APHC011462562013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3367] MONDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 187/2025 Between: 1. M/S ORIENTAL INSURANEE COMPANY LTD,, REP.BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, CBO-1, D.NO. 29-36-34, MUSEUM ROAD, GOVERNORPET, VIJAYAWADA, VIJAYAWADA J.C.J.C. ...APPELLANT AND 1. SIDDABATHULA NAGAMALLESWARA RAO MALLESWARA RAO, S/O VENKATESWARA RAO, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, MASSON WORKER, R/O PAKSHULABEEDU,KUCHIPUDI, MOVVA MANDAL, AVANIGADDAJ.C.J.C. 2. S NAGARJUNA RAO, S/O BIKSHAM, HINDU, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, DRIVER OF TIPPER AP-37-U-9336, R/O AUTO DRIVING SCHOOL, VIJAYAWADA, VIJAYAWADA J.C.J.C. 3. ANISETTY RAGHU BABU, S/O NANDI BHASKARA RAO, HINDU, OWNER OF TIPPER AP-37-U-9336, R/O D.NO. 40-20-14/3, PAKEERUGUDERN, VIJAYAWADA, VIJAYAWADA J.C.J.C. ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying that the High Court may be pleased to allow the Appeal by setting aside the Orders dated 28-03-2013 made in O.P.No.401 of 2010 on the file of the Chairman, MACT-cum-VI Addl. District Judge (FTC), Krishna at Machilipatnam, IA NO: 1 OF 2013(MACMAMP 6582 OF 2013 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, 2 the High Court may be pleased to condone delay of 38 days in filing the appeal and to pass IA NO: 5 OF 2013(MACMAMP 47999 OF 2013 Petition 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 IA NO: 1 OF 2014(MACMAMP 54 OF 2014 Petition 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 operation of judgment and decree dated 28.03.2013 made in OP.No. 401/2010 on the file of the MACT cum VI Addl. District Judge (FTC), Krishna at Machilipatnam IA NO: 2 OF 2014(MACMAMP 3907 OF 2014 Petition 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 permit the petitioner/1st respondent to with draw the entire amount deposited by the respondent No. 1 appellant with interest which has been deposited in Compliance of order dt. 3-1-2014 in MACMA MP No. 54/2014 in MACMA SR No. 42798 of 2013 by vacating the above orders in the interest of Justice and to pass Counsel for the Appellant: N RAMA KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent(S): YALLABANDI RAMATIRTHA The Court made the following: 3 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District Judge (FTC), Krishna at Machilipatnam (hereinafter called as ‘the Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.401 of 2010 dated 28.03.2013. 2. The appellant is the insurer of the Tipper Lorry bearing No.AP 37 U 9336 (hereinafter referred to as “crime lorry”). The respondent No.1, who is son of one Siddabathula Venkata Lakshmi @ Venkatamma (hereinafter called as “the deceased”), is the claimant before the Tribunal. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 are the driver and owner of the said crime lorry 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 28.03.2010, when the deceased was in front of coffee hotel at Kuchipudi Center, the crime lorry driven by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner 4 at high speed, dashed the deceased and dragged her to a distance of five yards, resulted the deceased sustained severe bleeding injuries. Then she was shifted to Government Hospital at Machilipatnam, in turn, shifted to Government Hospital at Vijayawada. Later, she died on 20.04.2010 due to the injuries sustained in the accident. ii). By the date of accident, the deceased used to earn Rs.200/- per day by doing vegetable business and contributed the same for the welfare of the claimant. Being sole legal heir, he claimed compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- against the driver, owner, and insurer of the said crime lorry respectively. 5. The respondent No.3/insurer filed written statement denying the averments in the petition and pleaded that the crime lorry was not involved in the accident and that the compensation claimed by the claimant is excessive, thereby, prayed to dismiss the claim against this respondent. 5 6. The Tribunal settled the following issues for enquiry basing on the material: “1.Whether the deceased died due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No.AP 37 U 9336 in the motor accident dated 28.03.2010? 2.Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? and 3.To what relief?” 7. During enquiry, on behalf of the claimant, he was examined as P.W.1, Exs.A.1 to A.5 were exhibited. On behalf of the 3rd respondent, none were examined, however, Ex.B.1 policy was marked by consent. 8. On the material, the Tribunal, having come to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime lorry by the 1st respondent, held that claimant is entitled for the compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-, with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization against the respondent Nos.1 to 3, for the death of the deceased. 