IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 75 OF 20^^ Between: New India Assurence Company Ltd., Rep by its Divisional Manager ,LVR Complex, Koretipadu, Guntur, (policy No 62100131150100003564, Valid from 14-03-2006 to 13-03-2017) ...APPELLANT/ RESPONDENT AND Skaik Saheda, W/o Late Shaik Jilani, Aged about 36 years. House wife, R/o, 4th line Vinobha Nagar, Old Guntur, Guntur 1. 2. Skaik Yasmin, D/o, Late Shaik Jilani, Aged about 17 years, House wife R/o, 4th line Vinobha Nagar, Old Guntur, Guntur 3. Skaik Shabbeer, S/o, Late Shaik Jilani, Aged about 12 years. House wife R/o, 4th line Vinobha Nagar, Old Guntur, Guntur Shaik Abdul Khadar, S/o, Shaik Mohaboob Saheb, Aged about 65 years Senior Citizen, R/o, 4th line Vinobha Nagar, Old Guntur, Guntur 4. Shaik Sulthana, W/o Shark Abdul Khadar, Aged about 62 years, house wife R/o, 4th line Vinobha Nagar, Oid Guntur, Guntur 5. ... Respondents / Claimants / 6. Mohammad Suhail Azhar, S/o Abdul Mujeer, D No 18-4-33, Syed Khan .. Street Stadium Road ,Guntur. ( Owner of the Crane bearing Number AP 07 |AV 73|^) 7; lllapu Srinivas, S/o, Ramu ,R/o, Addasaram Village, Kanchugumalla Post, Rollagunta Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, ( Driver of the Crane bearing Number AP 07 AV 7335) ...RESPONDENTS/ PETITIONERS Appeal under Section 173 of MV Act, aggrieved by the decree and judgment passed in MVOP 1251/2016, dated 11-03-2020, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -cum- Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -Cum- IV Additional District Judge, Guntur 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 Amancharla Satish Babu, Advocate for the Appellant and Sri Habibulla Shaik, Advocate for the Respondent No’s 6,7 This Court doth order and decree as follows: 1. That the Appeal be and hereby is dismissed. 2. That there shall be no order as to costs in this Appeal Sd/- P.VINOD KUMAR ASSISTANT REGISTER //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -cum- IV Additional District Judge, Guntur 2. Three CD Copies MV HIGH COURT MV DATED: 28/03/2025 DECREE MACWIA.No.75 of 2022 DISMISSING THE MACMA \ IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 75 OF 2022 Appeal under Section 173 of MV Act, aggrieved by the decree and judgment passed in MVOP 1251/2016, dated 11-03-2020, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -cum- Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -Cum- IV Additional District Judge, Guntur Between: New India Assurance Company Ltd., Rep by its Divisional Manager ,LVR Complex, Koretipadu, Guntur, (policy No 62100131150100003564, Valid from 14-03-2006 to 13-03-2017) ...APPELLANT/ RESPONDENT AND 1. Skaik Saheda, W/o Late Shaik Jilani, Aged about 36 years. House wife R/o, 4th line Vinobha Nagar, Old Guntur, Guntur 2. Skaik Yasmin, D/o, Late Shaik Jilani, Aged about 17 years. House wife R7o, 4th line Vinobha Nagar, Old Guntur, Guntur 3. Skaik Shabbeer, S/o, Late Shaik Jilani, Aged about 12 years. House wife, R/o, 4th line Vinobha Nagar, Old Guntur, Guntur 4. Shaik Abdul Khadar, S/o, Shaik Mohaboob Saheb, Aged about 65 years, Senior Citizen, R/o, 4th line Vinobha Nagar, Old Guntur, Guntur , house wife , W/0 Shaik Abdul Khadar Aged about 62 years ■ R/o, 4th line Vinobha Nagar, Old Guntur, Guntur 5. Shaik Sulthana ... Respondents / Claimants 6 Mohammad Suhai, Azhar, S/o Abduf Mujeer, D No 18-4-33, Syed Khan Street Stadium Road .Guntur. ( Owner of the Crane bearing Number AP AV 7335) 7 lllapu Srinivas, S/o, Ramu, R/o, Addasaram Roilagunta Mandal, Visakhapatnam Dt., ( Driver of the Crane bearing Number AP 07 AV 7335) ■' 't: Village, Kanchugumalla Post, ...RESPONDENTS/ PETITIONERS ; SRI AMANCHARLA SATISH BABU Counsel for the Appellant counsel for the Respondent No>s 6,7: SRI HABIBULLA SHAIK The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS M.A.C.M.A.No.75 of 2022 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-lV Additional District Judge at Guntur (hereinafter called as ‘the Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.1251 of 2016 dated 11.03.2020. 