IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH:lAMARAVATI FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS M.A.C.M.A Nos. 334 & 406 of 2022 MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 334 OF 2022 .r Between: Mallela Ranga Rao, S/o Ramayya. Christian, Male, Aged about 45 years, R/o Mudicherla, Lingapalem Mandal, W.G. Dt ...Petltioner/Petltioner I'; "r AND 1. Gattu Eswara Rao, S/o Venl^ayya, Hindu, Male, Aged about 54 years Driving of lorry, R/o Kasinagar Post, Chinna Bandid Revu Mandal, Khammam District. i 2. Attaluri Kamala, W/o Ravindra, Hindu, Female, Aged about 46 years Owner of Lorry Bearing No.AP-16-TW-4236, R/o KVR Colony, Enkipaud, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 3. Chola MS General Insurance Co., Ltd., rep by Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, D-Floor, Dare House, 2 NSC Bose Road, Chennai - 600 001 ...Respondents/Respondents Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, aggrieved by the Decree and judgment dated 17.01.2022 passed in M.V.O.P No. 97/2016 (Before Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- Judge, Family Couft-cunixVM Additional Court, West Godavari District, Eluru. ■ # • i ^ ■ MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 406 OF 2022 Between; Chola MS General Insurance Company Limited, Rep by Divisional Manager. Divisional Office, D- Floor , Dare House.2 NSC Bose Road, Chennai. ...Appellant/3 Respondent AND 1. Mallela Ranga Rao, S/o.Ramaian, Christian, Male, Age 45 years. Agriculture coolie, R/o.Mudicherla. Lingapalem Mandal, West Godavari District. ...Respondent/Claimant 2. Gattu Eswararao, S/o.Venkayya, Hindu, Male, aged 54 years. Driver of Lorry, R/o.Kasinagar Post, Chinna Bandi Revu Mandal, Khammam District. 3. Attaluri Kamala., W/o Ravindra, Hindu. Female, Age 46 years. Owner of Lorry AP 16 TW 4236, R/o.KVR Colony, Enkipadu, Vijayawada, Krishna District. ...Respondents/ Respondents Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V Act, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in M.V.O.P.No.97 of 2016 on the file of Motor Accidents District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru Claims Tribunal - Cum - VII Additional dated the 17"’ day of January, 2022. These appeals coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of the Trial Court and material papers of Sri B V Krishna Reddy, of appeal, the judgment and Decree petition and upon hearing arguments MAGMA No. 334 of 2022 and for the in the Advocate for the Appellant in Respondent No.1 in MAGMA No.406 of 2022 and Sri N Hanumantha Rao, in MAGMA No. 334 of 2022 and Sri in MAGMA No. 334 of 2022 Advocate for Respondent No.2 N.Ramakrishna representing Sri Gudi Srinivas in and for the Appellant in MAGMA No.406 of 2022 This Court doth Order and decree as follows; 1. That the MACMA Nos.334 and 406 of 2022 be and are hereby C- dismissed; 2. That there shall be no order as to costs in these appeals. Sd/- M PRABHAKAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- Judge, Family Court-cum- Additional Court, Eluru, West Godavari District 1. Vll Two CD copies V- - HIGH COURT DATED: 28/03/2025 COMMON DECREE X 2UUN 2025 I ^ . Current Seciion MACMA.Nos.334 & 406 of 2022 DISMISSING THE MAGMA’S IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS M.A.C.M.A Nos. 334 & 406 of 2022 jyiOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 334 OF 2022 Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act the Decree and judgment dated 17.01.2022 97/2016 (Before Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- Judge, Family Court-cum- VII Additional Court, West Godavari District, Eluru. Between: Mallela Ranga Rao, S/o Ramayya, Christian, Male, Aged about R/o Mudicherla, Lingapalem Mandal, W.G. Dt aggrieved by passed in M.V.O.P No. 45 years. ...Petitioner/Petitioner AND 1. Gatlu Eswara Rao, S/o VenkaVya, Hindu, Male, Aged about 54 Driving of lorry, R/o Kasinagar Post, Chinna Bandid Revu Mandal, Khammam District. 2. Attaluri Kamala, W/o Ravindra, Hindu, Female, Owner of Lorry Bearing No.AP-16-TW-4236, R/o KVR Colony, Enkipaud, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 3. Chola MS General Insurance Co., Ltd. Divisional Office, D-Floor, Dare House, 2 NSC 600 001 years. Aged about 46 years. rep by Divisional Manager, Bose Road, Chennai - r ...Respondents/Respondents J jCoCfnsel for the Appellant: Sri. B V Krishna Reddy r/ ■ -’i • Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Sri N Hanumantha Rao Counsel for the Respondent No.3: Sri N Ramakrishna Representing Sri GudiSrinivas " motor accident civil miscellaneous appeal NO: 406 OF 2022 Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V Act, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in M.V.O.P.Np.97 of 2016 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - Cum - VII Additional District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru dated the 17 th day of January--2022:' Between: Chola MS General Insurance Company Limited, Rep by Divisional Manager. Divisional Office, D- Floor, Dare House.2 NSC Bose Road, Chennai. ...Appellant/S'^'^ Respondent AND Mallela Ranga Rao, S/o.Rahiaian, Christian, Male, Age 45 Agriculture coolie, R/o.Mudichefla. Lingapalem Mandal, West Godavari District. 