1 APHC010427982017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3548] WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 2549/2017 Between: 1. K.VIKHAR AHAMMED, S/O.LATE MD.NAZAEER AHAMMED MUSLIM, CAR MECHANIC R/O.D.NO.7/913, RAHAMAT NAGAR, ANANRTAPUR TOWN AND DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT AND 1. YERIKELA RAJU, S/O.Y.RAMANJANEYULU, MAJOR, HINDU OWNER OF THE AUTO BEARING NO.AP 02 TB 4694 R/O.ANANTHA VENKATA REDDY COLONY, KUDERU VILLAGE AND MANDAL, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. 2. THE MANAGER LEGAL CELL, BHARTI AXA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED O/O.1ST FLOOR, THE FERNS ICON, SURVERY NO.28, DODDANEKUNDI, BANGALORE - 560 037. 3. K SALEEM, S/O.SATTAR, MAJOR, MUSLIM R/O.6-843-24, AZAD NAGAR, ANANTAPUR TOWN AND DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying that the High Court may be pleased to MACMA against the Order and Decree made in MVOP No.73 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum I Additional District Judge, Anantapuramu dated 23.01.2017 IA NO: 1 OF 2017(MACMAMP 4525 OF 2017 2 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 condone the delay of 130 days in filing the present MACMA Counsel for the Appellant: 1. M KARIBASAIAH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GUDI SRINIVASU 2. 3 The Court made the following Judgment: Heard, Sri M.Karibasaiah, learned counsel for the appellant/claimant and Sri Gudi Srinivasulu, learned counsel for the respondent No.2/Insurance Company. No representation on behalf of respondent No.1, despite service of the notice. So far as respondent No.3, it appears postal acknowledgment shows that it is incomplete Address. This Court finds the presence of respondent No.3 may not be necessary for adjudicating the present Appeal. Even otherwise, both the respondents remained ex parte before the Tribunal. The parties are arrayed as, in this present appeal. 2. The claimant filed M.V.O.P.No.73 of 2014 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Ananthapuramu (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”), under Sections 140 and 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by the claimant in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 23.09.2013. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the claimant was aged about 34 years and working as a Car Mechanic at “New Sadiq Auto Garage” Bellary bypass road and was getting income of Rs.10,000/- per month as on the date of the accident and used to be contributed towards the maintenance of his family i.e., wife and children. The accident took place on 23.09.2013 at about 5.30 pm., while the claimant along with his friend by name Shaik Kalam, were proceeding on Motorcycle bearing No.AP03K8206 from Basavanna Katta, Old Town, Anantapuramu towards bypass road on personal work. The claimant, 4 the pillion rider along with his friend was driving the vehicle. The offending vehicle, an Auto bearing No.AP02TB4694, came from the back side in a rash and negligent manner, overtaking their Motorcycle and dashed the claimant’s motorcycle due to which the accident occurred causing head injury to the claimant and immediately he was shifted to Government General Hospital, Anantapuramu, where he has taken treatment for few hours and then he was shifted to Jeevan Jyothi Hospital for better treatment. 4. The evidence adduced by the claimant to substantiate his case is that due to the accident, he suffered multiple simple injuries over the body apart from the fracture of parietal bone. An amount of Rs.2,50,000/- was incurred towards medical and other expenses and he was in-patient for more than three months. A crime was registered and later charge sheet was also filed. 5. In oppugnation, the respondent No.2/Insurance Company marked his appearance and denied the averments made in the petition, stating that the accident was not occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Auto but due to the rash and negligent driving of the claimant and that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation. The stand taken by the respondent No.2 is that, the offending vehicle/Auto is not insured and, therefore, 2nd respondent-Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation. 6. The Tribunal after examining and assessing the evidence adduced by both sides awarded compensation of Rs.3,91,474/- fastening the liability on 5 the respondent Nos.1 to 3. Against the said Order passed by the Tribunal, the present appeal is filed. 7. This Court has gone through the Order passed by the Tribunal and also the entire evidence as indicated in the Order at length. 8. On behalf of the claimant, PW.1 to PW.3 were examined as witnesses and on behalf of the respondents none were examined. Exhibits.A1 to A7 were marked on behalf of the claimant, comprising of First Information Report, Wound Certificate, Charge Sheet, Admission and discharge Summary, medical bills, color photo and Identity card of the petitioner. Ex.X1 was also marked, which is 1st admission case sheet of the claimant and Ex.X2 is 2nd admission case sheet of the claimant. The Insurance Company has marked Ex.B1, which is the copy of Insurance Policy. The said policy is marked with consent. 9. This Court has gone through the said exhibits filed on behalf of the claimant as well as respondents. It appears that the Tribunal has not accepted the version of the claimant/petitioner as to the monthly income that he was drawing Rs.10,000/- per month on the simple ground that the claimant has not placed any material to substantiate that damage was caused, by not even examining the said owner of the garage. In view of the same, compensation was not accorded to the claimant. The Tribunal has totally misdirected itself in not looking into the First Information Report and charge sheet, which categorically states that the accident occurred and damage was caused, 6 which is sufficient in the case of Motor Vehicle Accident cases and ought to have awarded compensation at least for the period where the claimant, who was injured, and admitted in the hospital, which was not denied either. The record shows that the claimant undergone treatment for three months and since there is no rebuttal to the statement made by the claimant regarding Rs.10,000/- per month, this Court observes that it would be justifiable if Rs.30,000/- is awarded as compensation for the said three months. 10. The other contention vehemently contended by the Appellant’s counsel before this Court is that the Tribunal grossly erred in not considering the medical bills, which were marked as Exhibits, to substantiate the expenditure incurred at Rs.3,33,361/-. This Court finds no justification on the part of the Tribunal to ignore the same when the said medical bills are marked as exhibits. Apparently, after considering the medical bills which are marked as Ex.A5 and the other bills, which the claimant has marked and supported by the evidence of PW.2 and PW.3, this Court finds it justified to grant compensation of Rs.3,33,361/-, apart from the other heads granted by the Tribunal which appears to be justified. Therefore, the total compensation to be payable is as follows: Description Amount (Rs.) Alleged income for said three months Rs.30,000/- Medical and other bills amount Rs.3,33,361/- Pain and suffering Rs.30,000/- Extra nourishment Rs.20,000/- Assistant charges Rs.20,000/- Total compensation payable Rs.4,33,361/- 7 11. In fine, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed, enhancing the compensation from Rs.3,91,474/- to Rs.4,33,361/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum. The respondents are directed to deposit the aforesaid enhanced amount of compensation before the Tribunal, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after deducting the amount, if any, deposited earlier. On such deposit, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the same. 12. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA, J Date : 24-12-2025 SSA/CMK/BMS 8 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA M.A.C.M.A.NO.2549 of 2017 24th Day of December, 2025. CMK/SSA/BMS