!N THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI I MONDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO T HOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE B & PRESENT THE HOMOUFMBLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS MOTOR ACCIDEINIT CiV'iL filSCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 177 OF 2024 Appeal under Section 1/3 of M.V.Act, against the Judgment and decree dated 22--02-2023 in M.V O.P.No.l 11 / 2019 on the file of the Court of the Chairperson, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IX Additional District Judge, Chittcor. Between: M/s.Shrirarn General Insurance Company Limited. Represented by its Branch Manager. Tirupati. having its office at D.No.19-3-13(M) 3'’'^ Floor, Renigunta Road, Tlrupati. ...Appellant ' AND 1. S.Jaya Kumar, S/o.S.Sundar Ftaju, Hindu age about 49 years, residing At D.No.2-1.26, Pachansipalli village and Post, Chittoor Rural and Mandal, Chittoor District,, 2. K.Chenchaiah, S/o.late K.Subba Rao, Hindu, aged about 37 years, residing at .D.Nio.26-2-1388, .Rarnaiayam Street, Venktareddynagar, Nellore District. 3. Sri Balaji Spun Pipe Industnes, Rep. by its sole proprietor Neliore(Owner), Residinci at D.No.80/1 ,Padarapalli KP, Housing Board Road, Nellore. ...Respondents This appeal coming on for,hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree-; of the Lower Court and the material papers in the Suit and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Gudi Srinivasa, Advocate on behalf of the Appellant and Sri M.S.Banu Prasad Rao, Advocate for Respondents. This Couit Doth ORDER and DECREE that the Decree of the Lower Court be and hereby ss contirmed and this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is Dismissed and this Courl: Doth further Order and Decree that there be order as to Costs in this Civil yiscellaneous Appeal. no Sd/- U. SRIDEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TF^llE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Chairperson, Moto^- Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- IX Additional District Judge, Chittoor,, 2. Two CD Copies RAM HIGH COURT DATED;07/04/2025 DECREE MACMA,No.177 of 2024 DISMISSING THE MAGMA WITHOUT COSTS IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI MONDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS lyiOTOR AC_CIDBNT CIVIL MiSCELLANEIOUS APPEAL NO: 177 OF 2024 Appeal under Section 173 of M.V.Act against the Judgment and decree dated 22-02-2023 in M.V.O.P.No.111 / 2019 on the file of the Court of the Chairperson, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- IX Additional District Judge, Chittoor. Between: Genera! Insuraince Company Limited, Represented Branch Manager, Tirupati, having its office at D.No.19-3-13(M) 3' Kenigunta Road, Tirupati. by its Floor, rd ...Appellant AND At D No'? Tdfi'’ Hindu age about 49 years, residing MandatChifoorSiof 2. K.Chenchaiah S/o.iate K.Subba Rao, Hindu, aged about 37 years Spun Pipe Industries, Rep. by its sole proprietor RoSnSb' Housing Board ...Respondents lA NO: 2 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 GPC praying that in the circumstances the High Court may be s pursuant to the decree and M.V.O.P.No.111 / Tribunal - Cum - IX stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition pleased to grant stay of a!! further proceeding judgment dated the 22”^ day of February 2023 passed 2019 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Additional District Judge, Chittoor. pending disposal of the main M.A.C.M.A. including execution proceedings Counsel for the Appellant: SRI GUD! SRlNiVASU Counsel for the Responclerits: SRI M.S.BANL) PRASAD RAO The Court made the following order; THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS M.A.C.M.A.No.177 of 2024 JUDGMENT; This appeal is directed against the order of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-lX Additional District Judge at Chittoor (hereinafter called as ‘the Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.lll of 2019 dated 22.02.2023. 2. The appellant is the insurer of the Trailer Lorry bearing No.AP 21 Z 5858 (hereinafter referred to as “crime loriy”). The respondent No.l is the claimant before the Tribunal. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 are the driver and owner of the sedd crime lorry. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as they arrayed before the tribunal. The case of the claimant, in the petition before the Tribunal is that: 4. i). On 19.12.2018 at about 08.30 p.m., while the claimant proceeding on a motor cycle bearing No.AP 03 AA 5500, when he reached near M.Bandapalli Village, on Chittoor to Puthalapattu Road, Ptuthalapattu Mandal, the crime lorry negligently parked in the middle of the road without any precautions by the 1®^ respondent, resulted the claimant dashed on the rear 2 side of the said crime loriy and received injuries all over the body. Then he was shifted to Government Hospital at Chittoor, in-turn CMC Hospital Vellore from there to Elite Hospital at Tirupati and underwent operation to his right femur and iron nail was inserted, ii). He claimed compensation of Rs. 15,00,000/- against the driver, owner, and insurer of the crime lorry respectively. The respondent No.3/insurer filed written statement and additional written statements denying the averments in the petition and pleaded that the accident occurred was due to the rash and negligent riding of the claimant, but respondent; that the 1®^ respondent is not having valid driving license to drive the crime lorry; that the crime vehicle involved in the incident; that the incident occurred 20.12.2018 due to fall from the motorcycle, but not on 19.12.2018, thereby, prayed to dismiss the claim against this respondent. 5. 1st not was not on 3 6. The Tribunal settled the following issues and additional issues for enquiry basing on the material: ‘1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of l^t respondent who was the driver of trailer lorry bearing No.AP 21 X 5858 belongs to the 2*1^ respondent? 2.Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation if so how much and from whom? and 3.To what relief?” 