r- IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAV TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 161 OF 2022 Between; Smt. Adusumalli Padma, W/o. A. Venkata Narayana, aged about. 33 years, Occ. Housewife, Rio. H.No. 21-10/3-63, 2nd line, Srinagar Colony, Vijayawada, Krishna District. ...APPELLANT AND 1. M/s. Shiva Parvathi Logistics, Rep. by. A. Koti Reddy, S/o. Not known. Aged about. 50 years, Occ. Business, R/o. H.No. 2-58, Bahadurpally Village, Ranga Reddy District- 501 401. 2. M/S. HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep.by. its. Divisional Manager, Off. 6th floor, Leela Business Park, Andheri-kurla Road (E), Mumbai- 400 059. (Police No. 2315 2006 8705 8400 002 Dated.06-02- 2014 to 05-02-2015. 3. Shaik Wasim, S/o. Gafur Muslim, Major, Driver of the Crime Vehicle Tanker Lon.), bearing No. AP28 TD 7789, R/o. Vishnupuri Navin Abadi, Near Mavli Krirana Dukan, Naned Taluka, Nanded District. ...RESPONDENTS Appeal under section 173 of M.V.Act against the Order and decree made in dated 2/11/2015 in M.V.O.P.No. 50/2015 on the file of the Court of the Chairperson, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-ll Addl.District Judge, Vijaywada. 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. CHANCHU RAMAIAH, the Appellants and SRI GUDI SRINIVAS for the Respondents. This Court Doth ORDER and DECREE that the Decree of the Lower Court be and hereby is confirmed and this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is Dismissed and this Court Doth further Order and Decree that there be order as to costs in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. no Sd/- P VINOD KUMAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION^^ICER To, 1. The Chairman MACT-cum-ll Additional District Judge, Vijayawada. 2. Three CD Copies nm jr HIGH COURT DATED:01/04/2025 DECRETAL ORDER MACMA.No.161 of 2022 THE MAGMA IS DISMISSED WITHOUT COSTS \ COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMAR TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT IN THE HIGH THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 161 OF 2022 MOTOR under section 173 of M.V.Act against the Judgment and decree M.V.O.P.No. 50/2015 on the file of the Court of the Claims Tribunal-cum-ll Addl.District Judge, (Appeal dated 2/11/2015 in Chairperson, Motor Accidents Vijaywada.) Between: Smt Adusumalli Padma, W/o. A. Venkata Narayana, aged about. 33 years, Occ. Housewife, Rio. H.No. 21-10/3-63, 2nd line, Srinagar Colony, Vijayawada, Krishna District. ...APPELLANT AND 1. M/s. Shiva Parvathi Logistics, Rep. by. A. ^oti Reddy S/o. Not known. Aged about. 50 years, Occ. Business, R/o. H.No. 2-58, Bahadurpally Village, Ranga Reddy District- 501 401. 2 M/S HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep.by. its. Divisional Manager, Off. 6th floor, Leela Business Park, Andheri-kuria Road (E) Mumbai- 400 059. (Police No. 2315 2006 8705 8400 002 Dated.06-02- 2014 to 05-02-2015. 3. Shaik Wasim, S/o. Gafur Muslim, Major, Driver of the Crime Vehide Tanker Lon.), bearing No. AP28 TD 7789, R/o. Vishnupuri Navin Abadi, Near Mavli Krirana Dukan, Naned Taluka, Nanded District. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the AppellantiSRl CHENCHU RAMAIAH Counsel for the Respondents; SRI GUDI SRINIVAS The Court made the following: JUDGMENT ^ ^ THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS M.A.C.M.A.No.161 of 2022 JUDGMENT; This appeal is directed against the order of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge at Vijayawada (hereinafter called as ‘the Tribunal in M.V.O.P.No.50 of 2015 dated 02.11.2021. 2. The appellant is the claimant before the Tribunal. The respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are the owner, insurer and driver of the Oil Tanker Lorry bearing No.AP 28 TD 7798 (hereinafter referred to as “crime lorry”) respectively. 3. The case of the claimant, in the petition before the Tribunal is that: i). On 22.06.2014 at about 10.30 p.m., while the claimant along with nine others proceeding in Qualis Vehicle bearing No.AP 27W 9493 from Guntur to Vijayawada, the 3''^ respondent driver of the crime lorry, which was proceeding ahead to their vehicle with high speed, without any indications applied brakes, resulted the said Qualis Vehicle dashed the rear side of the crime loriy and the claimant sustained grievous injuries. Then she was shifted to Government Hospital and in-turn Andhra Hospital at Vijayawada for better 2 treatment and spent huge amount towards medical expenses. ii). He claimed compensation of Rs.6,50,000/ the owner, insurer and driver of the crime lorry. The respondent No.2/insurer filed - against 4. counter denying the averments in the petition and pleaded that the accident occurred was due to the rash and negligent driving of the Qualis vehicle, but not respondent; that the S^d respondent is not having valid driving license to drive the compensation claimed by the claimant i prayed to dismiss the petition against this respondent. 5. The Tribunal settled the following issues for basing on the material: “1.Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of Tanker Lorry bearing No.AP 28 TD 7789 by the S^^d respondent? 2.Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so the quantum and by whom payable? and 3.To what relief?” crime lorry; that the excessive, thereby. IS enquiry • ‘ ^ 3 behalf of the claimant, PWs. 1 and 2 exhibited. On behalf of the examined as R.W.l and During enquiry, on examined, Exs.A.l to A. 14 were 6. were respondent No.2, its official was Exs.B.l and B.2 were exhibited. On the to the material, the Tribunal, having come due to the rash and 7. that the accident occurred was conclusion negligent driving of the crime that the claimant is lorry by the 3>-d respondent, held of is entitled for the compensation from the date of spondent Nos. 1 Rs. 1,10,000/-, with interest at 9% per annum petition till the date of realization against the to 3. for the injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident. re award; the present appeal was It is against the said 8. preferred by the appellant/ claimant. Heard Sri P.Chenchu Ramaiah. learned counsel for the and Sri Gudi Srinivasu, learned counsel for 9. appellant/ claimant the 2^^ respondent/insurer. Now, the short point that arises whether the order of the Tribunal is __ for determination is is liable to be set aside, if so, 10. to what extent?” 4 11. POINT. It is not in dispute about the injuries sustained by the claimant in the incident, involvement of Vehicle, rash and negligent driving driver in crime loriy and Qualis of the crime lorry by its causing the incident, the crime vehicle is validly respondent/insurer by the time of accident insured with the 2nd under Ex.B.l. It is also a fact that no appeal was preferred by crime lorry against the the owner, insurer and driver of the findings of the Tribunal. The only contention raised by the learned appellant/claimant is that the Tribunal erred compensation entitled by the claimant, enhance the same as claimed. 12. counsel for the in calculating the thereby, prays to 13. Per contra, the learned counsel for the No.2/insurer submits that the Tribunal after material on record rightly calculated the claimant and there claimant to meddle with the same. respondent considering the compensation entitled by no valid grounds urged by the are A 5 In view of the above contentions, this Court perused the of P.W.2 coupled categorically show that the 14. material available on record. The testimony with Ex.A.14 wound certificate claimant sustained two grievous injuries. It is also case of the Rs. 1,70,000/- towards medical Ex.A.6 attested copy of medical bills she claimant that she spent expenses, but, as per spent explain as to why she could not the Tribunal. However, the material facts and nature of the injuries sustained by the claimant irghtly awarded an amount pain and suffering, Rs.20,000/- Rs.10.000/- towards transportation, extra-nourishment and . She did not only Rs.34,500/- towards medical expenses file original medical bills before Tribunal after considering the of Rs.50,000/- towards towards medical expenses and attendant charges. Besides that, by considering the fact that the claimant as the family. Tribunal of Rs.5,000/- and she has for a period of 15. maker contributed her service to house rightly assessed monthly income taken treatment in the hospital on two occasions six months and awarded Rs.30.000/- towards loss of earnings. 6 in-total awarded an amount of Rs. 1,10,000/-, which is a just compensation. In the absence of disability certificate before the Tribunal, rightly rejected the claim made by the claimant on the ground of loss sustained by the claimant for the disability. Furthermore, the Tribunal rightly granted interest @ 9% per annum m view of the plethora of pronouncements of Apex Court in Rahul Sharma & Another 16. V. National Insurance Company Limited and Others^ Kirthi and another v. Oriental Insurance Company LimitetP, Smt.AnJali and others v. Lokendra Rathod and others, Malarvizhi & Ors. V. United India Insurance Co.Ltd. & Orsf^. Thereby, this Court has no reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal regarding quantum of compensation entitled by the claimant well interest granted. Having regard to the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that no valid grounds urged by the appellant to interfere with the findings arrived by the Tribunal in all as 17. ’ (2021) 6 see 188 2(2021)2 see 166 2 (2022) see OnLine Se 1683 '*(2020) 4 see 228 1 aspects, 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. In the result, M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed. There shall be no 18. order as to costs. Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, stand closed. Sd/- P VINOD KUMAR TRAR assistant SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, 11 Additional District Judge, Vijayawada. 1. The Chairman MACT-cum- 2. OneCCto SRI. GUDI SRINIVAS, Advocate [OPUC] CHENCHU RAMAIAH Advocate [OPUC] 3. OneCCto SRI. 4 Three CD Copies nm high court DATED:01/04/2025 JUDGMENT & DECREE MACMA.No.161 of 2022 the magma is dismissed without COSTS