IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE V Oh a T3 i-,0 -7 2.^ 4- v PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 167 OF 2024 Between: United India Insurance Company Ltd, Rep. by its Divisional Manager, Kakinada, Opp: Town Hall, Main road, Kakinada. ...Appellant/Respondent No. AND 1. Kothalanka. Simhachalam, S/o Shankarao, aged 36 years. Driver of the crime vehicle, (AP 05 DB 6858), R/o D.no. 7-9-1, Weavers colony, Payakarao peta, Visakhapatnam District. 2. Kone. Veeraju, S/o Rama Mohana Rao, HNo 3-1-2016, Owner of the crime vehicle, (AP 05 DB 6858), Near Rama Theatre, M.R.Peta, Tuni. 3. M/S The New India Assurance company Ltd, Rep. by its. Divisional Manager, Subhadra Arcade, Bhanugudi Junction, Kakinada. 4. Ankubabu, s/o Guravaiah, aged about 44 years, Driver of the Lorry tanker, (AP 16 TT 8595) D.no. 25-140, Janakiramaiah colony, Nandigam, Krishna dt. 5. Sadria. Janardhana Rao, s/o Kotaiah, Owner of lorry Tanker bearing AP 16 TT 8595, M/s Srinivasa Dal and Ground nuts. Bypass road Nandigama, Krishna dt. no. ...Respondents/Petitioners Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, aggrieved by and judgment passed in MVOP No. 62 of 2018 dated 03.10.2023 on the file of the Tribunal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum i. XII Additional District and Sessions Judge at Pithapuram. the Appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the Memorandum of Appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the lower Court and the material evidence on record and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Raja Sekhar P, Advocate for the Appellant and Sri G Venkata Subba Raju for the Respondent No.1, and Sri Galla Sudarsana Rao for the Respondent No.2, and Sri Amaneharla Satish Babu for the Respondent No.3, and none appeared for other respondents. This Court doth order and decree as follows: 1. That the Appeal be and is hereby Dismissed; That there be no order as to costs in this appeal. 2. Sd/- U SRIDEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, 1. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - XII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Pithapuram, East Godavari District. Three CD Copies 2. SAM sree w m HIGH COURT DATED:24/03/2025 DECREE MACMA.No.167 of 2024 DISMISSING THE M.A.C.M.A. WITHOUT COSTS 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 jyiPTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 167 OF 2024 Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, aggrieved by the decree and judgment passed in MVOP No. 62 of 2018 dated 03.10.2023 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - XII Additional District and Sessions Judge at Pithapura Between: m. United India Insurance Company Ltd, Rep. by its Divisional Manager Kakinada, Opp; Town Hall, Main road, Kakinada. ...Appellant/Respondent No. AND 1. Kothalanka. Simhachalam, S/o Shankarao, aged 36 years. Driver of the crime vehicle, (AP 05 DB 6858), R/o D.no. 7-9-1, Weavers colony, Payakarao peta, Visakhapatnam District. 2. Kone. Veeraju, S/o Rama Mohana Rao, HNo 3-1-2016 crime vehicle, (AP 05 DB 6858), Near Rama Theatre, M.R.Peta, Tuni. 3. M/S The New India Assurance Owner of the company Ltd, Rep. by its. Divisional Manager, Subhadra Arcade, Bhanugudi Junction, Kakinada. r A ';y./ 4. Ankubabu, s/o Guravaiah, aged about 44 years, Driver of the Lorry tanker, (AP 16 TT 8595) D.no. 25-1^0, Janakiramaiah colony, Nandigam, Krishna dt. •• • ‘ ,) Sadria. Janardhana Rao, s/o Kotaiah, Owner of lorry Tanker bearing AP 16 TT 8595, M/s Srinivasa Dal and Ground nuts. Bypass road, Nandigama, Krishna dt. no. ...Respondents/Petitioners lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Order 41 Rule 5 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of operation of decree and order dated 03.10.2023 passed in MVOP No. 62 of 2018 on of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - XII Addl. District and Sessions Judge at Pithapuram pending disposal of the above appeal. Counsel for the Appellant: Sri Raja Sekhar P Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Sri G Venkata Subba Raju Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Sri Gaila Sudarsana Rao Counsel for the Respondent No.3: Sri Amancharla Satish Babu Counsel for other Respondents: None Appeared The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS M.A.C.M.A.No.167 of 2024 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Xll Additional District Judge at Pithapuram (hereinafter called as ‘the Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.62 of 2018 dated 03.10.2023. The appellant is the insurer of the Tanker bearing 2. tanker”). The No.AP 16TT 8595 (hereinafter referred to as respondent No.l is the claimant before the Tribunal. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 are the owner and insurer of the Maruthi Ertiga Car bearing No.AP 05 DB 6858 (hereinafter referred to as “car”). The respondentNos.4 and 5 are the driver and owner of the said tanker. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter 3. referred to as they arrayed before the tribunal. The case of the claimant, in the petition before the 4. Tribunal is that: i). On 29.03.2018, while the claimant was proceeding from Kotananduru to Dwaraka Tirumala in the car along with some others, when they reached Kalavacharla Junction, Rajanagaram, the 3rd respondent driver of the tanker while crossing T’ 2 junction without blowing horn in a rash and negligent manner, the car hit the said tanker, resulted the car struck in between the tyres of the Tanker, the claimants and inmates in the car sustained grievous injuries. Then, he was taken treatment in Sai Hospital at Rajahmundry. He sustained disability due to the injury, ii). He claimed compensation of Rs. 18,65,000/- against the owner and insurer of the car, driver, owner, and insurer of the tanker. permanent eye 5. The respondent No.2/insurer of the car filed counter and additional counter denying the averments in the petition and pleaded that the police registered case against the claimant for the offence under Section 338 of IPC for his negligent driving resulted the incident; that the driver will not come under the purview of third party under M.V.Act; that the compensation claimed by the claimant is excessive, thereby, prayed to dismiss the claim against this respondent. The respondent No.5/insurer of the tanker filed counter denying the averments in the petition and pleaded that the 3^^ respondent is not having valid driving license to drive the tanker; that accident occurred was due to the negligence of the claimant, but not respondent driver of the tanker; that the compensation claimed by the claimant is excessive, thereby, prayed to dismiss the claim against this respondent. The Tribunal settled the following issues for enquiry 6. 