2. The appellant is the insurer of the Crane bearing No.AP 07 AV 7335 (hereinafter referred to as crime vehicle”). The respondent Nos. 1 to 5, who are wife, daughter, son, and parents of one Shaik Jailani (hereinafter called as “deceased”), before the Tribunal. The respondent Nos.6 and 7 are the driver and owner of the said crime vehicle. 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 27.09.2016, one lorry was brought to the work shop of the deceased, at about 03.30 p.m., while the body of the lorry was removing from the lorry by crime vehicle, the back portion of the lorry body detached from the hooks of the crane and fell on the was deceased, resulted, the deceased sustained grievous 4' 2 injuries. Then he was shifted to Yasaswi Hospital Guntur, where he was declared as dead, ii). The deceased used to get Rs. 1,000/- per day by doing lorry body building works and contributed same for the welfare of the family. Being dependents, they claimed compensation of Rs. 12,00,000/- against the owner, insurer, and driver of the said crime vehicle. The respondent No. 1/owner of the crime vehicle filed at the 5. counter denying the averments in the petition and pleaded that the accident occurred was due to the negligence of the deceased, but not 3rd respondent; that the 3rd respondent is to operate the crime vehicle; that the crime vehicle was validly insured with the 3rd respondent; that the compensation claimed by the claimant is excessive, thereby, prayed to dismiss the claim respondent. having valid and effective driving license against this 6. The respondent No.3/insurer of the crime vehicle filed counter denying the averments in the petition and pleaded that by the time of incident, the crime vehicle was operated by the helper in the crane, but not the original operator, which reveals in charge sheet; that the 3'^'^ respondent is not having valid and effective driving license to operate the crime vehicle, thereby, prayed to dismiss the claim against this respondent. The Tribunal settled the following issues and additional 7. issues for enquiry basing on the material: '1.Whether the death of deceased occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of Crane bearing No.AP 07AV 7335? 2.Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? and 3.To what relieP” During enquiry, on behalf of the claimants, P.Ws.l and 2 were examined, Exs.A.l to A.5 were exhibited. On behalf of the 8. respondent No.2, R.Ws.l and 2 were examined and Exs.B.l, X. 1 and X.2 were examined. On the material, the Tribunal, having come to the 9. conclusion that the accident occurred due to the negligent operating of the crime vehicle, held that claimant is entitled for the compensation of Rs.9,27,500/-, with interest at 7.5% per % 4 annum from the date of petition till the against the respondent Nos. 1 to 3, for the death of the in the accident. date of realization deceased 10. It is against the said award; the present appeal was preferred by the appellant/insurer of the crime vehicle. 11. Heard Sri A.Satish babu, learned counsel for the appellant/insurer and Sri Habibulla Shaik, learned the respondent Nos.6 and 7. counsel for 12. Now, the point that arise for determination is “whether the order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside, if extent?” so, to what 13 POINT: It is not in dispute about the death of the deceased in the incident, involvement of the vehicle, quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, Ex.B.l package policy issued in respect of the crime vehicle by the respondent No.2 is in force by the date of incident. It is also not in dispute that no appeal was preferred by the claimant, driver, crime vehicle against the findings of the Tribunal. crime or owner of the 5 The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant/insurer is that by the time of incident, the helper of the crane, who is respondent operating the same, thereby, violated the terms and conditions of the policy. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.6 and 7 submits that the Tribunal after appreciating the material available on record, rightly came to the conclusion that due to the negligent operating of the crime vehicle resulted the incident and that there are no valid grounds urged by the appellant to meddle with the order of the Tribunal. 