X IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS M.A.C.M.A No’s. 26 & 139 OF 2022 M.A.C.M.A NO: 26 OF 2022 Appeal under Section 173 of MV Act, aggrieved by the decree and judgment passed in M.V.O.P. 130 OF 2015, dated 23-08-2021, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -cum- II Additional District Judge, Chittoor at Madanapalle Between: The United India Insurance Co Ltd, rep. by its Branch Manager, D.No. 7/54, Junction Road, near Five road, Salem, Tamilnadu state. ...APPELLANT / RESPONDENT -3 AND 1. Dommalapati Mallikarjuna, s/o. Krishnappa, 30 yrs., D.No. 3-22 Bairemangalam, Magandlapalle, Pinganur Mandal, Chittoor dist. 2. S.Katairasan, s/o. Sunder rajan, age-major, driver, D.No. 58-D Pudhukalattar, Senthratoatti village, Gangavalli Tg, Salam dist, Tamilnadu 3. Shanmuga Sundaram, S/o. Raju, age-major, D.No. 89-A, Tiruchangode Road, Namakkal Town and District, Tamilnadu state. 4. M.Kumar, age-major, D.No. 96, sree Ayyappa nagaar, 4th main road, Chimmayya Nagar, Chennai. 5. ,6hriram General Insurance Co.Ltd., rep. by its Managing Director, E-8, „ "f-' EP#RIGO Industries area, Sitapura, Jaipur, Rajastan state tR2 is not necessary in this Appeal] ...RESPONDENTS lA 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 to stay of all further proceedings including the execution of decree and award dated 23-08-2021 in M.V.O.P. 130 OF 2015, On the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -Cum-li Additional District Judge, Chittoor At Madanapalle, pending disposal of the above appeal in the interest of justice M.A.C.M.A No. 139 OF 2022 Appeal under Section 173 of MV Act, aggrieved by the order and decree dated 23.08.2021 in M.V.O.P.No.130 of 2015 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum- II Additional District Court, Madanapalle, Chittoor District,. Between: Dommalapati Mallikarjuna, s/o Krishnappa, Hindu, aged about 32 years, r/o D. No.3-22, Bairemangalam, Magandlapalle Punganur Mandal, Chittoor District. ...APPELLANT/ PETITIONER AND S.Kalairasan, S/o Sunder Rajan, Hindu, 30 years, Driver, D.No.58-D, Pudhukaiattar, Senthratoatti village, Gangavalli Tqaluq, Salam district, Tamilnadu. 1. 2. Shanmuga Sundaram, S/o Raju, Hindu, age major. Driver, D.No.89-A, Tiruchangode Road, Namakkal Town, Namakkal District, Tamilnadu State. 3. The United India Insurance Company Limited, rep. by its Branch Manager, Door No.7/54, Junction Road, Near Five Road, Selam, Tamilnadu. M.Kumar, Hindu, age major, D.No.96, Sree Ayyappa Nagaar, 4th Main Road, Chimmayya Nagar, Chennai, Tamilnadu State. 4. 5. Shriram General Insurance Co Ltd, rep by its Managing Director E-8, EPIPRICO Industries Area, Sitapura, Jaipur, Rajastan State. ...RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: SRI MAHADEVA KANTHRIGALA Counsel for the Respondents No.3 : SRI V SRINIVASA RAO Counsel for the Respondents No.5 : SRI N RAMA KRISHNA The Court made the following: Z' THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS lVI.A.C.M.A.Nos.26 & 139 of 2022 COMMON JUDGMENT: These appeals are directed against the order of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Il Additional District Judge, Chittor at Madanapalle (hereinafter called as ‘the Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No. 130 of 2015 dated 23.08.2021. Since these appeals arise out of same accident and as the 2. material facts are common, the same are being disposed of by this common judgment. M.A.C.M.A.No.26 of 2022 is preferred by the insurer of 3. the Lorry bearing No.TN 28 AC 3233 (hereinafter referred to as crime lorry”). The respondent No.l is the claimant before the Tribunal. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 are the driver and owner of the said crime loriy. The respondent Nos.4 and 5 are the owner and insurer of the Eicher Van bearing No.TN 20 BM 2239 (hereinafter referred to as “van”) respectively. M.A.C.M.A.No. 139 of 2022 is preferred by the claimant 4. before the Tribunal for enhancement of compensation. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter 5. referred to as they arrayed before the tribunal. 