IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 42 OF 2022 Between: United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Regional Office: T.P.Hub, Posnett Bhavan, Tilak Road, Hyderabad Rep by its Manager ...Appellant/R-1 AND 1. Varadha Ravi Bhaskar, S/o V. Subbaiah @ Subbanna, 43 Yrs., Worker R/o Door No.1/29, Utukuru C.K.Dinne Mandal, Kadapa Dist. ...Respondent/Claimant 2. S.A.Khader Basha, S/o S.Mohd.Haneef, Owner of the vehicle 14-287A, Varaha Salemma Gudi Veedhi Madakasira, Ananthapur Dist. ...Respondent/R-2 Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, aggrieved by the order dt.14.07.2016 in M.V.O.P.No.259 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Kadapa. Appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the Memorandum of Appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the lower Court and the material evidence on record and upon hearing the arguments of Smt. B Naga Sailakshmi, Advocate for the Appellant and Sri D Kasim Saheb, for the' Respondents No.1, and none appeared for other respondent. This Court doth order and decree as follows: 1. That the Appeal is be and hereby Dismissed. 2. That there shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- K J RAJA BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Kadapa, YSR Kadapa District. 2. Three CD Copies SAM vna HIGH COURT DATED:07/03/2025 DECREE MACIVIA.No.42 of 2022 * 2 0 MAR 2025 m ^ . Current Section . ^ DISMISSING THE M.A.C.M.A WITHOUT COSTS I IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 42 OF 2022 Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, aggrieved by the order dt.14.07.2016 in M.V.O.P.No.259 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Kadapa. Between: United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Regional Office: T.P.Hub, Posnett Bhavan, Tilak Road, Hyderabad Rep by its Manager ...Appellant/R-1 AND 1. Varadha Ravi Bhaskar, S/o V. Subbaiah @ Subbanna, 43 Yrs., Worker R/o Door No.1/29, Utukuru C.K.Dinne Mandal, Kadapa Dist. ...Respondent/Claimant 2. S.A.Khader Basha, S/o S.Mohd.Haneef, Owner of the vehicle 14-287A, Varaha Salemma Gudi Veedhi Madakasira, Ananthapur Dist. ...Respondent/R-2 Counsel for the Appellant: SMT. B NAGA SAILAKSHMI Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI D KASIM SAHEB Counsel for other Respondent; None Appeared The Court made the following: JUDGMENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS M.A.C.M.A.No.42 of 2022 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge at Kadapa (hereinafter called as ‘the Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.259 of 2013 dated 14.07.2016. 2. The appellant is the insurer of the Tata Spacio Vehicle bearing No.AP 02 H 9360 (hereinafter referred to as crime vehicle”). The respondent No.l is the claimant before the Tribunal and respondent No.2 is the owner of the said 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 29.05.2012 at about 08.00 p.m., while the claimant was proceeding in the crime vehicle, when he reached to first turning, the driver of the said vehicle drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and lost control over the same, resulted the incident and he sustained severe injuries. 2 ii). He claimed compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- against the insurer and owner of the crime vehicle. The respondent No. 1/insurer filed written statement denying the averments in the petition and pleaded that the medical bills produced by the claimant is fabricated one and not supported by any prescriptions; that the petitioner was taken treatment in Government Hospital at free of cost, thereby, prayed to dismiss the petition. The Tribunal settled the following issues for basing on the material; “1.Whether the sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of TATA Spacio Gold Vehicle bearing No.AP 02 H 9360? 2.Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so to what amount and from whom? and 3.To what relief?” During enquiry, on behalf of the claimant, P.Ws.l to 3 were examined, Exs.A.l to A.7 were exhibited. On behalf of the respondent No.l, R.W. 1 was examined and Ex.B.l was marked. 5. 6. enquiry 7. 8. On the material, the Tribunal, having come to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash negligent driving of the crime vehicle by its driver, held that claimant is entitled for the compensation of Rs. 1,50,500/-, with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization against the respondents, for the injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident. 9. It is against the said award; the present appeal preferred by the appellant/insurer. Heard Smt.B.Naga Sai Lakshmi, learned counsel for the appellant/insurer and Sri D.Kasim Saheb, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 / claimant. 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?” was 10. 11. 12. POINT: It is not in dispute about the injuries sustained by the claimant in the incident, involvement of the crime vehicle, rash, and negligent driving of its driver in causing the incident. It is 4 also not in dispute that no appeal was preferred by the claimant crime vehicle against the findings of the and owner of the Tribunal. 13. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Tribunal erred in calculating the compensation entitled by the claimant and huge amount of compensation was awarded without considering the material record. on 14. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1/claimant submits that the Tribunal after thorough consideration of the matter rightly calculated the compensation entitled by the claimant and there are no valid grounds urged by the appellant to meddle with the order passed by the Tribunal. In view of the above contention, this Court perused the material placed on record. To prove the injuries and treatment undergone by him, the claimant relied upon the testimony of P.W.2 doctor coupled with Exs.A.2, A.4 to A.7. The testimony of P.W.2 coupled with Ex.A.2 categorically show that the claimant 15. 5 sustained two grievous injuries on the right forearm and back of the neck and as per the discharge summary the patient was treated for Right Radious and fracture C5 spine and C5-C6 subluxation. Exs.A.2, A.4 and A.7 are issued by RIMS at Kadapa. Nothing was elicited during cross examination to disbelieve the testimony of P.W.2 and EXs.A.2, A.7 and A.7 By considering the above facts, the Tribunal rightly granted an amount of Rs.60,000/- for two grievous injuries and Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering. On consideration of 16. nature of injuries and treatment taken by the claimant, the Tribunal rightly awarded an amount of Rs.20,000/- towards loss of amenities, Rs.5,000/- towards medicines, Rs.5,000/- towards extra nourishment and Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of earnings. Thereby, this Court is of the considered opinion that no valid grounds urged by the appellant to interfere with the said calculations made by the Tribunal, 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. 6 17. In the result, M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, stand closed. Sd/- K J RAJA BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR fr //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Kadapa. YSR Kadapa District. 2. One CC to Smt. B Naga Sailakshmi Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri D Kasim Saheb Advocate [OPUC] 4. The Section Officer, V.R Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. 5. Three CD Copies SAM vna HIGH COURT DATED:07/03/2025 JUDGMENT + DECREE MACMA.No.42 of 2022 X 2 0 MAR 2025 ml a^ . Current section ^ DISMISSING THE M.A.C.M.A WITHOUT COSTS