14. 15. In view of the above said contention, this Court perused the material on record. It is the specific case of the claimants that the accident was occurred due to negligence of respondent in operating the crime vehicle. P.W. 1, who is wife of the deceased, testified that the deceased has engaged the crime vehicle and while affecting the body repairs of the lorry, due to the negligence of the respondent/operator of the crime vehicle suddenly the back portion of the body of the lorry detached from the hooks of the crane and fell on the deceased. 16. was / 6 resulted death of the deceased. Admittedly, P.W.l is not an eye witness to the incident. However, to fortify the case of the claimants, they got examined P.W.2 examined, who categorically testified about the manner of the incident. Nothing was elicited during cross examination to disbelieve their testimony. is the foremost contention of the 2nd 17. It respondent/insurer that the police filed charge sheet by showing both the 3^^ respondent and Syed Basha as accused Nos.l and 2. Basing on the said document only the appellant/insurer raised such contention that by the time of incident the helper of the crime vehicle operating the same. resulted the incident. On perusal of Ex.A.5 charge sheet, it shows that accused 18. No.l by name Illapu Srinu is the helper and accused No.2 Syed Basha is the operator of the crane bearing No.AP 07 AV 7335 for lifting the body of the lorry bearing No.AP 7 T 8190 and to place it down. Accused No.l is operating the crane while accused No.2 is giving directions to accused No.l. As the belts were not arranged in exact place by calculating the distance, the rear belt 7 that was arranged to the hook got slipped from the hook and the body of the lorry has fallen on the deceased and he received bleeding injuries. Except bare averments in the charge sheet, nothing was placed on record to say that 3^^ respondent is not competent to operate the crime vehicle. On perusal of the claim petition, the said lllapu Srinu/accused No.l is the party to the proceedings and due to his negligence in operating the crane, the incident was occurred. It is the testimony of R.W.l R.T.A. official that when he verified about the driving license of respondent No.3, no However, during cross examination he categorically testified that if there is any address proof, respondent No.3 can obtain driving license from the said address by producing address proof and there are seven license issuing authorities in Guntur District. He has verifying Guntur Local authority only. Viewing from the above, the contention raised by the appella,T3Lt that the 3''^ respondent is not competent to operate the crime vehicle has no legs to stand. 19. license in his name. 20. 8 21. Now, it is needless to say that the Tribunal by following the renowned pronouncements of HonTDle Supreme Court in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Ltd.^, Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation^ and National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi^, calculated the compensation entitled by the claimants and awarded just compensation, thereby, this Court has no reason to interfere with the said calculations and conclusion arrived by the Tribunal. 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 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 order as to costs. Insurance Co *9 22. 23. 1 2011 (6) ALT 48 (SC) 2 AIR 2009 Supreme Court 3104 3 2017(6) ALT 60 (SC) \ Ik- 9 Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, stand closed. Sd/- P. VINOD KUMAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Judge, Guntur [with records if any ] One CC to Sri Amancharla Satish Babu, One CC to Sri Habibulla Shaik, Advocate The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court of Andhra Amaravati -cum- IV Additional District 2. Advocate [OPUC] [OPUC] 3. 4. Pradesh at 5. Three CD Copies MV HIGH COURT MV DATED: 28/03/2025 JUDGMENT + DECREE MACMA.No.75 of 2022 -res .is: o\\ 23 JUL 2025 lO fn i Co ★ DISMISSING THE MAGMA