♦ ► IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY ,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. SRINIVAS MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 31 OF 2022 Appeal under Section 173 of M.V.Act against the Judgment and decree dated 14-11-2018 in M.V.O.P.No. 310 of 2013 on the file of the Court of the Chairperson, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-ll l Addl. District Judge at Tirupati Between: 1. K.Rajesh (died), 2. K.Munirathnam, Housewife, 3. K.Gangulamma, W/o K.Munirathnam, Aged about 60 years, Occ. Agriculture, 4. K.Jhansi, D/o K.Rajesh, Aged about 24 years, Occ. Student, 5. K.Nikhil, S/o Late Rajesh, Aged about 23 years, Occ. Student, Petitioners No. 2 to 5 are R/o 14-1-45, Nehru Street, Tirupati, Chittoor District. S/o K.Gangaiah, Aged about 65 years, Occ. ...APPELLANTS AND 1. V.Padmavathi, W/o Gurupasad, Age Major, Occ. Not known, D.No. 8- 128, Sannidhi Street, Tiruchanur, Tirupati Rural Mandal, Chittoor District. 4 * 2. M/s New India Assurance Company Ltd, Rep. by its Divisional Manager Office at Balaji Colony, Tirupati, Chittoor District. 0^'. ■' i c ,>• ■Y t Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Director, bfQce at X Roads, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. ■ , • it ■T \ . nA ■ ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellants: SRI. E SAMBA SIVA PRATAP Counsel for the Respondents: SRI ARAVALA RAMA RAO The Court made the following Order: ' V THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS M.A.C.M.A.No.31 of 2022 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge at Tirupati (hereinafter called M.V.O.P.No.310 of 2013 dated 14.11.2018. The appellants, who K.Rajesh (hereinafter called before the Tribunal. The respondent Nos. 1 as ‘the Tribunal’) in 2. are parents and children of one injured”) are the claimants as to 3 are the owner and insurer of the Tata Indica Car bearing No.AP 03 V 8093 (hereinafter referred to as Indica Car”) respectively. The owner of the APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP as “crime bus”), in the petition before the respondent No.3 is the lOZ 6198 (hereinafter referred to 3. The case of the claimants Tribunal is that: i). On 15.06.2006 at about 05.00 injured proceeding from Tiruchanur a.m., while the to Kalikiri in Indica Car being driver of the same, when they reached Chinnagottigallu Tank Bund, the crime bus driven by its driver in a near rash and negligent manner, hit the said Indica Car, resulted the driver of the car sustained grievous injuries. Later, the injured died on 2 08.06.2018 and his legal heirs were added as parties before the Tribunal, ii). The injured being driver used to earn Rs. 10,500/- per month apart from Rs.lOO/- per day as batta and contributed the same for the welfare of the claimant 5. Being dependents, Nos.2 to they claimed compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- against the owner and insurer of the Indica Car as well owner of the crime bus respectively. The respondent No.2/insurer of the 4. Indica Car filed counter denying the averments in the petition and pleaded that the compensation claimed by the claimants is excessive; that denied the rash and negligent driving of the driver of crime bus in causing the incident, thereby, prayed to dismiss the petition against this respondent. 5. The respondent No.3/APSRTC filed counter denying the averments in the petition and pleaded that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Indica Car, but riot driver of the crime bus; that the compensation claimed 3 by the claimants is excessive, thereby, prayed to dismiss the petition against this respondent. The Tribunal settled the following issues for enquiry basing on the material: 6. 1 .Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of Tata Indigo Car bearing No.AP 03 V 8093 of 1®^ respondent or due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 01 Z 5198 of 3’’*^ respondent 15.06.2006 on and whether petitioner K.Rajesh sustained injuries in the accident? 2.Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation and if so to what amount and from whom? and 3.To what relief?” 7. During enquiry, on behalf of the claimant, PWs.l to 5 were examined, Exs.A.l to A. 10 and C.l to C.3 were exhibited. On behalf of the respondent No.2, its official was examined as R.W.l and Exs.B.l and B.2 were exhibited. On behalf of the respondent No.3/APSRTC, the driver of the crime bus was examined as R.W.2. 8. On the material, the Tribunal, having come to the conclusion that the accident occurred was due to the rash and 4 negligent driving of the crime bus by its driver, held that the claimants are entitled for the compensation of Rs.66,252/-, with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization against the respondent No.3 only, for the injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident. The claim against respondent Nos. 1 and 2 is dismissed. It IS against the said award; the present appeal preferred by the appellants/claimants. Heard Sri 9. was 10. V.Venkata Subbaiah, learned counsel representing Sri E.Sambasiva Pratap, learned counsel for appellants/claimants and Sri the Aravala Ramarao, Standing Counsel for the respondent No.3/APSRTC. leaned 11. Now, the short point that arises for determination i “whether the order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside, if to what extent?” IS so. 12. POINT: It is not in dispute about the injuries sustained by the claimant in the incident, involvement of crime bus as well Indica Car, rash and negligent driving of the crime bus by its driver in 5 / ' j ' causing the incident. It is also a fact that no appeal was preferred by the APSRTC/owner of the crime bus against the findings of the Tribunal. The only eontention raised by the learned eounsel for the 13. appellants/claimants is that the Tribunal erred in calculating the compensation entitled by the claimants; that due to the injuries sustained in the accident, the injured sustained 100% functional disability; that the Tribunal erred in awarding less compensation to the claimants, thereby, prays to enhance the same as claimed. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for the 14. respondent No.3/APSRTC submits that the Tribunal after considering the material on record rightly calculated compensation entitled by the claimants and there are no valid grounds urged by the claimants to meddle with the same. 15. In view of the above eontentions, this Court has perused the material available on record. The testimony of P.Ws.2 to 4, coupled with Ex.A.6 discharge summary, clearly establishes that the injured was treated at BIRRD Hospital for a dislocation 6 of the left hip joint, recovered well, and 12.07.2006. However, in the year 2016-i discharged --i-e., ten years after the again underwent treatment, regarding any treatment ntervening period from 2006 passed away on 08.06.2018. to properly establish the was on date of the incident—the injured Notably, the pleadings are silent received by the injured during the i to 2016. Subsequently, the injured Thus, the claimants failed death before the Tribunal. cause of It IS not in dispute that the ini - injured none of the witnesses testified that the death in the incident that died twelve years after the incident, and examined by the claimants was a consequence of the injuries sustained occurred twelve years prior. 16. The Tribunal, after material on record, rightly concluded to establish that the injured died sustained in the accident. ?66,252/- towards medical and transport costs. The Tribunal compensation under the heads thorough appreciation of that the claimants failed as a result of the injuries Accordingly, it awarded the a sum of expenses, hospitalization charges, also rightly declined to award of loss of income due to 7 permanent disability and pain and suffering, as the injured was no longer alive on the date of the award. Having regard to the above discussion, this Court is of the 17. considered opinion that no valid grounds urged by appellants to interfere with the calculations the and findings arrived by the Tribunal in all aspects, as there is no need to disturb the well-articulated order passed by the Tribunal, the appeal preferred by the appellants is liable for dismissal. Thus, the point is answered accordingly. 18. In the result, M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed. There shall be order as to costs. no Interim orders granted earlier if Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, stand vacated. any, stand closed. Sd/- U SRIDEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTTON OFFICER To 1. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-lll Additional District Judge, Tirupati. 2. One CC to Sri. E Samba Siva Pratap, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri. Aravala Rama Rao, Advocate [OPUC] The Section Officer, V.R Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. 5. Three CD Copies 4. vna \ HIGH COURT t f «.DATED: 16/04/2025 JUDGMENT + DECREE MACMA.No.31 of 2022 DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY ,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. SRINIVAS MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 31 OF 2022 Between: 1. K.Rajesh (died), 2. K.Munirathnam, S/o K.Gangaiah, Aged about 65 years, Occ. Housewife 3. K.Gangulamma, W/o K.Munirathnam, Aged about 60 years, Occ. Agriculture, 4. K.Jhansi, D/o K.Rajesh, Aged about 24 years, Occ. Student 5. K.Nikhil, S/o Late Rajesh, Aged about 23 years, Occ. Student, Petitioners No. 2 to 5 are R/o 14-1-45, Nehru Street, Tirupati, Chittoor District. ...APPELLANTS AND 1. V.Padmavathi, W/o Gurupasad, Age Major, Occ. Not known, D.No. 8-128, Sannidhi Street, Tiruchanur, Tirupati Rural Mandal, Chittoor District. 2. M/s New India Assurance Company Ltd, Rep. by its Divisional Manager, Office at Balaji Colony, Tirupati, Chittoor 4,A^dhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation OfStep at X Roads, Musheerabad, District. Rep. by its Director, Hyderabad. 4 ...respondents/respondents Appeal under Section 173 of M.V.Act against the Judgment and decree dated 14-11-2018 in M.V.O.P.No. 310 of 2013 Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims on the file of the Court of Tribual-cum-lll Addl. Drstrict Judge at Tirupati. This appeal coming o for hearing and upon perusing the appeal, the Judgment and Decree of papers in the Suit and upon hearing the Pratap for the Appellants Respondents. grounds of the Lower Court and the material arguments of Sri E Samba Siva and of Sri Aravala Rama Rao for the This Court Doth ORDER ad DECREE that the Decree of the Lower Court be ad hereby is confirmed and this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is Dismissed and this Court Doth further order as to costs in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. Order and Decree that thre be no Sd/- U SRIDEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SE OFFICER To, 1. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal District Judge, Tirupati. 2. Three CD Copies -cum-lll Additional vna HIGH COURT DATED:16/04/2025 JUDGMENT + DECREE MACMA.No.31 of 2022 DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS