1 APHC010788062018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3505] FRIDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1104/2019 Between: 1.THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, ANANTHAPUR ...APPELLANT AND 1.CHITTIBOYINA VIJAYA LAKSHMI DIED PER LRS 3 AND 4, D/O. PULLAIAH, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, HINDU, AGRICULTURAL COOLIE, R/O. YELLAMPALLI VILLAGE, MYDUKUR MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT 2.SHAIK JAMEER, S/o.GHOUSE MOHIDDIN, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, MUSLIM, OWNER OF THE MINI LORRY BEARIG NO. AP 02-T-5589, R/O. 7-114, DASTHAGIRI JANDA STREET, KADAPA CITY AND KADAPA DISTRICT. 3.CHITTIBOINA PULLAIAH S/O C PEDDAYELLAIAH, AGED 60 YEARS, OCC HEAD MASTER, R/O. H.NO. 10 123 10 9,VIJAYA HALL, VANIPENTA ROAD, S MYDUKUR, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. 4.CHITTIBOINA GANGAMMA W/O C PULLAIAH, AGED 57 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE, R/O. H.NO. 10 123 10 9,VIJAYA HALL, VANIPENTA ROAD, S MYDUKUR, YSR 2 KADAPA DISTRICT. R3 AND R4 ARE BROUGHT ON RECORD AS LRS OF THE DECEASED R1 AMENDED AS PER C.O.DT.07.03.2023 IN IA.NO.1/2022,IA.NO.2/2022 AND IA.NO.3/2022. ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be pleased toAggrieved by the decree and Judgment passed in M.V.O.P. No. 113 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Cum- IInd Additional District Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur dated 29.03. 2018 the appellant begs to prefer this Memorandum of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal IA NO: 1 OF 2019 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 pleased to condone the delay of 349 days in representing the MACMA. SR. 29445 of 2019 and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2019 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 pleased to condone the delay of 43 days in filing the above appeal and may pass IA NO: 3 OF 2019 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 pleased to stay all further proceedings in O.P.No.113 of 2011 Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Judge - cum - II Additional District Judge Kadapa at Proddatur pending disposal of the above appeal and may pass 3 IA NO: 1 OF 2022 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 Pleased to condone the delay of 1309 days in filing the present Lrs petition in MACMA 1104/2019 IA NO: 2 OF 2022 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 pleased to permit the petitioners/ proposed respondents 2 to 3 to come on record as LRs of deceased 1st respondent viz Chittiboyina Vijaya Laksmi, who is the original petitioner/ claimant in M.A.C.M.A.No.1104 of 2019, to be impleaded the proposed respondents as respondents 3 and 4 in the present M.A.C.M.A.No.1104 of 2019. IA NO: 3 OF 2022 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 pleased to set aside the abatement caused due to the death of Sole Claimant/1st respondent in M.A.C.M.A.No.1104 of 2019. Counsel for the Appellant: 1.S A V RATNAM Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. 2. CHALLA SIVASANKAR 4 * THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR +MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1104 OF 2019 % 31.10.2025 # The National Insurance Company Ltd., ……Petitioner And: $ Chittiboyina Vijaya Lakshmi died per LRs 3 and others ….Respondents !Counsel for the Petitioner : S A V RATNAM ^Counsel for the respondents : CHALLA SIVASANKAR <Gist: >Head Note: ? Cases referred: 5 HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH * * * * MACMA No.1104 OF 2019 DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 31.10.2025 SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR 1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgments? Yes 2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law Reporters/Journals Yes 3. Whether Your Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Judgment? Yes _________________ T.C.D. SEKHAR, J 6 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR MACMA No.1104 OF 2019 The Court made the following Judgment: 1. The present appeal is filed by the Insurance Company aggrieved by order dated 29.03.2018 passed in MVOP No.113 of 2018, on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Judge-cum-II Additional District Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur. 2. The appellant is the Insurance Company, the 1st respondent is the claimant, 2nd respondent is owner of the offending vehicle. During the pendency of the appeal the 1st respondent died and her legal heirs were brought on record as respondent Nos.3 & 4. 3. For the sake of convenience the parties will be referred to as the claimant and respondents as they were referred before the Tribunal. 4. The claimant filed claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act r/w. Rule 475/476 of Motor Vehicle Rules claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. The Tribunal after hearing the case and having examined the oral and documentary evidence put forth on either side, awarded compensation of 7 Rs.11,86,000/- payable jointly and severally by the respondents with proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Aggrieved by the said order, the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company filed the present appeal. The facts of the case is as follows:- 5. It is the case of the claimant that on 17.12.2010 at about 11:45 pm herself and her junior paternal uncle were waiting for conveyance near KC Canal at Dornipadu Village, a Lorry bearing No.AP02T 5589 belonging to the 1st respondent driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner with high speed, without blowing horn, dashed her from behind, as a result of which she sustained fracture to the spinal cord. Immediately she was shifted to Government Hospital, Allagadda for treatment, later she was shifted to Yashodha Hospital, Hyderabad for better treatment. Thereafter, on 03.01.2011, the Junior paternal uncle of the claimant lodged a report before Dornipadu Police Station and the same was registered as Crime No.1 of 2011 and it was investigated into and a charge sheet was filed, which was marked as Ex.A3. It is specifically pleaded that the claimant sustained injury of fracture dissection T11-12 paraplegia (fracture of spinal 8 cord) and other parts of the body. She was treated as in-patient in Yashodha Hospital, Hyderabad upto 26.12.2010. The doctor conducted surgery to the spinal cord, advised her to take physiotherapy and accordingly she took treatment of physiotherapy from 03.01.2011 to 16.05.2011 and incurred an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- towards treatment. Further, she also spent an amount of Rs.30,000/- towards extra nourishments and an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards transport charges etc. 6. The claim was resisted by the 1st respondent (owner of the vehicle) stating that the vehicle is insured with the 2nd respondent/appellant and the driver is having valid license at the time of accident. 7. The appellant/Insurance Company filed counter affidavit stating that the burden is on the claimant/1st respondent to prove that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of mini Lorry bearing Registration No.AP02T5589 by adducing oral and documentary evidence. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that there was a delay of 17 days in registering the crime against the driver of the vehicle and it is alleged that the claimant colluded with the 1st respondent and got registered FIR against the driver of the offending vehicle. 9 8. The appellant/2nd respondent also filed additional counter affidavit stating that the claimant was travelling as gratuitous passenger along with her relatives and the lorry turned turtle thereby the claimant and others received injuries. It is further contended that, as the 1st respondent violated the terms and conditions of the policy, the appellant/Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation. 9. The Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence put forth by the parties, by impugned order awarded an amount of Rs.11,86,583/- as compensation under various heads to the claimant. 10. Heard counsel for the appellant and the counsel for respondent Nos.1, 3 & 4. None appeared for respondent No.2. 11. The counsel for the appellant would contend that there is a delay of 17 days in registering the Crime against the driver of the offending vehicle and an inference can be drawn that the claimant/1st respondent has colluded with the 2nd respondent (owner of the vehicle) so as to fasten the liability on the appellant Insurance Company. It is further contended that the delay in registering the crime is fatal to the case on hand. 10 12. In this connection, it is pertinent to mention that the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “Ravi Vs. Bhadrinarayan and others”1 has considered the delay in lodging the FIR and held at paragraphs 17 to 19 as under: “17. It is well settled that delay in lodging the FIR cannot be a ground to doubt the claimant’s case. Knowing the Indian conditions as they are, we cannot expect a common man to first rush to the police station immediately after an accident. Human nature and family responsibilities occupy the mind of kith and kin to such an extent that they give more importance to get the victim treated rather than to rush to the police station. Under such circumstances, they are not expected to act mechanically with promptitude in lodging the FIR with the police. Delay in lodging the FIR thus, cannot be the ground to deny justice to the victim. 18. In case of delay, the courts are required to examine the evidence with a closer scrutiny and in doing so the contents of the FIR should also be scrutinized more carefully. If the court finds that there is no indication of fabrication or it has not been concocted or engineered to implicate innocent persons then, even if there is a delay in lodging the FIR, the claim case cannot be dismissed merely on that ground. The purpose of lodging the FIR in such type of cases is primarily to intimate the police to initiate investigation of criminal offences. 19. Lodging of FIR certainly proves the factum of accident so that the victim is able to lodge a case for compensation but delay in doing so cannot be the main ground for rejecting the claim petition. In other words, although lodging of FIR is vital in deciding motor accident claim cases, delay in lodging the same should not be treated as fatal for such proceedings, if claimant has been able to demonstrate satisfactory and cogent reasons for it. There could be a variety of reasons in genuine cases for delayed lodgment of FIR. Unless kith and kin of the victim are able to regain a certain level of tranquility of mind and are composed to lodge it, even if, there is delay, the same deserves to be condoned. In such circumstances, the authenticity of the 1 (2011) 4 SCC 693 11 FIR assumes much more significance than delay in lodging thereof supported by cogent reasons.” 13. In the case on hand, it is not in dispute that after the accident was occurred, the claimant was taking treatment in Yashodha Hospital, Hyderabad till 26.12.2010 and to prove the same, the claimant also filed discharge summary, which is marked as Ex.A9. As the claimant received severe injury to her spinal cord apart from other injuries, any prudent man would see that the injured is taken to hospital for treatment rather than giving a complaint to the police. 14. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner cannot be dismissed on the ground of delay in lodging complaint before the police. In view of the Judgment referred to herein above, and taking into consideration of the facts on hand coupled with the discharge summary, which is marked as Ex.A9, the contention of the appellant that the delay caused in lodging the complaint against the driver of the vehicle is fatal to the case cannot be countenanced and the same is rejected. 15. It is further case of the appellant that the claimant was travelling in the offending vehicle as gratuitous passenger and during the travel the lorry turned turtle in which the petitioner 12 and others received injuries and therefore the question payment of compensation to the claimant does not arise inasmuch as the 2nd respondent (owner of the vehicle) violated the terms and conditions of the policy. 16. In this connection it is pertinent to note that in support of the contention of the petitioner, except the chief affidavit of RW-1, nothing is placed on record to prove that the claimant/1st respondent was travelling as gratuitous passenger in the offending vehicle. Per contra, the claimant has examined PW- 4, the eye witness who categorically deposed that at 11:45 pm when the claimant was waiting for conveyance of near KC canal at Dornipudi Village the offending vehicle driven in rash and negligent manner with high speed, without blowing horn, dashed her from behind as a result of which the claimant received injuries. On a perusal of the cross-examination of PW-4, it is clear that the appellant/Insurance Company miserably failed to elicit that at the time of accident the claimant was travelling in the offending vehicle as gratuitous passenger. Furthermore, as already noted supra, PW-4 who was the eye-witness, categorically deposed that the claimant was waiting for conveyance and the offending hit her 13 from behind thereby she sustained injuries. It is needless to mention that it is for the appellant/Insurance Company to prove that the claimant/1st respondent was gratuitous passenger travelling in the offending vehicle. As the appellant could not establish the same, the said contention is liable to be rejected. 17. During course of hearing, it is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that though the 1st respondent/claimant claimed an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.11,86,573/-, which is excessive and the claimant failed to produce relevant documents in support of her claim. 18. On perusal of the oral and documentary evidences put forth by the claimant, it is clear that the 1st respondent- claimant was suffering from 100% paraplegia and there is less chance of recovery from the same. In support of her case, she has examined Dr.M.Venu Gopal as PW-2, who treated her, has clearly deposed that due to the injury received by the petitioner, she is unable to do any work including her personal works and the disability was assessed as 90%. PW-3, Dr.K.M.Husman Ali, physiotherapist, who treated the claimant also deposed in similar 14 lines that of PW-2. Apart from the same, the claimant also filed Ex.A4 disability certificate along with the medical prescription, receipts of medical bills, physiotherapy bills and discharge summary. Nothing is placed on record by the appellant to disprove the exhibits filed by the 1st respondent claimant. Therefore, the contention of the appellant on this ground also is liable to be rejected. 19. While appreciating the case on hand, the Tribunal has taken the income of the claimant as Rs.112/- per day as per the notification issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh under Minimum Wages Act under which it was notified that minimum wage for agriculture cooli is fixed as Rs.112/- with effect from 01.04.2009. Further, the Tribunal having considered the exhibits filed in support of the claim has award an amount of Rs.11,86,573/- under various heads. Though, it is contended by the appellant the Tribunal has awarded compensation more than what was claimed, the said contention cannot be accepted inasmuch as the legal position with regard to this issue has been considered and settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of 15 “Ramla and others Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd., and others2” at para 5 of the Judgment held as under: “5. Though the claimants had claimed a total compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- in their claim petition filed before the Tribunal, we feel that the compensation which the claimants are entitled to is higher than the same as mentioned supra. There is no restriction that the Court cannot award compensation exceeding the claimed amount, since the function of the tribunal or Court under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is to award “just compensation”. The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial and welfare legislation. A “just compensation” is one which is reasonable on the basis of evidence produced on record. It cannot be said to have become time-barred. Further, there is no need for a new cause of action to claim an enhanced amount. The courts are duty-bound to award just compensation.” 20. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, duty is cast upon the Courts to see that just compensation is awarded to the claimant, though the amount claimed is lesser than the amount to which one is entitled to. Therefore, this Court does not find any force in the contention of the counsel for the appellant and accordingly the said ground also is rejected. 21. As already stated supra, the Tribunal having considered the oral and documentary evidence put forth by the claimant, has passed order under challenge and this Court does not find any illegality or infirmity. In the circumstances, there are no merits in the appeal and accordingly the same is dismissed. 2 (2019) 2 SCC 192 16 22. The appellant-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation awarded by the Tribunal within a period of two (02) months from today. Further, on such deposit, the respondent Nos.3 & 4 are entitled to withdraw the same. If no such deposit is made, it is needless to mention that the respondent Nos.3 & 4 are entitled to take steps in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________ JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR 31.10.2025 DR 17 28 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR MACMA No.1104 of 2019 Date 31.10.2025 U DR