7. During enquiry, on behalf of the claimant, P.Ws.l to 4 were examined, Exs.A.l to A. 12 and X.l to X.4 were exhibited. On behalf of the 3*^^ respondent, its official was examined as R.W.l and Ex.B.l policy was marked. On the material, the Tribunal, having come to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the 1st respondent by parking the crime lorry in the middle of the road without any precautions, held that claimant is entitled for the compensation of Rs. 15,00,000/-, with interest at 6% per 8. annum from the date of petition till the date of realization against the respondent Nos.l to 3, for the injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident. 4 9. It is against the said award; the preferred by the appellant/insurer of the crime lorry. Heard Sri Gudi Srinivasu, learned counsel for the appellant/insurer and Sri K.Purnachandra Sai, learned counsel representing Sri M.S.Bhanu Prasad, learned 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?” 12. POINT: present appeal was 10. counsel for the 11. It is not in dispute that the claimant sustained injuries in the accident, and that the policy marked as Ex.B.l, issued in respect of the crime lorry, was in force on the date of the incident. It is also undisputed that no appeal was preferred by the claimant, the driver, or the owner of the crime lor the findings of the Tribunal. ly against 13. It is the main contention of the learned appellant that the incident occurred due counsel for the to the rash and negligent riding of the claimant, but not respondent and that 5 the crime lorry never involved in the accident, since 20.12.2018 the incident occurred as on per Ex.A.7 discharge summary. 14. To prove the negligence on the part of the l^t respondent, the claimant himself examined as P.W. 1 coupled with Exs.A. 1 and Ex.A.2 F.l.R. and Charge Sheet, respectively. It is the categorical testimony of P.W.l that the l^t respondent negligently parked the crime lorry in the middle of the road without any precautions, resulted the incident. Furthermore , on perusal of Exs.A. 1 and A.2 F.l.R. and Charge Sheet respectively, the investigating agency, after thorough investigation, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the 1st respondent only in parking the crime lorry. More so, the l^t respondent/driver of the crime lorry is the best witness to speak about the manner of the incident and 15. deny the case of the claimant, but he did not choose to enter into witness box before the Tribunal. Even the owner of the crime vehicle remained exparte before the Tribunal. As Ex.A. 3 wound certificate. per which is a primary document 6 immediately after the incident, it is categorical that the injured person/claimant was firstly treated on 19.12.2018 at about 10.00 p.m. by the Doctor in Government Hospital at Chittoor, thereby, the contention of the accident occurred on 20.12.2018 appellant/insurer that the as per Ex.A.7 has no legs to stand. Furthermore, except self-serving testimony of R.W.l, who IS official of insurance company, no substantial piece of evidence placed before the Tribunal to prove the said contention. 16. It is also contention of the learned appellant/insurer that the Tribunal erred i compensation entitled by the claimant and award compensation. counsel for the calculating the m excess 17. Per contra. learned counsel for the 1st respondent / claimant submits that the Tribunal after appreciating the material on record in right perspective awarded the compensation entitled by the claimant, which requires no interference of this Court. 7 18. As per the testimony of P.W.4 eoupled with Exs.A.ll, X.l to X.4, it is categorically proved before the Tribunal that by the date of incident the claimant get monthly income of Rs. 17,707/- as Electrician iin M/s.Sree Sannidhi Foods Private Limited, Petapalli Village. Furthermore, per the recitals of Exs.A.5, as A.7, A.9, A. 10 and A. 12 coupled with testimony of P.W.l by the date of incident the claimant was aged about 49 years, which is not in dispute. 19. It is categorical from the testimony of 23.12.2018, the claimant underwent sustained in the incident in P.W.3 that on surgery for the fractures Elite Hospital at Tirupati. The testimony of P.Ws.l and 3 coupled with Exs.A.8 to A. 10 categorically show that the claimant spent a considerable amount towards medical expenses. Furthermore, as per the testimony of P.W.2 coupled with Ex. 12 disability certificate, the claimant sustained 55% of permanent disability. 20. By considering the nature of injuries, disability sustained by the claimant, surgery undergone by him through P.W.3, the Tribunal by following the renewed pronouncement of Hon’ble 8 Supreme Court in Sarla Verma Corporation^ and the claimant, rightly calculated the claimant and loss of income due pain and Rs. 1,36,360/- towards medical towards actual loss of i V. Delhi applying the suitable multiplier the compensation Transport to the age of entitled by awarded a sum of Rs. 15,19,260/- towards to permanent disability, Rs.60,000/ suffering Rs. 10,000/ - towards towards nervous shock, expenses and Rs. 17,707/- mcome. even the claimant entitled compensation of Rs. 17,43,327/- since he restricted the a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/-, same to the Tribunal awarded the same as claimed by him, which considered opinion of this Court. requires no interference in the 21. In view of the above discussion, considered opinion that to meddle with the findings aspects, as there is no need to disturb the passed by the Tribunal, the this Court is of the no valid grounds urged by the appellant arrived by the Tribunal in all well-articulated order appeal preferred by the appellant is liable for dismissal. Thus, the point is answered accordingly, ■' AIR 2009 Supreme Court 3104 9 22. In the result, M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed. There shall be order as to costs. Interim orders granted earlier if no any, stand vacated. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, stand closed. Sd/- U. SRIDEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR / //TF^UE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Chairperson, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- IX Additional District Judge, Chittoor, 2. One CC ot Sri Gudi Srinivasu, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri M.S.Banu Prasad Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies RAM HIGH COURT DATED:O7/04/2O25 JUDGRflENT+ DECREiE WIACMA.No.177 of 2024 DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS