APHC011545892012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3367] THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO:172 of 2025 Between: Kunchivada Soma Shekar ...APPELLANT AND Md Zia Rehman and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant: 1. MANGENA SREE RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. . 2. A JAYANTHI The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed against the order dated 20.08.2011 passed in M.V.O.P.No.666 of 2005 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Nellore (hereinafter called as „the Tribunal‟). 2. The appellant herein is the claimant before the Tribunal. The Respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein are the driver, owner and insurer of the lorry bearing No.AP 11 T 4299 (hereinafter called as “offending vehicle”). 3. The case of the claimant, in the petition before the Tribunal is that: i) On 01.08.2005, he along with his father and his father‟s brother was proceeding on a motorcycle from Naidupet to go to their village. When they reached near Pannepalli cross road on Naidupet-Srikalahasti road, the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP 11 T 4299 parked the lorry in the middle of the road negligently without observing traffic rules, obstructing the flow of traffic, due to which his father Bali Reddy could not observe the lorry and dashed it on its rear side, as a result, they all sustained grievous injuries. His father died on the spot and his father‟s brother died while undergoing treatment and he sustained grievous injuries. ii) Due to the said injuries, he claimed compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- against the Respondent Nos.1 and 2. 4. During the pendency of the O.P., the Respondent No.3 was added as per Orders in I.A.No.1922/2009, dated 14.05.2010 stating that the Respondent No.3 is the owner of the offending vehicle and the Respondent No.2 is the insurer and as such, the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 5. The Respondent No.2 filed counter disputing that the alleged motor accident due to the negligent parking of the offending vehicle on the middle of the road, without observing traffic rules, and also disputing the receipt of injuries due to the accident, treatment taken for the injuries, the expenditure incurred for the treatment, age, avocation and earning capacity of the injured and called upon the claimant to strictly prove of all the same. The Respondent No.2 also disputing valid insurance, valid driving license to the driver of the lorry as well as the rider of the motorcycle and called upon the claimant to strictly prove of the same and the offending lorry was stationed on the left side of the road after taking all precautionary measures and the motorcyclist drove the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner and lost control over the same as three persons were travelling on the motorcycle and dashed the offending vehicle. Therefore, there is no fault on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle and prays to dismiss the petition against the Respondent No.2. 6. The Tribunal settled the following issues for enquiry basing on the material: “1. Whether the injuries sustained by the injured-claimant in the motor accident was due to negligent act of the driver of the lorry due to wrong parking on the middle of the road without observing traffic rules or whether there is any contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle? 2. Whether the claimant is entitled for any compensation; if so, how much amount and against which of the respondents? And 3. To what relief?” 7. During enquiry, on behalf of the claimant, PWs.1 to 3 were examined and got marked Exs.A1 to A13. On behalf of the Respondent No.2, R.W.1 and R.W.2 were examined and got marked Ex.B1 and Ex.X1. 8. On the material, the Tribunal, having come to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver, held that claimant is entitled to compensation of Rs.2,93,600/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition, till the date of realization against the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 jointly and severally. The rest of the petition claim is dismissed. 9. It is against the said order; the present appeal was preferred by the appellant/claimant for enhancement. 10. Heard Sri Mangena Sree Rama Rao, learned counsel for the appellant/claimant and Smt. A. Jayanthi, learned counsel for the Respondent No.2/Insurance Company. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submits that the Tribunal has not granted the claim of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation and the petitioner lost an eye in the accident and there is no dispute regarding the occurrence of the accident or negligence. 12. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent No.2/insurer submits that the Tribunal, after appreciating the material on record, rightly calculated the compensation entitled by the claimants, which requires no interference, thereby, the present appeal has no merits and is liable for dismissal. 13. Now, the only point that arises for determination is “whether the award passed by the Tribunal is liable to set aside, if so, to what extent and to what relief?” 14. POINT: It is not in dispute about the injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident, involvement of the offending vehicle, rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent in causing the incident. It is also not in dispute that the insurer did not prefer any appeal against the Award passed by the Tribunal. 15. The only point which focused before this Court is that the Tribunal failed to consider though there is a disability and claim for Rs.5,00,000/-, but the Tribunal was granted Rs.2,93,600/- to the petitioner. Thereby, the appellant/claimant is entitled for enhancement. 16. On perusal of the record as well in the order of the Tribunal that the petitioner claimed that he is a driver but no satisfactory evidence has been placed that he was a driver worked anywhere and lost his employment as a driver. The driving license was not filed by him before the Tribunal. 17. In view of the above discussion, clearly indicates that though the petitioner/claimant claimed that he is a driver no satisfactory evidence has been placed on record. 18. Besides, as per the evidence of PW.2, who is the Doctor, he did not state that the injured impaired the sight of one eye; another eye is in normal condition and he did not specify the percentage of disability. The Tribunal on verification of Workmen‟s Compensation Act, the loss of one eye, without complications, the other being normal, the percentage of loss of earning functional disability has taken as 40% and if any complications or disfigurement of eye-ball, the functional disability comes to 30% alone. So that, the Tribunal has taken that since there is no disfigurement of eye-ball on the basis of evidence of PW.2 (Doctor) treated the PW.1. 19. In the same way, the petitioner was examined by PW.3 stated that there is no satisfactory evidence that the occupation of the petitioner is an agriculture. Similarly, the petitioner did not place any material that he lost his driver job. 20. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the loss of earnings capacity estimated by taking into consideration as 30% disability alone and no additional material has been placed on record to reconsider it. 21. In these circumstances, this Court is of the view that there are no merits to enhance the compensation and the Award passed by the Tribunal does not warrant interference. Thus, this point is answered accordingly. 22. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Interim order granted earlier, if any, shall stand vacated. As a sequel, any pending miscellaneous petitions shall stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS Date: 26.06.2025 KNN