S.KOTA MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. AND 4 OTHERS, 2.BODDU ARUNA KUMARI, W/O.SRINU D/0.LATE VENKATA MUSALI NAIDU, AGED 26 YRS, R/O.KOTTHA ALUGUBILLI VILLAGE, S.KOTA MANDAL, VIZIANAGAR.FRA DISTRICT. 3.RAYAVARAPU NIRMALA, D/O.LATE.VENKATA MUSALI NAIDU, AGED 23 YRS, R/O.KOTTHA ALUGUBILLI VILLAGE, S.KOTA MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTI ICL. 4.UPPARAPALLI VENKATA SIVA S/O.SURYANARAYAN MURTHY, AGED 41 YRS, DRIVER OF OIL TANKER NO.AP-31-W-1577, R/O.MAMIDIVADA VILLAGE, YELAMANCHALI OF RAMABILLI MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM. SURYANTI, 2 m 5.SMT P VARA LAKSHMI, W/O.KOTESWARA RAO, AGED 38 YRS. OWNER OF OIL TANKER NO.AP-31-V/-1577 R/0.27-8- SRI RAMA NAGAR, NEAR ST.MARIES CONVENT RESPONDENTS 53 / GAJUWAKA RESPONDENTSVISAKHAPATNAM. ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt be pleased toaggrieved by the orders passed by way of may judgment and decree in MVOP NO 443 OF 2012 Dated 16-05-2014 the file of the chairman Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (judge, Family Court cum III Additional Sessions judge, vizianagram on lA NO: 1 OF 2016fMACMAMP 4519 OF 2016 . praying that in the Petition under Section 151 CPC circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased condone the delay of 364 days in representing the appeal. lA NO: 2 OF 2016fMACMAMP 4520 OF 2016 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased condone the delay of 376 days in filing the appeal. lA NO: 1 OF 2017fMACMAMP 716 OF 2017 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the Petition under Section 151 CPC circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support.of the petition, the High Court may be pleased stay the exeuction of decree and judgement passed in MVOP No.443/2012 dated 16.05.2014 on the file of the Chariman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal ( Judge, Family Court cum III Addtiional Sessions Judge) Vizianagaram pending the final disposal of the main appeal Counsel for the Appellant: 1.GUDI SRINIVASU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 354/2025 JUDGMENT: The present appeal is preferred against order dated 16.05.2014 in M.V.O.P.No.443 of 2012 on the file of Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Judge, Family court-cum-lll Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram. Parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the 2. Tribunal for the sake of convenience. Brief facts of the case are as follows; 3. This is a case of death. The claimants are wife and children of 4. the deceased. The claim came to be initiated under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/- on account of death of the deceased, who was cleaner of oil tanker. It is stated that on 28.02.2012, while the deceased is proceeding to Yanam with the oil tanker, the 1®* respondent-driver has dashed tipper from behind, while it was stationed on the road, resulting the deceased sustaining grievous injuries and succumbed on the spot. The claim has been laid against file driver, owner of oil tanker and insurer of the oil tanker. The 4 deceased was aged 48 years and he used to earn Rs. 10,000/- per month. The and 2"^^ respondents remained ex parte before the Tribunal. The respondent filed written statement denying the manner in which accident has occurred and that on account of rash and negligent act of the 1®* respondent-driver. It is also contended that tipper was stopped on the road without any signals or parking rights, therefore, it was the negligence of driver of the tipper causing the accident but not that of the driver of oil tanker hence, no liability could be fastened on the insurer of oil tanker. Further, he also stated that the deceased was not working as cleaner under the 2"^ respondent and that he was unauthorized traveler in goods vehicle, which is in violation of conditions of policy, even the age and income of deceased were denied. In order to prove the case of the 5. claimants, wife of the deceased was examined as PW-1 and eye witness to the accident as PW-2 and got marked Exs.M to A4. None were examined for the respondent however, Ex.BI- Insurance policy was marked. Considering the pleadings and evidence adduced by the 6. parties, the Tribunal has framed the following issues: 1. Whether the motor vehicle accident took place on 28.02.2012 at about 5.00 hours, near Gopal Baba Ashramam, Pithapuram, due to rash and negligent \ 5 driving of the oil tanker bearing No. AP 31 W 1577 by its driver resulting death of Rayavarapu Venkata Musalinaidu? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation? If so, what amount and from whom? 3. To what relief? 