IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. SRINIVAS MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 453 OF 2022 Between: i. The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Rep. by its Regional Manager, Dwarakanagar, Visakhapatnam-530 016, now reptd. by its Manager, T.P.Hub, Sri G.V.V.S V.P.Janaki Ram, S/o.Late G.A.V.K.N. Sundaram, aged 55 years. Divisional Office, III Floor, Datta Sai Vemuri Towers, Veterinary Hospital'Road, Labbipet, Vijayawada. • V ...Appellant AND 1. Kanaparthi Vasu, S/o.Rama Rao, Hindu, aged about 38 years, residing at Vommavaram, S.Rayavaram Mandalam, Vizag District. 2. Sunkara Gowri Sankara N^geswara Rao @ Sankara Rao, S/o.Late Chandra Rao, aged 45 ye^rs, ,residing at Lakshmi Prasanna Apartment, Lakshmi Devi Peta, Anakapalje District. 3. Dadi Venkata Suri Appa RaV," S/o.Trinadh, Lorry Owner, AP 31 TC 1349, Agraharam, Anakapalle District. 4. V.Nagaratnam, S/o.Varuthappan, Hindu, residing at D.No.287, Jalagandapuram Road, Edappady Taluk, Selam District, Tamilnadu. 5. R.Thangaraju, S/o.Rajagpunder, Lorry Owner, T.C-52-F-7638 D.No.3/144, Salem District, Tamilnadu. 6. National Insurance Company Ltd., rep. by Divisional Manager, DO-II, CBM Compound, Visakhapatnam. ...Respondents Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, praying that the High Court may be pleased to set-aside the Order and Decree dated 20.06.2022 passed in M.V.O.P.No.145 of 2019, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-ll Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Award and Decree of the Trial Court and material papers in the petition and upon hearing arguments of Sri M.Srinu Babu, Advocate representing Sri N.Nageswara Rao, Advocate for Appellant, and of Sri K.Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for Respondent No.1, Sri A.Harsha, Advocate representing Sri A.S.C.Bose Advocate for Respondent No.3, Sri V.Veerabhadra Chary, Advocate for Respondent No.6 and none appeared for Respondent No.2, and Respondent Nos.4 and 5 remained exparte before the Tribunal. THIS COURT DOTH ORDER AND.DECREE: 1. That the MACMA be and the same hereby is dismissed; and 2. That there shall be no order as to costs in this MACMA. Sd/- M PRABHAKAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR f\t^ SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To. 1. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-ll Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 2. Two CD Copies HIGH COURT DATED: 25/03/2025 DECREE MACMA.No.453 of 2022 j % ) V DISMISSING THE MAGMA WITHOUT COSTS \ \ IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI TUESDAY. THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE 9 « T)' PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. SRINIVAS MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 453 OF 2022 Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, praying that the r%,.. High Court may be pleased to" set-aside the Order and Decree, dated 20.06.2022 passed in M.V.O.P.Nq.145 of 2019, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cumHI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. / . • Between: The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Rep. by its Regional Manager, Dwarakanagar, Visakhapatnam-530 016, now reptd. by its Manager, T.P.Hub, Sri G.V.V.S.V.P.Janaki Ram, S/o.Late G.A.V.K.N. Sundaram, aged 55 years. Divisional Office, III Floor, Datta Sai Vemuri Towers, Veterinary Hospital Road, Labbipet, Vijayawada. ...Appellant AND Kanaparthi Vasu, S/o.Rama Rao, Hindu, aged about 38 years, residing at Vommavaram, S.Rayavaram Mandalam, Vizag District. 1. Sunkara Gowri Sankara N^geswara Rao @ Sankara Rao, S/o.Late Chandra Rao, aged 45 years, residing at Lakshmi Prasanna Apartment, Lakshmi Devi Peta, Anakapalle,District. 2. 3. Dadi Venkata Suri Appa Rao, S/o.Trinadh, Lorry Owner, AP 31 TC 1349, Agraharam, Anakapalle District. S/o.Varuthappan, Hindu, residing at D.No.287, Jalagandapuram Road, Edappady Taluk, Selam District, Tamilnadu. S/o.Rajagbunder, Lorry Owner, T.C-52-F-7638, D.No.3/144, Salem District, Tamilnadu. 6. National Insurance Company Ltd., rep. by Divisional Manager, DO-II, CBM Compound, Visakhapatnam. 4. V.Nagaratnam, 5. R.Thangaraju ...Respondents lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Between: ■ Kanaparthi Vasu, S/o.RartlpTRad, Hindu, aged about 38 R/o.Vommavaram, S.Rayavbreni Mandalam, Vizag District. years. ...Petitioner/Respondent No.1 ilj AND 1. The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Rep. by its Regional Manager, Dwarakanagar, Visakhapatnam-530 016, now reptd. by its Manager, T.P.Hub, Sri G.V.V.S.V.P.Janaki Ram, S/o.Late G.A.VKN. Sundaram, aged 55 years. Divisional Office, III Floor, Datta Sai Vemuri Towers, Veterinary Hospital Road, Labbipet, Vijayawada. ...Respondent/Appellant 2. Sunkara Gowri Sankara Nageswara Rao @ Sankara Rao, S/o.Late Chandra Rao, aged 45 years, residing at Lakshmi Prasanna Apartment, Lakshmi Devi Peta, Anakapalle District. 3. Dadi Venkata Suri Appa Rao, S/o.Trinadh, Lorry Owner, AP 31 TC 1349, Agraharam, Anakapall.e District. 4. V.Nagaratnam, S/o.Varuthappan, Hindu, residing at D.No.287 Jalagandapuram Road, Edappady Taluk, Selam District, Tamilnadu. ; I.' 5. R.Thangaraju, S/o.Rajagounder, Lorry Owner, T.C-52-F-7638, D.No.3/144, Salem District, Tamilnadu. 6. National Insurance Company Ltd., rep. by Divisional Manager, DO-II CBM Compound, Visakhapatnam. Respondents/Respondent No.2 to 6 (Respondents No.2 to 6 are not necessary parties to this petition) .- A Petition filed under Section T5-1 CPC, the petitioner/respondent No.1 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the Interim stay Order passed in IA.No.1 of 2022 in MAGMA No.453 of 2023 dated 09-11-2022. lA NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition filed 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 interim stay all further proceedings including execution of the Award in M.V.O.P.No.145 of 2019, dated 20.06.2022 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims tribunal-cum-ll Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam. Si, Counsel for the Appellant 'Sri M.Srinu Babu, Advocate representing Sri Nagumantri Nageswara Rao Counsel for the Respondent No.l: Sri Srinivasa Rao Kurapati r f ■ -i'- Counsel for the Respondent No,3: Sri A.Harsha, Advocate representing Sri A.S.C.Bose Counsel for the Respondent No.6: Sri V.Veerabhadra Chary Counsel for the Respondent No.2: None appeared .-.civ-'; . Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4&5: Exparte before Tribunal / The Court made the following j- - <■ / THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS / / M.A.C.M.A.No.453 of 2022 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-11 Additional District Judge at Visakhapatnam (hereinafter called as ‘the Tribunal in M.V.O.P.No. 145 of 2019 dated 20.06.2022. The appellant is the insurer of the Lorry bearing No.AP 31 TC 1349 (hereinafter referred to as “crime lorry No.l”). The respondent No.l is the claimant before the Tribunal. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 are the driver and owner of the said lorry No.l. The respondent Nos.4 to 6 are the driver, owner and insurer of the Lorry bearing No.TN 52F 7639 (hereinafter referred to as “crime loriy No.2”). For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter 2. crime 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 15.09.2015 midnight, while the claimant was proceeding from Anakapalli in crime lorry No.l as owner of the goods, when they reached near Atchutapuram village on NH-16 road, the spondent drove the crime lorry No.l in a rash and 1st re 4 2 \ \ negligent manner, dashed the cri wrongly parked without si sustain fracture same. crime loriy No.2, which was signal lights, resulted i and in on his left leg amputated the “)• He claimed compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- owner, and insurer of against the I'espective driver the crime lorry Nos. 1 and 2. 5. The respondent No.2/owner of the crime lorry No. 1 fried petition and pleaded that validly insured with the counter denying the the averments in the crime lorry No.l was 3rd respondent/insurer claimant is and that the thereby, prayed compensation claimed by the to dismiss the excessive. claim against this respondent. 6. The respondent No.3/insurer denying the of the crrme lorry No.l filed counter that by the date averments in the petition and of incident, the claimant pleaded proceeding in the crime lorry No.l terms and conditions contributory negligence as gratuitous passenger, thereby, violated of the policy; that there i on the part of the driver the IS composite and of the crime 3 lorry No.2; that the compensation claimed by the claimant is excessive, thereby, prayed to dismiss the claim against this respondent. The respondent No.6/insurer of the crime lorry No.2 filed counter denying the averments in the petition and pleaded that the accident occurred was only due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime lorry No.l, but not 4^ respondent, thereby, prayed to dismiss the claim against this respondent. The Tribunal settled the following issues and additional issues for enquiry basing on the material: 7. 