7. basing on the material: “1.Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of 1®^ respondent by Tanker bearing No.AP 16TT 8595 resulting injuries? 2.Whether there is any contributory negligence on the part of the injured? 3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? and 4.To what relieP” During enquiry, on behalf of the claimant, P.Ws.l and 2 were examined, Exs.A.l to A. 18 and Ex.X.l were exhibited. On 8. behalf of the respondent No.2, R.W.l was examined and Exs.B.l 4 and B.2 were marked. On behalf of the respondent No.5 were examined, however, Ex.B.3 policy was marked with , none consent. 9. On the material, the Tribunal, having come to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the car by the claimant as well tanker by the 3rd respondent and attributed contributory negligence of 40% and 60% respectively, held that claimant is entitled for the compensation of Rs. 11,19,000/-, with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization against the respondent Nos.3 to 5, for the injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident. 10. It is against the said award; the present appeal was preferredby the appellant/insurerof the Tanker. 11. Heard Sri P.Rajasekhar, learned counsel for the appellant/insurer of the tanker, Sri G.Mahesh, learned counsel for the respondent No.2/owner of the car and Sri A.Satish Babu, learned counsel for the respondent No.3/insurer of the car. 5 whether Now, the point that arise for determination is the order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside, if so, to what 12. extent? 13. POINT: It is not in dispute about the injuries sustained by the claimant in the incident, involvement of the car and tanker in the incident, quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, Ex.B.l and B.3 policies issued in respect of the car and tanker by the respondent Nos.2 and 5 are in force by the date of incident. It is also not in dispute that no appeal was and insurer of the car as well preferred by the claimant, owner, driver and owner of the tanker against the findings of the Tribunal. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant/insurer of the tanker is that the incident occurred only due to the negligence on the part of the claimant, but not 3rd respondent driver of the tanker, thereby, the Tribunal erred in awarding compensation against the appellant. 14. 6 15. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2/insurer of the car submits that the Tribunal after appreciating the material record, rightly attributed contributory negligence on the part of the claimant as well 3rd on respondent-driver of the tanker at 40% and 60% respectively and there are no valid grounds urged by the appellant to meddle with the said findings, thereby, prays to dismiss the appeal. In view of the above contentions, this Court perused the material placed on record. To prove the rash and negligence the part of the driver of the tanker, the claimant, who is driver of the car, himself examined as P.W.l. He testified that the accident was occurred while the tanker crossing the highway proceeding towards Kakinada in a rash and negligence without blowing the horn. However, during cross examination, P.W. 1 admitted that police filed criminal case against him. The only witness examined on behalf of the respondents is R.W.l, who is official of respondent No.2/insurer of the Admittedly, he is not an eyewitness to the incident. The 3^^ respondent, who is driver of the tanker is the best witness to 16. on manner 17. car. 7 speak about the manner of the incident and deny the case of the claimant, but he did not choose to enter into witness box. On perusal of Ex.A.l F.I.R. shows that the driver of the 18. car drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and turned towards ADB road, Kakinada and hit the oil tanker v/hich was turning towards Kakinada ADB Road and struck in between the front and back tyres of the tanker lorry, resulted the incident. But, as stated supra, to deny the rash and negligence on the part of the 3^^ respondent/driver of the tanker, nothing was placed on record by the respondents. It is not in dispute that by the date of incident, both the claimant as well 3’''^ respondent having valid driving license to drive the respective vehicles. 19. Admittedly, the incident was occurred while the vehicles were taking turn towards Kakinada from the National Highway. On perusal of material available on record coupled with testimony of P.W.l, it is categorical that either the claimant or the 3r«i respondent were in cautious, they would have averted the incident, but they did not do so. Thereby, the Tribunal after elaborate appreciation of matter rightly came to the conclusion 8 that the incident was occurred due to contributory negligence of both claimant and respondent as well, rightly assessed the ^6§li§6nce at 40% and 60% respectively, which required interference by this Court. 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. no 20. 21. Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, stand closed. Sd/- U SRIDEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// \ SECTION OFFICER The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - XII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Pithapuram, East Godavari District. One CC to Sri Raja Sekhar P, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Sri G Venkata Subba Raju, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Sri Galla Sudarsana Rao, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Sri Amancharla Satish Babu, Advocate [OPUC] Three CD Copies To 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. SAM sree HIGH COURT DATED:24/03/2025 JUDGMENT + DECREE MACMA.No.167 of 2024 DISMISSING THE M.A.C.M.A. WITHOUT COSTS