6 9. It is against the said award; the present appeal was preferred by the appellant/insurer of the crime lorry. 10. Heard Sri Gudi Srinivasu, learned counsel representing Sri N.Ramakrishna, learned counsel for the appellant/insurer and Sri Yallabandi Ramatirtha, learned counsel for the respondent No.1/claimant. 11. Now, the point that arise for determination is “whether the order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside, if so, to what extent?” 12. POINT: It is not in dispute about the manner of the incident, rash and negligent driving of the crime lorry by the 1st respondent, resulted severe injuries to the deceased as well Ex.B.1 policy issued in respect of the crime lorry is in force by the date of incident. It is also an undisputed fact that no appeal was preferred by the claimant against the findings of the Tribunal. 13. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/insurer is that there is no causal link between the accident and the deceased's death. The accident occurred on 7 28.03.2010, and although the deceased underwent treatment for approximately twelve days and was subsequently discharged from the hospital, she passed away on 20.04.2010 due to natural causes, not as a result of the injuries sustained in the accident. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have absolved the insurer from liability to pay any compensation to the claimant. 14. In view of the above said contention, this Court perused the material available on record. As stated supra, there is no dispute about the date of accident i.e., 28.03.2010, resulted severe injuries to the deceased. Admittedly, immediately after the incident the deceased was shifted to Government Hospital at Machilipatnam, where she underwent treatment for five (5) days, in turn, shifted to Government Hospital at Vijayawada, where she get treatment for seven (7) days. Subsequently, she was discharged from the Hospital with some advice to use medicines, but she was succumbed to injuries on 20.04.2010. On receipt of death intimation, police altered the section of law from Section 337 IPC to Section 304-A IPC and laid Ex.A.5 charge sheet. 8 15. Furthermore, on perusal of Ex.A.4 inquest report shows that the death of deceased caused due to the injuries sustained in the accident. As well, Ex.P.3 postmortem report also categorically shows that the cause of death of the deceased was due to multiple injuries over the body with excessive hemorrhage. Except bare suggestion to P.W.1, nothing placed on record to prove the contention of the insurer that the death of deceased was not due to the injuries sustained by the deceased in the accident. The Tribunal after thorough appreciation of the matter rightly came to the conclusion that the deceased died due to the injuries sustained in the accident, which requires no interference of this Court. 16. It is also contention of the appellant that the claimant is not the dependent on the deceased, thereby, he is not entitled for any compensation. But, to substantiate the said contention, nothing placed on record before the Tribunal. On the other hand, it is the specific case of the claimant that the deceased used to earn Rs.200/- per day by doing vegetable business and contributed the same for the welfare of the family. Thereby, the 9 contention of the learned counsel for the insurer that the claimant is not entitled for any compensation for the death of the deceased in the accident has no legs to stand. 17. It is needless to mention that the Tribunal, after considering the material on record and in the absence of substantial material on record to prove the actual income of the deceased, the Tribunal rightly taken the notional income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month as well rightly calculated and awarded the compensation to which the claimant is entitled, which is not in dispute. 18. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that no valid grounds urged by the appellant to meddle with the findings arrived by the Tribunal in all aspects, as there is no need to disturb the well-articulated order passed by the Tribunal, the appeal preferred by the appellant is liable for dismissal. Thus, the point is answered accordingly. 19. In the result, M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 10 Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, stand closed. _____________________ JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS Date: 07.07.2025 Krs 11 215 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS M.A.C.M.A.No.187 of 2025 ( J U D G M E N T ) DATE: 07.07.2025 Krs