APHC010043352015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3527] MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA M.A.C.M.A. Nos.401/ 2015 & 2813/2016 MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 401/2015 Between: 1. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD.,, REP BY ITS DIV MANAGER, NEAR FIRE STATION, KAKINADA ...APPELLANT AND 1. KAJAL JAIN 6 OTHERS, W/O LATE RAJESH KUMAR JAIN, AGED 29YEARS, HOUSE WIFE R/O TILAK STREET, KAKINADA. 2. SNEHA JAIN, D/O LATE RAJESH KUMAR JAIN AGED 20 YEARS, STUDENT, R/O FLAT NO 5-5, ADILAXMI APARTMENT, TEMPLE STREET, KAKINADA 3. SUNNY JAIN, S/O LATE RAJESH KUMAR JAI AGED 19 YEARS. STUDENT, R/O FLAT NO S-5, ADILAXMI APARTMENT, TEMPLE STREET, KAKINADA. 4. SAYYAM JAIN, S/O LATE RAJESH KUMAR JAI AGED 8 YEARS, STUDENT BEING MINOR REP BY HIS MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN I.E THE 151 PETITIONER KAJAL JAIN,W/O LATE RAJESH KUMAR JAIN.AGED 29 YEARS.HOUSC WIFE. R/O TILAK STREET, KAKINADA 5. AYODYALA VENKATA NARAYANA, S/O SURYARAO, AGED 42 YEARS,DRIVER IN APSRTC STAFF N C 65226, RAJAHMUNDRY DEPOT 6. APSRTC, REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. MUSHEERABAD 2 HYDERABAD. 7. VIKRAM KUMAR JAIN KOTARI, S/O KRANTHI LAL JAIN AGED 35 YEARS DRIVER OR SANTHRO CAR BEARING NO AP 05 AJ 5454,RIO D.NO 32-6-13, I51 FLOOR, K.V.R. SWAMY ROAD MERAKA STREET. RAJAHMUNDRY. ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying that the High Court may be pleased to aggrieved by the Judgment and decree dated 09-10-2014 passed in M V O P No 231 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - Cum IV Addl District Judge East Godavari, Kakinada IA NO: 1 OF 2015(MACMAMP 1129 OF 2015 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 execution of the Decree and order dated 9-10-2014 passed in MVOP No 231 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Cum IV Addl District Judge, East Godavari, Kakinada pending disposal of the appeal IA NO: 2 OF 2015(MACMAMP 2494 OF 2015 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 permit the petitioners to withdraw the amount so deposited by the Respondent / Appellant as per the directions made in MACMA.MP.no. 1129 of 2015 in MACMA.No. 401 of 2015 IA NO: 3 OF 2015(MACMAMP 3421 OF 2015 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 extend the time in interim stay orders passed in MACMA.MP.no. 1129 of 2015 in MACMA.No. 401 of 2015 dt. 13/04/2015 IA NO: 6 OF 2015(MACMAMP 9699 OF 2015 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 3 Counsel for the Appellant: 1. A JAYANTHI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. VINOD KUMAR TARLADA (SC FOR APSRTC) 2. S V RAMANA 3. A K KISHORE REDDY MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 2813/2016 Between: 1. KAJAL JAIN,, W/O. LATE RAJESH KUMAR JAIN, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE, R/O. TILAK STREET, KAKINADA, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 2. SNEHA JAIN,, D/ O. LATE RAJESH KUMAR JAIN, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O. FLAT NO. S-5, ADILAXMI APARTMENT, TEMPLE STREET, KAKINADA, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 3. SUNNY JAIN,, S/O. LATE RAJESH KUMAR AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O. FLAT NO. S-5, ADILAXMI APARTMENT, TEMPLE STREET, KAKINADA, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. T 4. SAYYAM JAIN,, S/O. LATE RAJESH KUMAR AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, BEING MINOR REP., BY HIS MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN I.E., THE 1ST PETITIONER KAJAL JAIN, W/O. LATE RAJESH KUMAR R/O. FLAT NO. 5-5, ADILAXMI APARTMENT, TEMPLE STREET, KAKINADA, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT(S) AND 1. AYODYALA VENKATA NARAYANA, S/O. SURYA RAO, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, DRIVER IN A.P.S.R.T.C. STAFF NO..C65226, RAJAHMUNDRY DEPOT. 2. ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MUSHEERABAD, HYDERABAD. 4 3. VIKRAM KUMAR JAIN KOTARI, S/O. KRANTHI LAL JAIN, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, DRIVER OF SANTHRO CAR BEARING NO. AP 05 AJ 5454, R/O. D.NO. 32-6-13, 1ST FLOOR, K.V.R. SWAMY ROAD, MERAKA STREET, RAJAHMUNDRY. 4. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NEAR FIRE STATION, KAKINADA, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be pleased toto allow the MACMA by setting a side the decree and Judgment dated 9-10-2014 made in MVOP No. 231 of 2011 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-IV Additional District Judge, East Godavari District at Kakinada IA NO: 3 OF 2015(MACMAMP 44712 OF 2015 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 IA NO: 1 OF 2016(MACMAMP 215 OF 2016 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 Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. A K KISHORE REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. VINOD KUMAR TARLADA (SC FOR APSRTC) 2. 