\ IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI MONDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. KRISHNA MOHAN AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA jVIPTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 358 OF 2020 (Appeal under Section 173 of M.V. Act against the Judgment and decree dated.23/11/2019 in M.V.O.P. No.227 of 2016 on the file of the Court of the Chairperson, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal district Judge, Kadapa) Between: Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited, Rep.by Manager, Dare House, 2 Floor, NSC Road, Chennai, Tamilnadu State. ...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT No.2 -cum- IV Additional its AND Yerrapureddy Nageswar Reddy, S/o.Yerrapu Reddy, Age 44 years Occ: Driver in APSRTC, Jammalamadugu Depot, R/o.H.No.1/27, Society Colony, Jammalamadugu Town and Mandal, Kadapa District. Ambati Satya Narayana Reddy, S/o.Eswara Reddy, Age 56 years Occ Owner of Lorry bearing No. AP 02 TO 6489, R/o.3-358, Thopavan’am Ananthapuram, Ananthapur District. S.Bala Gangadhara Reddy, S/o. Ramalinga Reddy, Age 36 years Occ Driver of Lorry bearing No. AP 02 TO 6489, R/o.H.No 4-2-760-A 6*^ Road, Ananthapuram, Ananthapuram District. 1. 2. 3. ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONENTS lA NO: 1 OF 2020 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 all further proceedings including the execution of the award f I I t f Dt:23-11-2019 in MVOP.No.227 of 2016 on the file of Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- IV Additional District Judge, Kadapa pending disposal of the MACMA. .'f Counsel for the Appellant; SRI K. SITA RAM Counsel for the Respondents: SRI D. KODANDARAMI REDDY The Court made the following: JUDGMENT APHC010254622020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3527] / MONDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN THE honourable SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA MOTOR accident CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 358/2020 Between: Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Limited AND ...APPELLANT ...RESPONDENT(S) Yerrapureddy Nageswar Reddy and Others Counsel for the Appellant: 1.KSITARAM Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.D KODANDARAMI REDDY The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: {per Hon’ble Sri Justice B Krishna Mohan) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent/claimant. This appeal was filed against the order passed in M.V.O.P.No.227 of 2016, dated 23.11.2019 on the file of Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-lV Additional District Judge, Kadapa, wherein a total compensation of Rs.74,40,131/- was awarded with proportionate costs along 2. with rate of iinterest at 6% ° per annum. The to pay the said respondents therein emount of and severally made liable The Tribunal were jointly oompensatlon. '0 detail as under:- 3. awarded the total compensation i fowardstos^earnings I 62,13,480.00 10^56^65100' 10,000.00 30000^ Rs.74,40,131.00 Towards food ^^'’^SicaTexpensis Charges ^ttendanTchargii Towards future Towards Total '*■ 'however, the learned was filed counsel for the appellant submits that °f Rs.70,00,000/- for injuries the O.P. sustained by the Tribunal IS more than claiming compensation petitioner/claimant i the '0 a road traffic accident. Whereas which i awarded the compensation of Rs.74,40,131/- compensation claim aogligence the amount. He further as the petitioner/clai submits that there aimant hit the stationed was a contributory vehicle at the spot. 5. On the other hand, *l^e learned submits that the counsel appearing for pleaded respondent/claimant 'negligence. the appellant not contributory 6. In view of the Wf//7 Ganapati ''ehicle, the Insurance Where it was decision of the Hon'ble Supreme ' Ragote and Otters', that In the Court in Sosftma ir. case of hitting of the Stationed contributory negligence Company cannot take wrongly parked without plea of proper any indication. 2024 (6) ALD 43 (SC) 3 40. On a holistic analysis of the material available on record, It is established beyond the pale of doubt that the offending truck was parked in the middle of the road without any parking lights being switched on and without any markers or indicators being placed around the stationery vehicle so as to warn the incoming vehicular traffic. This omission by the person in control of the said truck u/as In clear violation of law. The accident took place on a highway where the permissible speed limits are fairly high. In such a situation, it would be imprudent to hold that the driver of a vehicle, travelling through the highway In the dead of the night in pitch dark conditions, would be able to make out a stationary vehicle lying in the middle of the road within a reasonable distance so as to apply the brakes and avoid the collision. The situation would compounded by the headlights of the vehicles coming from the opposite direction and make the viewing of the stationary vehicle even more different. Thus, the conclusion drawn by the Courts below that the driver of the car could have averted the accident by applying the brakes and hence, he was equally negligent and contributed to the accident on the application of principle of last opportunity is ex facie perverse and cannot be sustained. Hence, it is a fit case warranting exercise of this Court’s powers under Article 136 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the concurrent finding of facts". In view of the above said settled legal principle, the said contention of the appellant cannot be accepted. As we have perused the record and judgment of the Tribunal we see no reason to interfere with the order of the 7. Tribunal in the matter of awarding compensation under the different heads as shown above. 8. Since the appeal does not contain any merit, the same is liable to be dismissed. 9. The respondent/claimant is permitted to withdraw the compensation amount in terms of the award of the Tribunal in the said O.P. 4 10. The total compensation amount shall be deposited by the appellant by taking into consideration of the previous deposits^ 11. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- U. SRIDEVI assistant registrar //TRUE COPY// To, SECTION OFFICER 1. The Chairman MACT-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Kadapa. 2. One CC to Sri K. Sita Ram, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri D. Kodandarami Reddy, Advocate [OPUCJ r High Court of A. P. 4. The Section Officer, V.R. Section, 5. Three C.D. Copies. Cnr HIGH COURT DATED:28/04/2025 \ JUDGMENT/DECRETAL ORDER MACMA.No.358 of 2020 the macma is dismissed WITH OUT COSTS IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI MONDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. KRISHNA MOHAN fo AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARI MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 358 OF 2020 Between: Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited, Rep.by its Manager, Dare House, 2"^^ Floor, NSC Road, Chennai, Tamilnadu State. ...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT No.2 AND Yerrapureddy Nageswar Reddy, S/o.Yerrapu Reddy, Age 44 years, Occ: Driver in APSRTC, Jammalamadugu Depot, R/o.H.No.1/27, Society Colony, Jammalamadugu Town and Mandal, Kadapa District. Ambati Satya Narayana Reddy, S/o.Eswara Reddy, Age 56 years, Occ; Owner of Lorry bearing No. AP 02 TC 6489, R/o.3-358, Thopavanam, Ananthapuram, Ananthapur District. S.Bala Gangadhara Reddy, S/o. Ramalinga Reddy, Age 36 years, Occ: Driver of Lorry bearing No. AP 02 TC 6489, R/o.H.No. 4-2-760-A, 6^'^ Road, Ananthapuram, Ananthapuram District. 1. 2. 3. ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONENTS Appeal under Section 173 of M.V. Act against the Judgment and decree made in M.V.O.P. No.227 of 2016 dated.23/11/2019 on the file of the Court of the Chairperson, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum- IV Additional district Judge, Kadapa 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 K. Sita Ram for the Appellant and of Sri D. Kondanda Rami Reddy for the Respondents. The Court Doth Order and Decree as follows : - ;r:. ^ % That the appeal be and is hereby dismissed; 2. That the respondent/Claimant be and is hereby permitted to withdraw the compensation amount interest of the award of the Tribunal in the said O.P. 3. That the total compensation amount shall be deposited by the appellant by taking into consideration of the previous deposits. 4. That there be no order as to costs in this appeal. Sd/- U. SRIDEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Chairman MACT -cum- IV Additional District Judge, Kadapa. 2. Three C.D. Copies. Cnr HIGH COURT DATED:28/04/2025 DECRETAL ORDER MACMA.No.358 of 2020 THE MACMA IS DISMISSED WITH OUT COSTS