8. 1 .Whether the petitioner Kanaparthi Vasu sustained 15.09.2015 at 12.00 midnight on account injuries on of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Lorry bearing registration No.AP 31 TC 1349 when it reached Atchutapuram village on NH-16 road, in which the petitioner was travelling? 2.Whether the driver of the crime vehicle was having valid and effective driving license at the time of accident? 3.Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation as prayed for? % 4 \ 4.Whether the driver of stationed lorry bearing No.TN 52 F 7638 contributed for the accident by parking the same? 5.Whether the compensation and interest claimed by the petitioner are excessive? and 6.To what relief?” During enquiry, on behalf of the claimant, P.Ws.l and 2 were examined, Exs.A.l to A.8 were exhibited. On behalf of the respondent No.2, himself was examined as R.W.l and during examination of R.W.l by respondent No.3, Exs.B.l to B.4 were marked. On behalf of the respondent No.3, its Assistant Manager was examined as R.W.2 and Ex.B.5 policy marked. On behalf of the respondent No.6, its Assistant Manager was examined as R.W.3 and Ex.B.6 policy marked. wrong 9. cross was was 10. On the material, the Tribunal, having come to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the contributory negligence of 1st and 4^^ respondents assessing 80% and 20% respectively, held that claimant is entitled for the compensation of Rs. 11,25,000/-, with interest at 7.5% per annum from the 5 till the date of realization against the respondent date of petition Nos.l to 6, for the injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident. said award; the present appeal was of the crime lorry No.l. It is against the 11. preferred by the appellant/ insurer Heard Sri M.Srinu Babu, learned counsel representing Sri 12. N.Nageswara Rao, learned counsel for the appellant/insurer of the crime lorry No.l, Sri K.Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the respondent No.l/claimant, Sri A.Harsha, learned counsel learned counsel for the respondent representing Sri A.S.C.Bose No.3/owner of the crime lorry No.l and Sri V.Veerabhadra Chary, learned counsel for the respondent No.6/insurer of the crime lorry No.2. Now, the point that arise for determination is the order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside, if so, to what extent?” whether 13. 14. POINT: It is not in dispute about the injuries sustained by the claimant in the incident, involvement of the crime lorry Nos.l 6 \ \ and 2 in the incident, Tribunal, Ex.B.5 and B.6 loriy Nos.l and 2 by the respondent quantum of compensation awarded by the policies issued in respect of the crime Nos.3 and 6 the date of incident. It is also not in dispute that preferred by the claimant, of the crime lorry No.2 and i are in force by no appeal was owner of the crime lorry No.l, - insurer of the owner crime lorry No.2 against the findings of the Tribunal. The main contention appellant is that the accident negligence of both the vehicle 15. raised by the learned counsel for the occurred due to the contributory , thereby, the Tribunal respectively. erred in apportioned the same at 80% and 20%, Per contra, the learned ■ 16. counsel for the respondent crrme lorry No.2 submits that the Tribunal No.6/insurer of the after appreciating the material on record, rightly attributed contributory negligence on the part of the l-t respondent and 4». respondent at 80% and 20% respectively and there are no valid grounds urged by the appellant findings, thereby, prays to dismiss the appeal. to meddle with the said 7 In view of the above contentions, this Court perused the material placed on record. It is the case of the claimant that while he was proceeding as owner of the goods in crime lorry No.l, when they reached near Atchutapuram village on N.H.16 road at midnight, the driver of the crime lorry No.l drove the rash and negligent manner, dashed the wrongly parked crime lorry No.2, resulted the incident. To prove the same, the claimant himself examined before the Tribunal as P.W.l. He categorically testified about the of the incident by reiterating his pleading. Furthermore, perusal of the Exs.A.l and A.4 F.I.R. and Charge Sheet, the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime lorry No.l as it dashed the stationed lorry on N.H.16 parked at right side. It is not the case of the respondent No.4 to 6 that when parking the crime lorry No.2 in national highway, the respondent No.4 taking all precautions. The only witness examined on behalf of the respondent No.6 is R.W.3, who is its official. Admittedly, he is not an eyewitness to the incident. The 4^^ respondent, who is driver of 17. same m a 18. manner on 19. 8 \ \ the crime lorry No.2 is the best witness to speak about the manner of the incident and deny the he did not choose to case of the claimant, but enter into witness box. By considering the above 20. said fact, the Tribunal after appreciation of matter rightly came to the conclusion elaborate that the incident was occurred due to contributory negligence of respondents, rightly assessed the negligence respectively, which required no interference by both 1st and 4th at 80% and 20% this Court. 21. It is also contention of the learned counsel for the crime loriy No.l that by the time of travelling in the crime lorry No.l appellant/insurer of the incident the deceased was as an unauthorized passenger, but not thereby, he is not entitled to award the appellant. owner of the goods, any compensation against 22. It is the specific case of the claimant that he crime lorry No.l to transport his paddy bags Yelamanchili engaged from Anakapalli to on hire and he proceeding in the said vehicle as owner of the goods on 15.09.2025 from Anakapalli. He denied 9 authorized to travel in the crime that he is not the suggestion lorry No.l. of R.W.l, who is owner of driver of the said vehicle was in the It is the categorical testimony the crime lorry No.l, that the carrying goods belongs to same as the owner of the goods. He booked by Kabra Transport and steel from 23. the claimant and proceeding also admitted that his lorry Pvt.Limited at Jamshedpur so Jamshedpur to Bangalore was to transport iron as dated 13.09.2025. During cross from the under Ex.B.l consignee copy admitted that he collected money examination he of P.W.l paddy bags. The testimony categorically proved that by the claimant for carrying coupled with testimony of R.W. 1 time of incident, the claimant was proceeding in the crime lorry The Tribunal by of the goods/paddy bags. No.l as owner pronouncement to the right considering the above facts and relying upon of Judicature at Hyderabad, came of incident the claimant was a of High Court conclusion that by the date proceeding in the crime lorry No.l as owner cannnthe termed as gratuitous passenger. of the goods and he 10 24. Now, it is the authoritat Sarla needless, to 'say that the Tribunal pronouncements of Hon hie Delhi hy followi Supreme Court i Corporation^ mg ive in hernia National Insuran calculated the disability due and awarded just reason to interfere arrived by the Tribunal. V. 'transport and Pranay Sethi2^ claimant for the Company Limited v. entitled by the ce compensation lo the injuries sustained by him iin the incident Court has and conclusion “mpensation, thereby, this With the said no calculations 25. Having regard opinion that interfere with the aspects, as there i to the above discussion, no valid findings this Court is of the considered grounds urged by the appellant to arnved by the Tribunal 1in all IS no need to disturb the well-articulated order appeal preferred by the passed by the Tribunal, the liable for dismissal. appellant is Thus, the point is In the result, M.A.C.M.A. i answered dismissed. There accordingly. 26. IS shall be order as to no costs. (6) alt 60 (SC) 11 Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, stand closed. Sd/- M PRABHAKAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-ll Additional (With District Judge, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. records) 2. One CC to Sri Nagumantri Nageswara Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri Srinivasa Rao Kurapati, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri ASC Bose, Advocate [OPUC] '..v' i.- 5. One CC to Sri V. Veerabhadra Chary, Advocate [OPUC] 6. The Section Officer, V.R. Section, High Court of A.P at Amaravati. 7. Three CD Copies BSV (gsg) \ \ HIGH COURT \ \ I \ DATED: 25/03/2025 \ JUDGMENT AND DECREE MACMA.No.453 of 2022 V . -<1 rJ im % CSV a dismissing the macma without COSTS