2 The case of the claimant, in the petition before the Tribunal is that: 6. i). On 11.01.2015 at about 02.00 p.m., while the claimant proceeding in the van driven by its driver Kadhir Basha, when they reached near Orien Liquor Factory, Chittor at Chennai-Vellore road, the crime lorry driven by the l^t respondent in a rash and negligent manner at high speed hit the said van, resulted the claimant sustained fracture injuries all over the body and his lower limbs were amputated, the knee surgeries were conducted and implants were placed in his both hands, ii). He claimed compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- against the driver, owner and insurer of the said crime lorry as well owner and insurer of the van. The respondent No.2/insurer of the crime lorry fried counter denying the averments in the petition and pleaded that the accident occurred was due to the rash and negligent driving of the^yan, but not l^t respondent driver of the crime lorry; that 7. f the 1st respondent is not having valid and effective driving license to drive the crime lorry; that the claimant has to prove that the driver of the van is having valid driving license to drive the same by the date of incident, thereby, prayed to dismiss the petition. The respondent No.4/owner of the van filed counter 8. denying the averments in the petition and pleaded that the accident occurred was due to the sole negligence of the 1 St respondent, but not this respondent; that this respondent was added unnecessarily, thereby, prayed to dismiss the petition. 9. The respondent No.5/insurer of the van filed counter denying the averments in the petition and pleaded that the 4* respondent is not having valid driving license to drive the said van, which is nothing but violation of terms and conditions of the policy, thereby, prayed to dismiss the petition. The Tribunal settled the following issues for enquiry 10. basing on the material: 1 .Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of lorry bearing No.TN 28 AC 3233? 4 2.Whether the injuries caused to the petitioner due rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle? 3.Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, for what amount and from whom? and 4.To what relief?” During enquiry, on behalf of the claimants, PWs.l to 6 were examined and Exs.A.l to A. 12 and X.l to X.6 were exhibited. to 11. On behalf of the respondent No.3, examined, however, Ex.B.l policy was marked by consent. On behalf of respondent No.5, its Assistant Manager was examined none were as R.W.l and Ex.B.2 was marked. 12. On the material, the Tribunal, having concluded that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the crime lorry by the pt respondent, held that claimants are entitled for the compensation of Rs.21,55,000/-, with interest at 7.5% per 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. It is against the said order; these appeals are preferred by the insurer of the crime lorry and claimant respectively. 13. 5 Heard Sri Vutla Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the appellant/insurer of the crime lorry in 2022, Sri K.Mahadeva, learned appellant/claimant in N. Ramakrishna, 14. M.A.C.M.A.No.26 of the counsel for M.A.C.M.A.No.139 of 2022 and Sri the respondent learned counsel for No.5/insurer of the van. Now, the point that arises for determination is “whether the order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside, if so, to 15. what extent? 16. POINT. It is not in dispute about the injuries sustained by the claimant in the incident, involvement of the crime lorry as well van. It is also a fact that the owner of the crime lorry, owner and insurer of the van did not prefer any appeal against the findings of the Tribunal. 17. The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant/insurer of the crime lorry is that there is contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the van in causing the incident, thereby, the Tribunal erred in fixing complete liability 6 the 1st respondent/driver of the crime lorry, which requires interference of this Court. Per contra, on 18. learned counsel for the respondent No.5/insurer of the van submits that the Tribunal after appreciating the material on record in right perspective the conclusion that the accident occurred was only due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime loriy and there are valid grounds urged by the appellant/insurer of the crime loriy to meddle with the said findings. In view of the above contentions, this Court perused the material available on record. To prove the rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the crime loriy, the petitioner himself got examined as P.W.l and relied upon Exs.A.l and A.2 F.I.R. and charge sheet respectively. Nothing was elicited during cross examination to disbelieve the testimony of P.W. 1. On perusal of Exs.A.l and A.2 F.I.R. and Charge Sheet respectively, the investigating came to no 19. 