APHC011552162012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI SMB TUESDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRI NIVAS MACMA NO: 132 & 133 OF 2025 MACMA NO: 132 OF 2025 Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, being aggrieved by the decree and judgment Dtd.29-7-2011, passed in O.P.No.786 of 2008 on the file of M.A.C.T.-cum- Principal District Judge Kadapa Between: National Insurance Company Ltd, Punjab, Office, Subhash Road, Anantapur represented by its Divisional ...Appellant AND 1. Avulakunta Subbamma, W/o. Late Ramaiah Hindu, age 26 years 2. Aulakunta Narasamma, W/o. Venkataiah Hindu, House wife, 48 years 3. Auviakunta Venkataiah,, Hindu, aged 53 year, S/o. Chennaiah 4. Aulakunta Vishnavi, D/o. Late Ramaiah aged 9 years. Minor,represented by her mother and natural guardian, the 1st respondent Avulakunta Subbamma (All are R/o. Thummalakonda Village, Chitvel Mandal, Kadapa district.) M 5. Taram Singh, S/o. Gurubachan Singh, Hindu, Owner of Lorry bearing NO. . 7t HR64A1207 R/o. Thaiah Neeval Village, and Post, Guhia Taluk Kaiha Dist, '"S^s^ryana State. Mani Manaiah, Hindu, Owner of Auto, AP. 04-U-9232 having died rep . by his Legal Heir, and L R Avulakunta Gangaiah S/o. Venkatasubbaiah, Hindu, aged about 53 years, R/o. Thummakonda Village, Chitvelk Mandal, Kadapa Dist. 7. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd, Hyderabad, rep. by its Local Authorised Legal Officer, Hyderabad (A.P) Branch Office, Sagar Plaza, 4th Floor, Abids ...Respondents lA NO: 2 OF 2012(MACMAMP 356 OF 2012 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 stay all further proceedings in purusance of the award dated 29-7-2011 in MVOP.No. 786 of 2008 of the MACT Cum PrI. District Judge, Kadapa. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. V VEERABHADRA CHARY Counsel for the Respondent Nos 1 to 4 : SRI. K VENUGOPAL REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.7 : SRI. P SATYA MANJULA APHC011552182012 ■ :!i K MACMA NO: 133 OF 2025 Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, aggrieved by the decree and judgment Dtd.29-7-2011, passed in O.P.No.788 of 2008 on the file of M.A.C.T.-cum- Principaf District Judge, Kadapa Between: National Insurance Company Ltd, Punjab, Office, Subhash Road, Anantapur represented by its Divisional ...Appellant AND 1. Derangula Venkata Subbamma, W/o. Late Sreenivasulu years,.. Hindu, aged 26 2. Derangula Gangamma, W/o. Venkatesu, years. Hindu, House wife, aged 53 3. Derangula Venkatesu, S/o. Subbaiah, aged 55 years. (All are R/o. Thummakonda Vaddepalli Village district) 4. Taram Singh, S/o. Gurubachan Singh, Hindu, Owner of Loriy bearing NO. HR 64 A 1207 R/o. Thaiah Neeval Village, and Post, Guhia Taluk Kaiha Dist, Haryana State. Chitvel Mandal Kadapa 5. A MANI, @ Manaiah , Hindu, Owner of Auto Bl, AP. 04-U-9232 having died rep by by his Legal Heir, and L R Avulakunta Gangaiah S/o. Venkatasubbaiah, Hindu, aged about 53 years, R/o. Thummakonda Village, Chitvelk Mandal, Kadapa Dist. 6. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd, Hyderabad, rep. by its Local Authorised Legal Officer, Hyderabad (A.P) (R-2 is dismissed for default Vide Court Order 26/03/2015) Branch Office, Sagar Plaza, 4th Floor, Abids, ...Respondents w LA NO: 2 OF 2012(MACMAMP 341 OF 2012 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 stay all further proceedings in pursuance of the award dated 29-7-2011 in MVOP.No. 988 of 2008 of the MACT cum PrI. District Judge, Kadapa. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. V VEERABHADRA CHARY Counsel for the Respondent No.1 & 3 : SRI. K VENUGOPAL REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.7 : SRI. P SATYA MANJULA The Court made the following order: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS M.A.C.M.A.Nos.132 & 133 of 2025 COMMON JUDGMENT; These appeals are directed against the common order of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- Principal District Judge at Kadapa (hereinafter called as The M.V.O.P.Nos.786 and 788 of 2008 dated Tribunal’) in 29.07.2011. Since these appeals arise out of same accident and as the material facts are common, the same are being disposed of by this common judgment. Both the M.A.C.M.AS. are preferred by the insurer of the Lorry bearing No.HR 64A 1207 (hereinafter referred to “crime lorry”). The respondent Nos.l to 4 in M.A.C.M.A.No.l32 of 2025 are the wife, parents and daughter of one Avulakunta Ramaiah (hereinafter called as “deceased No.l”). The respondent No.5 is the owner of the said crime lorry. The respondent Nos.6 and 7 are the owner and insurer of the Auto bearing No.AP 04 U 9232 (hereinafter referred to as “crime auto”) respectively. 4. The respondent Nos.l to 3 in M.A.C.M.A.No.l33 of 2025 the wife and parents of one D.Sreenivasulu (hereinafter called as “deceased No.2”). 2. 