IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 150 OF 2022 Between: Smt.lrigineni Vijaya, W/o. Naga Raju, Aged about: 45 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. H.No. 19-13-18/1, Judiciary Colony, Old Rajarajeswripet, Vijayawada, Krishna District. ...Appellant/Petitioner AND 1. M/S Shiva Parvathi Logistics, Rep. by. A. Koti Reddy, S/o. Not known; Aged about: 50 years, Oce:nBlisiness, R/o. H.No. 2-58, Bahadurpally Village, Rangareddy District- 501 401. 2. M/S. HDFC ERGO General,Jnsurance Co. Ltd., Rep.by. its. Divisional ? r:-(p '-r ' Manager, Off: 6th floor, Leela,^Business Park, Andheri-kurla Road (E)j Mumbai- 400 059. (Police No. 2315 2006 8705 8400 002 Dated.06-02-2014 to 05-02- 2015). 3. Shaik Wasim, S/o. Gafur Muslim, Major, Driver of the Crime Vehicle Tanker Lorry bearing No. AP28 TD 7789, R/o. Vishnupuri Navin Abadi, Near Mavli Krirana Dukan, Naned Taluka, Nanded District. ...Respondents/Respondents I / / / J / Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, against the Decree iand Judgment dated. 02-11-2021 passed in M.V.O.P. No. 51 of 2015 oft t^ of the court of fl Additional District Judge-Cum-Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribd'nal at Vijayawada. Appeal coming on for hearincj:,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 Chenchu Ramaiah Advocate for the Appellant and Sri Gudi srinivas for the Respondent No.2, and none appeared for other respondents }' This Court doth order and decree as follows: V i 1. That the Appeal be and is herefey Dismissed; 2. That there be no order as to cdSts in this appeal. Sd/- P U V BHASKAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I • i //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1. The II Additional District Judge-Cum-Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal: Vijayawada, Krishna District. t 2. Three CD Copies SAM I TF i :? : , \ 0 ,J» HIGH COURT DATED;01/04/2025 f DECREE •• J. MACMA.No.150 of 2022 DISMISSING THE M.A.C.M.A IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 150 OF 2022 Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, against the Decree and Judgment dated. 02-11-2021 passed in M.V.O.P. No. 51 of 2015 on the file of the court of II Additional District Judge-Cum-Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal at Vijayawada. Between: Smt.lrigineni Vijaya, W/o. Naga Raju, Aged about; 45 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. H.No. 19-13-18/1, Rajarajeswripet, Vijayawada, Krishna District. Judiciary Colony, Old ...Appellant/Petitioner AND 1. M/S Shiva Parvathi Logistics, Rep. by. A. Koti Reddy, S/o. Not known. Aged about: 50 years, Occ; Business, R/o. H.No. 2-58, Bahadurpally Village, Rangareddy District- 501 401. 2. M/S. HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep.by. its. Divisional Manager, Off: 6th floor, Leela Business Park, Andheri-kurla Road (E), Mumbai- 400 059. (Police No. 2315 2006 8705 8400 002 Dated.06-02-2014 to 05-02- 2015). 3. Shaik Wasim, S/o. Gafur Muslim, Major, Driver of the Crime Vehicle Tanker Lorry bearing No. AP28 TD 7789, R/o. Vishnupuri Navin Abadi, , Near Mavli Krirana Dukan, Na'ned Taluka, Nanded District. ...Respondents/Respondents Counsel for the Appellant: Sri Chenchu Ramaiah Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Sri Gudi srinivas Counsel for other Respondents: None Appeared The Court made the following: -L... ... THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS M.A.C.M.A.No. 150 of 2022 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-11 Additional District Judge at Vijayawada (hereinafter called as The Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.51 of 2015 dated 02.11.2021. The appellant is the claimant before the Tribunal. The 2. respondent Nos.l to 3 are the owner, insurer and driver of the Oil Tanker Lorry bearing No.AP 28 TD 7798 (hereinafter referred to as “crime lorry”) respectively. The case of the claimant, in the petition before the 3. Tribunal is that: i). On 22.06.2014 at about 10.30 p.m., while the claimant along with her relatives proceeding in Qualis Vehicle bearing No.AP 27W 9493 from Guntur to Vijayawada, when they reached near Praturu crossroad on N.H.5 at Tadepalli, the 3^^ respondent driver of the crime lorry, which was proceeding ahead to their vehicle with high speed. without any indications applied brakes, resulted the said Qualis Vehicle dashed the rear side of the crime 0 2 lorry and the claimant sustained grievous injuries. Then she was shifted to Government Hospital and in-turn Andhra Hospital at Vijayawada for better treatment and spent huge amount towards medical expenses. ii). He claimed compensation of Rs.7,50,000/- against the owner, insurer and driver of the crime lorry. The respondent No.2/insurer filed counter denying the averments in the petition and pleaded that the accident occurred was due to the rash and negligent driving of the Qualis vehicle, but not 3^^ respondent; that the respondent is not having valid driving license to drive the crime loriy; that the compensation claimed by the claimant is excessive, thereby, prayed to dismiss the petition against this respondent. 4. The Tribunal settled the following issues for enquiry basing on the material: 5. 3 1. Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of Tanker Lorry bearing No.AP 28 TD 7789 near Praturu crossroad on NH.5 at Tadepalli at about 22.06.2014 at 10.30 p.m. by the 3^^ respondent? 2.Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so the quantum and by whom payable? and 3.To what relief?” 6. During enquiry, on behalf of the claimant, PWs. 1 and 2 were examined, Exs.A. 1 to A. 15 were exhibited. On behalf of the respondent No.2, its official was examined as R.W.l and Exs.B. 1 and B.2 were exhibited. 7. On the material, the Tribunal, having come to the conclusion that the accident occurred was due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime lorry by the 3^^ respondent. held that the claimant is entitled for the compensation of Rs. 1,60,000/-, with interest at 9% 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. 4 8. It is against the said award; the present appeal was preferred by the appellant/claimant. 9. Heard Sri P.Chenchu Ramaiah, learned counsel for the appellant/claimant and Sri Gudi Srinivasu, learned counsel for the 2^^ respondent/insurer. 10. Now, the short point that arises for determination is whether the order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside, if so, to what extent?” 11. POINT: It is not in dispute about the injuries sustained by the claimant in the incident, involvement of crime lorry and Qualis Vehicle, rash and negligent driving of the crime lorry by its driver in causing the incident, the crime vehicle is validly insured with the 2^^ respondent/insurer by the time of accident under Ex.B.l. It is also a fact that no appeal was preferred by the owner, insurer and driver of the crime lorry against the findings of the Tribunal. 5 12. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant/claimant is that the Tribunal erred in calculating the compensation entitled by the claimant, thereby, prays to enhance the same as claimed. 13. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2/insurer submits that the Tribunal after considering the material on record rightly calculated compensation entitled by the claimant and there are no valid grounds urged by the claimant to meddle with the same. 14. In view of the above contentions, this Court perused the material available on record. The testimony of P.W.2 coupled with Ex.A.4 wound certificate categorically show that the claimant sustained two grievous injuries. On perusal of Exs.A.8 to A. 12 medical bills, it is categorical that the claimant spent considerable amount towards medical expenses. By considering the said facts, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.70,000/- towards medical expenses and Rs. 10,000/- towards transportation, extra nourishment, and attendant charges. 6 Besides that, by considering the fact that the claimant house maker contributed her service to the family, Tribunal rightly assessed monthly income of Rs.5,000/- and she has taken treatment in the hospital on two occasions for a period of six months and awarded Rs.30,000/- towards loss of earnings, in-total awarded an amount of Rs. 1,60,000/-, which is a just compensation. In the absence of disability certificate before the Tribunal, rightly rejected the claim made by the claimant on the ground of loss sustained by the claimant for the disability. Furthermore, the Tribunal rightly granted interest @ 9% per annum in view of the plethora of pronouncements of Apex Court in Rahul Sharma & Another v. National Insurance 15. as 16. Company Limited and Others^ Kirthi and another V. Oriental Insurance Company Limited?, Smt.AnJali and others v. Lokendra Rathod and others, Malarvizhi & Ors. V. United India Insurance Co.Ltd. & Ors^. Thereby, this Court has no reason to interfere with the order of the '(2021) 6 see 188 2 (2021) 2 see 166 2 (2022) see OnLine Se 1683 '*(2020) 4 see 228 7 Tribunal regarding quantum of compensation entitled by the claimant as well interest granted. 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 restilt, M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed. There shall be 17. 18 no order as to costs. Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, stand closed. / Sd/- P U V BHASKAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The II Additional District Judge-Cum-Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal: Vijayawada, Krishna District. 2. One CC to Sri Chenchu Ramaiah, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri Gudi Srinivas, Advocate [OPUC] 4. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi. 5. Three CD Copies SAM HIGH COURT DATED:01/04/2025 JUDGMENT + DECREE It 2 h JUl 2025 i3 foh MACMA.No.150 of 2022 DISMISSING THE M.A.C.M.A