3. A JAYANTHI 5 The Court made the following Common Judgment: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Krishna Mohan) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company, the learned counsel for the respondents/claimants and the learned Standing Counsel for the APSRTC. 2. These two appeals arise against the order in M.V.O.P. No.231 of 2011 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, East Godavari, Kakinada dated 09.10.2014 wherein a total compensation of Rs.59,31,560/- was awarded along with other consequential directions. The accident occurred on 21.09.2007 when the deceased was travelling along with his partner and employees in his car AP 5 AJ 5454 and at that time the 5th respondent herein driving the 6th respondent APSRC Bus came in opposite direction without observing the traffic and dashed the car but the driver of the car suddenly applied break, unfortunately as there was rain at that time the vehicle could not be controlled and both vehicles dashed with each other resulted in head on collision and consequently the owner of the car and other co-passengers received injuries and the owner of the car succumbed to the injuries on the spot. 3. Before the Tribunal in the above said M.V.O.P., the respondent Nos.1 & 2 therein/ respondent Nos.5 & 6 herein remained exparte and even according to the claimants’ version, it was due to the rash and negligent driving of the APSRTC Bus driver, the accident occurred. The Insurance 6 Company/ 4th respondent therein/ appellant herein took specific plea that the accident purely occurred on account of negligence and rash driving of the APSRTC Bus driver but not because of driver of the car to which the insurance was made. 4. The Tribunal framed the following charges: “6. Basing on the strength of the pleadings, the following issues are framed for trial: 1) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of APSRTC hired bus bearing No.AP 10Z 6287, resulting death of the deceased? 2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? 3) To what relief?” 5. The learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company/ appellant herein also submits that even as per the terms of the policy, the Tribunal ought not have awarded the total compensation to the claimants fixing the liability of the appellant herein/ Insurance Company as there is no third party involved in the accident being the deceased. The owner of the car to which insurance was made becomes insured and he is only covered for a personal accident policy with fixed liability of Rs.2,00,000/- personal accident policy as he is not a third party to the insurance contract. 6. Though the APSRTC remained exparte before the Tribunal below, they entered appearance in these appeals and the learned Standing Counsel submits that the crime was registered and charge sheet was filed 7 against the driver of the car and as such the respondent/APSRTC did not contest the O.P. before the Tribunal below and it cannot be made liable for the said accident and for the payment of compensation. Basing on the averments made, the Tribunal also did not frame the issue with respect to the rash and negligent driving of the car if any. In spite of taking the specific legal objection by the Insurance Company, the Tribunal went into the other merits of the case and decided the payment of compensation to the claimants by the said Insurance Company without fixing the liability on APSRTC which is not answered by framing proper issues also. 7. In the absence of pleadings from the APSRTC and in the absence of framing of necessary additional issues, the issue raised by the claimants as well as the appellant/Insurance Company cannot be resolved either at this stage of the appeal or by the Tribunal below comprehensively. 8. In view of the same, the matter is remanded to the Tribunal below by setting aside the above said order of the Tribunal dated 09.10.2014 to conduct denovo enquiry by framing additional issues after entertaining the pleadings to be filed by the APSRTC in a reasonable time. Accordingly, the respondent/ APSRTC shall be permitted to file its counter/ written statement to the above said M.V.O.P. and upon filing the same, the additional issues shall be framed by the Tribunal below and trial shall be conducted afresh by giving opportunity to all the parties concerned to adduce their evidence with marking of documents afresh. The compensation payable if any shall be 8 fixed afresh strictly on it’s own merits without reference to the above said order passed by the Tribunal below. The O.P. shall be disposed of afresh as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six (6) months from the date of filing of the pleadings by the APSRTC. The Registry is directed to send back the record immediately to the Tribunal within a period of two (2) weeks. 9. Accordingly, both the appeals are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________ JUSTICE B.KRISHNA MOHAN __________________________________ JUSTICE A.HARI HARANADHA SARMA 21.07.2025 NNN