20. agency, after thorough investigation,came to the conclusionthat the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime loriy by the k 7 respondent. The testimony of P.W.l coupled with Exs.A.l and A. 2 categorically show that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the crime lorry by the respondent. The appellant/insurer of the crime lorry vehemently contended that as per Ex.A.4 M.V.l. report the opposite vehicle i.e., van was also damaged heavily, thereby there is contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the van. The said 21. contention has no legs to stand, since the said observation made by the M.V.l in his report is not a conclusive proof to attribute any negligence against the driver of the van. Furthermore, the 1®* respondent driver of the crime lorry is the best person to speak about the manner of the incident and deny the case of the claimant regarding cause of the incident, but he did not enter into witness box and nor made his appearance before the Tribunal. Except bare contention, none were examined and no material was placed on record before the Tribunal to fasten any contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the van in causing the incident. "N 8 22. Having regard to the above discussion, it is the clear ii- vivid terms that the Tribunal after appreciating the material on reeord in right perspective came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime lorry by the l^t respondent, which requires no interference and no contributory negligence attributed against the driver of the van in causing the incident. Now, coming to the quantum of compensation entitled by the claimant is concerned, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/claimant that the Tribunal erred in calculating the compensation entitled by the claimant awarded meager compensation. Per contra, learned counsel for the appellant/insurer of the lorry submits that the Tribunal erred in taking the monthly income of the claimant at Rs.8,000/- instead of Rs.4,500/-, thereby, erroneously calculated the compensation entitled by the claimant and awarded the same on higher side. It is the specific case of the claimant that by the date of incident, he earned Rs. 10,000/- per month by doing vegetable in 23. and 24. 25. 9 business, having Ac.06.00 cents of land, cultivating the same and getting Rs.2,00,000/- per annum, in addition getting Rs.4,000/- per month as milk agent of Heritage dairy and to prove the same he relied upon testimony of P.W.6, who is milk collection agent to Tirumala dairy and Heritage dairy, coupled with Exs.A.9 to A. 12. It is not in dispute that by the date of incident the claimant is aged about 30 years. By considering the said fact and in the absence of substantial proof regarding actual income of the claimant, the Tribunal rightly taken the notional income of the claimant at Rs.8,000/- per month, which required no interference of this Court. 26. In view of the testimony of P.Ws.2 to 5 doctors coupled with Exs.A.3, A.5 to A.8 and X.2 to X.6, it is well established before the Tribunal that the claimant lost his both lower limbs above the knee joint, sustained permanent disability and had taken treatment in various hospitals, undergone surgeries and implants were implanted in the upper limb. By considering the \ \ \ same, the Tribunal rightly awarded an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs. 16,32,000/- towards permanent 10 disability, Rs.2,00,000/- for removal of implants and further surgery and Rs. 18,000/- towards future medication, in-total Rs.21,55,000/- is entitled by the claimant, which is nothing but just compensation, thereby, this Court has no reason to interfere with the said calculations and conclusion arrived by the Tribunal. 27. Viewing from any angle, this Court is of the considered opinion that no interference warrants to the findings recorded by the Tribunal regarding all aspects, as there is no need to disturb the well-articulated order passed by the Tribunal, the appeals preferred by the insurer of the crime lorry as well claimants are liable for dismissal. Thus, the point is answered accordingly. 28. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A.Nos.26 and 139 of 2022 are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, stand closed. Sd/- P. VINOD KUMAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER / //TRUE COPY// To, 1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -cum- II Additional District Judge, Chittoor at Madanapalle [with records if any] 2. One CC to Sri V. Srinivasa Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri Mahadeva Kanthrigala, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri N Rama Krishna. Advocate [OPUC] 5. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati 6: Three CD Copies MV ; ’ HIGH COURT r MV ‘•i" ,s DATED: 24/03/2025 COMMON JUDGMENT + DECREE MACMA.No.26 & 139 of 2022 ^=5? andh^ X 11 JUL 2025 ^ , Current Section ^ o' m DISMISSING THE MACMA’s IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVASI fy M.A.C.M.A No. 26 OF 2022 Between; The United India Insurance Co Ltd, rep. by its Branch Manager, D.No. 7/54, Junction Road, near Five road, Salem, Tamilnadu state. ...APPELLANT / RESPONDENT -3 AND 1. Dommalapati Mallikarjuna, s/o. Krishnappa, 30 yrs. Bairemangalam, Magandlapalte, Pinganur Mandal, Chittoor dist. D.No. 3-22 2. S.Kalairasan, s/o. Sunder rajan, age-major, driver, D.No. 58-D, Pudhukalattar, Senthratoatti village, Gangavalli Tq, Salam dist, Tamilnadu 3. Shanmuga Sundaram, S/o. Raju, age-major, D.No. 89-A, Tiruchangode Road, Namakkal Town and District, Tamilnadu state. 4. M.Kumar, age-major, D.No. 96, sree Ayyappa nagaar, 4th main road, Chimmayya Nagar, Chennai. 5. Shriram General Insurance Co.Ltd., rep. by its Managing Director, E-8 EPIPRICO Industries area, Sitapura, Jaipur, Rajastan state R2 is not necessary in this Appeal] ...RESPONDENTS i > Appeal under Section 173 of MV Act, aggrieved by the decree and judgment passed in M.V.O.P. 130 OF 2015, dated 23-08-2021, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -cum- II Additional District Judge, Chittobr iihMadanapalle /■ this appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the judgment and decree of the Tribunal and the material papers in the appeal and upon hearing the arguments of Sri V.Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for the Appellant and Sri Mahadeva Kanthrigala, Advocate for the Respondent No.1 and Sri N.Rama Krishna, Advocate for the Respondent No.5 This Court doth order and decree as follows: 1. That the appeal be and hereby is dismissed 2. That there be no order as to costs in this Appeal Sd/- P. VINOD KUMAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR /f- % //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -cum- II Additional District Judge, Chittoor at Madanapalle 2. Three CD Copies MV / HIGH COURT MV DATED: 24/03/2025 DECREE MACMA.No.26 of 2022 4" 11 JUL 2025 °m ^ , Current Section DISMISSING THE MAGMA IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS M.A.C.M.A No. 139 OF 2022 Between: Dommalapati Mallikarjuna, s/o Krishnappa, Hindu, aged about 32 years, r/o D. No.3-22, Bairemangalam, Magandlapalle Punganur Mandal, Chittoor District. ...APPELLANT/ PETITIONER AND 1. S.Kalairasan, S/o Sunder Rajan, Hindu, 30 years. Driver, D.No.58-D Pudhukalattar, Senthratoatti village, Gangavalli Tqaluq, Salam district Tamilnadu. 2. Shanmuga Sundaram, s/o Raju, Hindu, age major, Driver, D.No.89-A, Tiruchangode Road, Namakkal Town, Namakkal District, Tamilnadu State. 3. The United India Insurance Company Limited, rep. by its Branch Manager, Door No.7/54, Junction Road, Near Five Road, Selam, Tamilnadu. 4. M.Kumar, Hindu, age major, D.No.96, Sree Ayyappa Nagaar, 4th Main Road, Chimmayya Nagar, Chennai, Tamilnadu State. 5. Shriram General Insurance Co Ltd, rep by its Managing Director E-8 EPIPRICO Industries Area, Sitapura, Jaipur, Rajastan State. ...RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS Appeal under Section 173 of MV Act, aggrieved by the order and dqrrPP dated 23.08.2021 in M.V.O.P.No.130 of 2015 passed by the Motor r Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum- II Additional District Court, Madanapalle, Chittoor District,. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the judgment and decree of the Tribunal and the material papers in the appeal and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Mahadeva Kanthrigala, Advocate for the Appellant and Sri V.Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for the Respondent No.3 and Sri N.Rama Krishna, Advocate for the Respondent No.5 This Court doth order and decree as follows: 1. That the appeal be and hereby is dismissed 2. That there be no order as to costs in this Appeal Sd/- P. VINOD KUMAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR |V %r //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To. 1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -cum- II Additional District Judge, Chittoor at Madanapalle 2. Three CD Copies MV HIGH COURT MV DATED: 24/03/2025 DECREE X nJUL 2025 ^ Current Secnon ^ m MACWIA.No.139 of 2022 DISMISSING THE MACMA