1. years. ...Respondent/Claimant Gattu Eswararao, S/o.Venk-ayya, Hindu, Male, aged 54 years. Driver of Lorry, R/o.Kasinagar Post, Chinna Bandi District. 2- Revu Mandal, Khammam a 3. Attaluri Kamala., W/o Ravindra, Hindu. Female, Age 46 years, Owner of Lorry AP 16 TW 4236, R/o.KVR Colony, Enkipadu, Vijayawada, Krishna District. ...Respondents/ Respondents lA NO: 2 OF 2022 / f : 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 grant stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the decree and judgment dated the 17th day of January, 2022 passed in M.V.O.P.No.97 of 2015 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Cum- VII Additional District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru, including execution proceedings, pending disposal of the main M.A.C.M.A., Counsel for the Appellant: Sri N Ramakrishna Representing Sri Gudi Srinivasu Counsel for the Respondent No.l: Sri B V Krishna Reddy The Court made the following: / # THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS / / M.A.C.M.A.Nos.334 & 406 of 2022 / COMMON JUDGMENT: / These appeals are directed against the order of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-VIIl / Additional District Judge, West Godavari at Eluru (hereinafter called as ‘the Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.97 of 2016 dated 17.01.2022. 2. Since these appeals arise out of same accident and as the material facts are common, the same are being disposed of by this common judgment. 3. M.A.C.M.A.No.334 of 2022 is preferred by the claimant before the Tribunal for enhancement of compensation. The respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are the driver, owner and insurer of the Loriy bearing No.AP 16 TW 4236 (hereinafter referred to as crime lorry”). M.A.C.M.A.No.406 of 2022 is preferred by the insurer of 4. the crime lorry. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter 5. referred to as they arrayed before the tribunal. The case of the claimant, in the petition before the 6. Tribunal is that: 2 i). On 30.06.2015 at about 07.00 a.m., while the claimant along with his proceeding from Vinayakapuram Vinayakapuram old village by foot, near assistant Pentamma were SC colony to when they reached community hall, the crime loro^ driven by the 1 St respondent in a rash and negligent against the claimant and Pentamma, manner, dashed resulted the claimant sustained grievous injuries, his right leg crushed and the said Pentamma died was on the spot. ii). He claimed compensation of Rs.45,00,000/- against the driver. owner, and insurer of the said crime lorry, crime lony filed averments in the petition and pleaded that 7. The respondent No.3/insurer counter denying the of the the petitioner has to prove that the Ht respondent-driver of the crime forty is having valid driving license vehicle; that the to drive the crime compensation claimed the excessive, thereby, prayed to dismiss claimant is the petition, the following issues for 8. The Tribunal settled basing on the material: enquiry 3 1.Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in the accident occurred on 30.06.2015 at about 07.00 PM near Vinayakapuram outskirts, Aswaraopet Mandal due to rash and negligent driving of lorry bearing No.AP 16 TW 4236 by its driver/ 1®^ respondent? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation, if so, from whom? and 3.To what relief?” // i 9. During enquiry, on behalf of the claimants, PWs.l to 4 were examined and Exs.A. 1 to A.6 and X. 1 were exhibited. On behalf of the respondents, none were examined and no documentary evidence was adduced. 10. On the material, the Tribunal, having concluded that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the crime lorry by the Isi^ respondent, held that claimant is entitled for the compensation of Rs.21,81,000/-, with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization against the respondent Nos. 1 to 3, for the injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident. It is against the said order; these appeals are preferred by 11. the claimant and insurer of the crime lorry respectively. 4 12. Heard Sri B.V.Krishna Reddy, learned appellant/claimant in M.A.C.M.A.No.334 of 2022 N.Ramakrishna, Srinivasu, counsel for the and Sri learned counsel learned counsel for M.A.C.M.A.No.406 of 2022. Now, the point that arises for determination i the order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside, i what extent? representing Sri Gudi the \ appellant/insurer in 13. IS “whether if so, to 14. POINT; It is not in dispute about the injuries sustained by the claimant in the incident, involvement of the crime lorry, rash. and negligent driving of the crime lorry by the respondent irn causing the incident, disability sustained by the claimant the injuries caused in the accident. It i due to IS also a fact that the driver and owner of the crime lorry did not prefer any appeal against the findings of the Tribunal. 15. The only contention raised by the learned appellant/claimant is that the Tribunal erred i compensation entitled by the claimant counsel for the calculating the rn and awarded meager - / 5 compensation, since he is suffering from 80% disability due to the injuries sustained in the incident, the Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation as claimed. In support of the said contentions, he relied upon the pronouncements of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Baby Sakshi Greola v. Manzoor Ahmad Simon\ G.Vivek v. National Insurance Company Limited^, Atul Tiwari v. Regional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.^ and Gopalappa v. Kandaluru Shankar Redd^. Per contra, learned counsel for the appellant/insurer submits that the Tribunal wrongly taken the monthly income of claimant at Rs. 12,000/- instead of Rs.4,500/-, thereby, the Tribunal erred in calculating the compensation entitled by the 16. claimant. In view of the above contentions, this Court perused the material available on record. It is not in dispute that by the date of incident, the claimant working as mason. He claimed his monthly income at Rs.20,000/-, but, to prove the same, he did 17. 1 2025 AIAR (Civil) 1 2 2023 ACJ 585 3 2025 ACJ 43 “2022 ACJ 1427 ^ 6 not file any substantial absence of the material before the Tribunal, same, the Tribunal In the rightly taken the at Rs. 12,000/-, which notional monthly income of the claimant no interference by this Court. It is also not i ^ requires 18. m dispute that by the date of incident, the years as mentioned in Ex.A.5 claimant was aged about 45 disability certificate and he sustained disability of 80% with ^rnputation of les dup tn rno ■ • leg due to the mjunes sustained in the incident. By considering the above adding the future claimant and mentioned facts, the Tribunal after prospects at 25% to the i applying suitable multiplier, compensation entitled by the claimant income of the rightly calculated the and awarded an amount of Rs.20,16,000/- towards loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability. Besides that, the Tribunal 19. also awarded an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards nai learned pain and suffering. On that count, the counsel for the claimant observations of Hon-ble Supreme submits that as per the Court in Babi/ Sakshi Greola / / 7 case (referred to supra), the Tribunal ought to have awarded an amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- towards pain and suffering. On a glance to the above said judgment of the Hon’ble 20. Supreme Court, it is categorical at paragraph No.40 that the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the considered view that it would be appropriate to award m compensation to the tune of Rs. 15,00,000/- to the present appellant under the head of pain and suffering”. Thereby, in the considered opinion of this Court, the Tribunal rightly awarded an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards pain and suffering as well Rs. 10,000/- towards transportation, Rs.5,000/- towards damages of cloths and Rs.50,000/- towards special diet and attendant charges, in-total awarded Rs.21,81,000/- to 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 21. Tribunal. 8 22. It is needless to say that the remaining citations relied upon by the learned counsel for the claimant applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case. 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 claimant as well insurer of the crime lorry are liable for dismissal. Thus, the point is answered accordingly. are not \ 23. 24. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A.Nos.334 and 406 of 2022 dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, stand closed. are Sd/- M PRABHAKAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// / To / 1. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- Judge, Family Court-cum- VII Additional Court, Eluru, West Godavari District (with records) 2. One CC to Sri Gudi Srinivasu Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri B V Krishna Reddy Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri N Hanumantha Rao Advocate [OPUC] 5. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi 6. Three CD Copies Stu (gsg) HIGH COURT DATED: 28/03/2025 COMMON JUDGMENT MACMA.Nos.334 & 406 of 2022 + COMMON DECREE ’ .. ^ X 24-JUN 2025 « ^ . Current Section m dismissing the MACMA’S