7. With respect to the negtigence, the Tribunal after considering the evidence of PW-1 & PW-2, in particular, Exs.A1-FIR, Ex.A2- post mortem report, Ex.A3-M.V.I. report and Ex.A4-charge sheet concluded that accident occurred on account of rash and negligent act of the driver of oil tanker. The Tribunal also rendered finding that though the 3*^^ respondent has taken stand that it vi/as the driver of the tipper who was negligent, in the absence of neither the driver of tipper nor the driver of oil tanker being examined to prove the same the stand taken • came to be rejected. While considering the contention of the 3^^ respondent that deceased was travelling as unauthorized passenger the same was also rejected, inasmuch as no evidence was adduced to substantiate the same. The age of deceased was considered as 48 years based on Ex.A2-post mortem report. Ultimately, the compensation came to be arrived after considering the income of the deceased as Rs.150/- per day and accordingly, awarded an amount of Rs.5,28,000/-. Assailing the same, the present appeal is filed. Heard Sri Gudi Srinivasu Rao, learned counsel for the 8. \ appellant. 6 Though notices have been served on the respondents, none 9. appeared for them. Learned counsel for the appellant mainly contended that since deceased claimed to be cleaner, the claim ought to have been initiated under the provisions of Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 but not under the provisions of A.P. Motor Vehicles Act, 1989. He further contended that the Tribunal committed illegality in not considering the plea of appellant that deceased was unauthorized passenger, therefore, no liability ought to have been fastened on insurance company, as the same amount to violation of policy 10. conditions. Perused the record and considered the rival submissions. 11: With regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the Tribunal and finding therein, in relation to determination of liability and compensation awarded, suffer from any perversity. 12. In so far as first contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the claimants ought to have invoked the provisions of Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, but not A.P.M.V. Act, 1989, the same goes contrary to the pledging of appellant before the Tribunal, inasmuch as a specific stand was taken there that deceased was not cleaner but was unauthorized passenger. Having 13. 7 taken such stand and even the said stand could not be proved by placing proper evidence, which ultimately came to be rejected by Tribunal, now cannot somersault and take completely different stand in the appeal. Neither the pleadings nor the evidence on record discloses that any such ground has ever been raised before the Tribunal, therefore, the appellant is precluded from taking such plea for first time in the present appeal. Hence, said plead does not merit consideration. Coming to the second ground urged, though the specific stand was taken before the Tribunal that deceased was unauthorized passenger, to prove the same no evidence was brought in. To substantiate that the deceased was cleaner, PW-1 spoke of the same besides Exs.A1-FIR, A4-charge sheet indicated that deceased was cleaner in the oil tanker. In order to prove that the accident has occurred, besides Ex.A1 to A4, PW-2- eye witness to the accident also came to be examined. The aforesaid evidence clearly establish that firstly, deceased was cleaner besides he died due to accident while the tanker proceeding to Yanam. The Tribunal on appreciation of evidence on record has rendered definite finding of aforesaid facts. The decree of proof required to be established in proceedings of this nature is only on touchstone of preponderance probability and not on beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, grounds urged by 14. V-.fc. 8 appellant have no basis and this Court do not find any merit warranting interference. Accordingly, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands dismissed. The appellant is directed to deposit the balance amount of compensation as determined and awarded by the Tribunal under the impugned order, after deducting the amount, if any, already paid, within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. On such deposit being made respondent Nos.1 to 3 /claimants are permitted to withdraw the amount in terms of the impugned order. In default, the respondents/claimants are at liberty to take steps for recovery in accordancewith law. No costs. 15. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- M SRINIVAS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Judge, Family Court- cum-lll Additional Sessions Judge), Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram District. (With records if any) 2. One CC to Sri Gudi Srinivasu, Advocate [OPUC] 3. The Section Officer, V.R Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati. 4. Two CD Copies BSV HIGH COURT DATED:06/08/2025 JUDGMENT + DECREE MACMA NO. 354 OF 2025 *( ^ 8 SEP 2025 X^^sQjfrent Sectjopx^^ ^•^iSPATCV^^ DISMISSING THE MAGMA WITHOUT COSTS