3. as are 2 For the sake of convenienee, the parties hereinafter 5. referred to as they arrayed before the tribunal. The case of the claimants, in the petitions before the 6. Tribunal in both M.V.O.Ps. is that: i). On 26.07.2007 at about 09.30 a.m., while the deceased Nos.l and 2 proceeding in the crime auto along with other coolies, when the crime auto trying to overtake one tipper lorry, which was proceeding ahead near Mathamma Temple, the crime lorry came in opposite direction, dashed the said auto and dragged the said auto, resulted death of inmates in the auto. ii). They claimed compensation of Rs.5,10,000/- respectively against the respective owners and insurers of the crime auto and crime lorry. The respondent No.2/insurer of the crime lorry filed 7. counter in both the matters before the Tribunal denying the averments in the petition and pleaded that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime \ auto, but police registered the case against driver of the crime r 3 loriy and filed charge sheet in collusion with the inmates of the crime auto; that the compensation claimed by the claimant i excessive, thereby, prayed to dismiss the IS claim against this respondent. 8. The respondent No.4/insurer of the crime loriy filed written statement m both the matters before the Tribunal denying the averments in the petition and pleaded that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving crime lorry, but not driver of the cri of the - crime auto; that the seating is four in all, including driver, but by passengers were travelling in capacity of the crime auto the date of incident thirteen (13) the auto; that the compensation claimed by the claimants i excessive, thereby, prayed to dismiss the claim IS against this respondent. 9. The Tribunal settled the following issues for basing on the material in both the petitions: “1. Whether the accident enquiry was on account of the rash and negligent driving of the drivers of the vehicles bearing No.HR 64A 1207 (loriy) and AP04 U 9232 (Auto) and c 4 whether the respondents 1 to 4 are jointly and severally liable to answer the claim? 2.If so, what is the quantum of compensation that the petitioners 1 to 4 are entitled to and who are liable to pay the compensation? and 3.To what relief?” 10. During enquiry, in M.V.O.P.No.786 of 2008, on behalf of the claimants, PWs.l to 3 were examined and Exs.A. 1 to A.8 were exhibited. On behalf of the respondent No.4/insurer of the crime auto, R.Ws.l and 2 were examined and Exs.B.l, X. 1 to X.3 were marked. None were examined and no documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of respondent No.2/insurer of the crime lorry. 11. During enquiry, in M.V.O.P.No.788 of 2008, on behalf of the claimants, PWs.l to 3 were examined and Exs.A. 1 to A.8 were exhibited. On behalf of the respondent No.4/insurer of the crime auto, R.Ws.l to 3 were examined and Exs.B.l, X. 1 to X.4 were marked. None were examined and no documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of respondent No.2/insurer of the crime lorry. 5 12. On the material, the Tribunal, having concluded that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the both the vehicles i.e., crime lorry as well crime auto by its respective drivers at 50-50 ratio, held that the claimants entitled are for the compensation of Rs.5,06,000/- Rs.4,52,000/- respectively, with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization against the respondent Nos.l to 4, for the death of the deceased Nos.l & 2. It is against the said orders; these appeals are preferred by the insurer of the crime lorry. Heard Sri V.Veerabhadra Chary, learned counsel for the appellant/insurer of the crime lorry and Sri K.Venugopal Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants. and 13. 14. 15. It is the only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that the accident occurred was only due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime auto, but not driver of the crime lorry; that by the date of incident the crime auto was overloaded with more than twelve (12) passengers, that itself is an act of negligence, thereby, the Tribunal erred in fastening the % 6 liability on the appellant by came to conclusion that both the vehicles are responsible for the accident, as such, prays to consider the present appeals. 16. Per learned contra. counsel for the respondents/claimants submits that the Tribunal after elaborate appreciation of the material placed on record, rightly came to the conclusion that the ineident was occurred due to negligence of drivers of both the vehicles, which requires no interference of this Court; that the said view was upheld by this Court in National Insurance Company Limited Kurrapothula Subbarayudu and others^, which is also arisen out of the same incident, thereby, prays to dismiss the present appeals. V. In reply to the above, the learned counsel for the appellant/insurer of the crime lorry vehemently contended that the finding arrived by the Single Judge of another Bench of this Court is not bound to follow by this Court and another conclusion basing on the facts and material available 17. can arrive t^M.A.C.M.A.No.l092 of 2014 decided on 13.06.2023 7 on records In support of the said contentions, he relied upon a pronouncement of Honhle Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. GurnamKaur^. 18. Now, the point that arises for determination is whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of both the vehicles or only due to the negligence of the driver of the crime auto? 19. POINT: It is not in dispute about the death of the deceased Nos.l and 2 in the accident, involvement of the crime lorry as well crime auto and that by the date of incident, the crime lorry as well crime auto validly insured with the 2^^ respondent and 4^^ respondent respectively. It is also a fact that the claimants well insurer of the crime auto did not prefer any appeal against the findings of the Tribunal. 20. As per the testimony of the witnesses examined before the Tribunal, it is an admitted fact that, by the time of incident around sixteen (16) persons were travelling in the auto. as 2(1989) 1 see 101 \ 8 21. Furthermore, the testimony of P.W.2 categorically shows that the accident occurred while the auto was overtaking the tipper proceeding in up gradient position, the lorry opposite direction in down gradient dashed the auto and after hitting the auto dragged the same to a distance of 100 feet and the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of both the vehicles. came m 22. On perusal of the Exs.A.l, A.3 and A.5 F.I.R., Inquest Report as well Charge Sheet respectively shows that while the auto proceeding towards upgradient and overtaking a tipper, the crime lorry came in opposite direction on the left side dashed the said auto. It is admitted fact that after completion of investigation charge sheet was laid down by the police against the driver of the crime lorry only. However, it is also an admitted fact borne out from the record that by the itme of incident, the auto was overloaded and proceeding in up gradient direction and tried to overtake the tipper lorry, thereby, it cannot be possible for the auto to 1 propeed at high speed. On the other hand, the lorry which is a 23. 1 9 sixteen (16) wheel heavy vehicle proceeding in a down gradient hit the auto and dragged the same to a distance of 100 feet, resulted the incident. Thereby, the facts and circumstances clearly established the negligent act committed by both the drivers of the respective vehicles in causing the incident. To deny the negligence on the part of the driver of the 24. crime lorry, the learned counsel for the appellant/insurer of the lorry relied upon a pronouncement of Hon’hie Supreme Court in Nishan Singh v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited^, wherein it was held that “In a case such as the present one, when the Maruti car was following the truck and no fault can be attributed to the trick driver, the blame must rest on the driver of the Maruti car for having driven his vehicle rashly and negligently. 25. The facts and manner of the incident is completely different from the present case on hand, because, it cannot be expected from a heavy sixteen (16) wheel lorry coming in down gradient, when there is a curve, hit the auto came in opposite 3 2018(6) see 765 10 direction and dragged the same to a distance of 100 feet, which reflects the negligence on the part of the driver of the loriy well. Thereby, the above decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant is of no use. as In view of the above, this Court has no hesitation to say that the Tribunal after thorough appreciation of the material 26. on record rightly came to the conclusion that both the drivers are equally responsible in contributing their negligence and rashness, which resulted the incident. Furthermore, this Court does not dispute the legal principle laid down by the HonTole Supreme Court in the 27. Gurnam Kaur case (as cited above). However, in the present case, the facts and circumstances clearly establish the negligence of both drivers in causing the incident. Therefore, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the findings of the Tribunal. 28. Now, coming to the just compensation, the Tribunal by considering the material on record rightly calculated and 1 11 awarded compensation entitled by the claimants, which is not m dispute, thereby, which does not require any interference. 29. Having regard to the above discussion, there are reasons warrant interference of this Court recorded by the Tribunal and to disturb the no valid to the findings well-articulated order, as such, the appeals preferred by the insurer is liable for dismissal. 30. In the result, both the M.A.C.M.A.Nos.l32 2025 are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, stand closed. and 133 of Sd/- M PRABHAKAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR \ //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Cum Tribunal-cum- Principal District Judge Kadapa. (with records) 2. OneCCto Sri. VVeerabhadra Chary Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri. K Venugopal Reddy Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri. P Satya Manjula Advocate [OPUC] 5. The V.R Section, Section Officer, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. 6. Two CD Copies PR vna HIGH COURT DATED:08/07/2025 JUDGMENT + DECREE MACMA NOS. 132 & 133 OF 2025 ol ;a 1 1 SEP 2025 rrentSectijiiXi^ mj ji . . , Co' DISMISSING THE APPEAL’S WITHOUT COSTS APHC011552162012 IN THE HIGH€OURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI TUESDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS MAGMA NO: 132 OF 2025 Between: National Insurance Company Ltd, Punjab, represented by its Divisional Office, Subhash Road, Anantapur ...Appellant AND 1. Avulakunta Subbamma, W/o. Late Ramaiah Hindu, age 26 years. 2. Aulakunta Narasamma, W/o. Venkataiah Hindu, House wife, 48 years 3. Auviakunta Venkataiah,, Hindu, aged 53 year, S/o. Chennaiah 4. Aulakunta Vishnavi, D/o. Late Ramaiah Minor,represented by her mother respondent Avulakunta Subbamma aged 9 years, and natural guardian, the 1st (All are R/o. Thummalakonda Village, Chitvel Mandal, Kadapa district.) 5. Taram Singh, S/o. Gurubachan Singh, Hindu, Owner of Lorry bearing NO. HR64A1207 R/o. Thafah Neeval Village, and Post, Guhia Taluk Kaiha Dist, Haryana State. / 6. A Mani Manaiah, Hindu, Owner of Auto, AP. 04-U-9232 having died rep by his Legal Heir, and L R Venkatasubbaiah, Hindu, aged about 53 years, R/o. Thummakonda Village, Chitvelk Mandal, Kadapa Dist. Avulakunta Gangaiah S/o. 7. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd, Hyderabad, rep. by its Local ’ Authorised Legal Officer, Branch Office, Sagar Plaza, 4th Floor, Abids, Hyderabad (A.P) ...Respondents Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, being aggrieved by the decree and judgment Dtd.29-7-2011, passed in O.P.No.786 of 2008 on the file of M.A.C.T.-cum- Principal District Judge Kadapa. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the trial Court and the material papers in the Suit and upon hearing the arguments of Sri. V Veerabhadra Chary Advocate, on behalf of the Appellant and Sri. K Venugopal Reddy for Respondent. No.1 to 4 and Sri. P Satya Manjula for the respondent No.7. This Court Doth Order and Decree as follows:- 1. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and is hereby dismissed 2. That there shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- M PRABHAKAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Cum Tribunal-cum- Principal District Judge Kadapa. 2. Two CD Copies PR HIGH COURT DATED:08/07/2025 DECREE MACMA N0.132 OF 2025 5( 11 SEP m 'OX NK>v o 09 • DISMISSING THE APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS APHC011552162012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI SMB TUESDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS MACMA NO: 133 OF 2025 Between: National Insurance Company Ltd, Punjab Office, Subhash Road, Anantapur represented by its Divisional ...Appellant AND 1. Derangula Venkata Subbamma, W/o. Late Sreenivasulu Hindu, aged 26 years, 2. Derangula Gangamma, W/o. Venkatesu, Hindu. House wife, aged 53 years, 3. Derangula Venkatesu, S/o. Subbaiah, aged 55 years. (All are R/o. Thummakonda Vaddepalli Village Chitvel Mandal Kadapa district) 4. Taram Singh, S/o. Gurubachan Singh, Hindu, Owner of Loriy bearing NO. HR 64 A 1207 R/o. Thaiah Neeval Village, and Post, Guhia Taluk Kaiha Dist, Haryana State. 5. A MANI, @ Manaiah , Hindu, Owner of Auto Bl, AP. 04-U-9232 having died rep by by his Legal Heir, and L R Avulakunta Gangaiah S/o. Venkatasubbaiah, Hindu, aged about 53 years, R/o. Thummakonda Village, Chitvelk Mandal, Kadapa Dist. 6. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd, Hyderabad, rep. by its Local Authorised Legal Officer, Branch Office, Sagar Plaza, 4th Floor, Abids, Hyderabad (A.P) (R-2 is dismissed for default Vide Court Order 26/03/2015) ...Respondents Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, aggrieved by the decree and judgment Dtd.29-7-2011, passed in O.P.No.788 of 2008 on the file of M.A.C.T.-cum-Principal District Judge, Kadapa This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the trial Court and the material papers in the Suit and upon hearing the arguments of Sri. V Veerabhadra Chary Advocate, on behalf of the Appellant and Sri. K Venugopal Reddy for Respondent. No.1 &3 and Sri. P Satya Manjula for the respondent No.7. This Court Doth Order and Decree as follows:- 1. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and is hereby dismissed 2. That there shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- M PRABHAKAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Cum Tribunal-cum- Principal District Judge Kadapa. (with records) 2. Two CD Copies PR vna HIGH COURT DATED:08/07/2025 DECREE MACMA NO. 133 OF 2025 SSj ov m| 1 1 SEP 2025 DISMISSING THE APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS