IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 131 OF 2022 Between: The National Insurance Co., Ltd., Represented by its Divisional Manager, Dharavarigardens, Trunk Road, Ongole, Prakasam District. (Policy No.550401/31/7/6300001748, valid up to 19.07.2008). ...Appellant AND Duddu Surendra @ Surendra Babu, Son of Subba Rao, aged about 34 years, Hindu, Resident of Muppavaram village, J.Pangulur Mandal, Prakasam District. Ramalingam Chinna Doirai, son of Ramalingam, aged 53 years, Hindu, resident of Near Rice Mill, Vaddeswaram village, Tadepalli Mandal, Guntur District, driver of lorry bearing No.AP 01W 4489. G.Padrna, wife of Sreenivasa F^ao, aged about 45 years, resident of D.No.33-23-25/3, Krishna Rao Street, Kasturibaipet, Vijayawada, Krishna District, owner cf lorry bearing No.AP 01W 4489. Epuri Chandra Sekhar, son of Mariyadass, aged about 28 years, Hindu resident of Madigapalli, Chinakakani village, Mangalagiri Mandal, Guntur District. Cleaner of lorry bearing No.AP 01W 4489 1. 2. 3. 4. ...Respondents Appeal under Section 173 of M.V.Act, against the Judgment and decree dated 25/02/2021 in M.V.O.P.No.149 of 2015 on the file of the Court of the Chairperson, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Pri ncipal District Court, Prakasam at Ongole. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the Suit arsd upon hearing the arguments of Sri Gudi Srinivasa, f Advocate on behalf of the Appellant and Sri Naga Praveen Vankayalapati, Advocate for Respondents. This Court Doth OFRDEF^ and DECF^EE that the Decree of the Lower Court be and hereby is confirmed and this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is Dismissed and this Court Doth further Order and Decree that there be no order as to Costs in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. Sd/- U. SRIDEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Court of the Chairperson, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal District Court), Prakasam at Ongole. 2. Two CD Copies RAM HIGH COURT DATED: 17/04/2025 DECREE IVIACIVlA.No.131 of 2022 DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCEL LANEQUS APPEAL NO: 131 OF 2022 Appeal under Section 173 of M.V.Act. against the Judgment and decree dated 25/02/2021 in M.V.O.P.No.149 of 2015 on the file of the Court of the Chairperson, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Pri ncipal District Court, Prakasam at Ongole. Between; The National Insurance Co. . - Ltd., Represented by its Divisional Manager, ^haravarigardens, Trunk Road, Ongole, Prakasam District. (Policy No.550401/31/7/6300001748, valid up to 19.07.2008). ...Appellant AND 1. Duddu Surendra @ Surendra Babu, Son of Subba Rao, aged about 34 years, Hindu, Resident of Muppavaram village, J.Pangulur Mandal Prakasam District. - 2. Ramalingam Chinna Dorai, son of Ramalingam, aged 53 years Hindu resident of Near Rice Mill, Vaddeswaram village, Tadepalli Mandal Guntur District, driver of lorry bearing No.AP 01W 4489. H 3bout 45 years, resident of p.No.33^3-25/3, Krishna Rap Street, Kasturibaipet, Vijayawada Krishna District, owner of lorry bearing No.AP 01W 4489. 4. Epuri Chandra Sekhar, son of Mariyadass, aged about 28 years, Hindu resident of Madigapalli, Chinakakani village, Mangalagiri Mandal Guntur District. Cleaner of lof13/ bearing No.AP 01W 4489 ...Respondents lA NO; 1 OF 2022 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 and judgment passed in IVI.V.O.P.No.149 of 2015 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Prinpipai District Court), Prakasam At Ongole, dated 25th day of February, 2021, including execution proceedings pending disposal of the main M.a;C:M.A. Counsel for the Appellant: SR! GUDl SRINIVASU Counsel for the Respondents; SRI NAGA PRAVEEN VANKAYALAPATI The Court made the following: proceedings pursuant to the decree THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS M.A.C.M.A.No.131 of 2022 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge at Ongole (hereinafter called M.V.O.P.No.149 of 2015 dated 25.02.2021. ‘the Tribunal’) as m 2. The appellant is the insurer of the Lorry bearing No.AP OIW 4489 (hereinafter referred to hrime lorry”). The respondent No.l is the claimant before the Tribunal. The as respondent Nos.2 to 4 are the driver, owner and cleaner of the crime lorry. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as they arrayed before the tribunal. The case of the claimant, in the petition before the Tribunal is that: 4. i). On 21.06.2007 at about 01.00 a.m., while the claimant waiting for an auto at Nagarajupalli Center, the crime lorry driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed the claimant, resulted the claimant sustained grievous injuries. Then he was shifted to Government Hospital at Chilakaluripeta, \ / 2 from there to Government General Hospital at Guntur for better treatment, ii). He elaimed compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- against the driver, owner, insurer and cleaner of the crime lorry respectively. The respondent No.2/insured filed written statement denying the averments in the petition and pleaded that the policy issued in respect of the crime lorry is in force by the date of incident; that the l^t respondent/driver has valid driving license to drive the crime loriy; that the 4th respondent is neither driver nor clear of the crime lorry; that the insurer of the crime loriy is liable to pay compensation to the claimant; that the police filed charge sheet by conducting fake investigation, thereby, prayed to dismiss the claim against this respondent. The respondent No.3/insurer filed written statement denying the averments in the petition and pleaded that the driver of the crime lorry had no valid driving license at the time of accident; that the compensation claimed by the claimant is 5. 6. \ V 3 excessive, thereby, prayed to dismiss the claim against this respondent. 7. The Tribunal settled the following issues for enquiry basing on the material: “1.Whether the petitioner had sustained injuries in the accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No.AP OIW 4489 driven by respondent No.l? 2.Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation if so, to what amount and against whom? and 3.To what relief?” 8. During enquiry, on behalf of the claimant, P.Ws. 1 and 2 were examined, Exs.A.l to A. 16 were exhibited. On behalf of the 3rd respondent, R.Ws.l and 2 were examined and Exs.B.l, X.l and X.2 were marked. 9. On the material, the Tribunal, having come to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime lorry by the l^t respondent, held that claimant is entitled for the compensation of Rs. 1,30,324/-, with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the 4 date of realization against the respondent Nos.l injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident. to 3, for the 10. It is against the said award; the preferred by the appellant/insurer of Heard Sri Gudi Srinivasu, appellant/insurer and Sri Naga Praveen counsel for the l«t respondent/claimant. Now, the point that the order of the Tribunal i extent?” present appeal was the crime lorry. 11. learned counsel for Vankayalapati, learned the 12. arise for determination is “whether IS liable to be set aside, if so, to what 13. POINT. It IS not in dispute about the ini claimant in the accident, crime lorry in causing the incident. injuries sustained by the rash, and negligent driving of the Ex.B.l policy issued iin respect of the crime loriy is in force by the date of incident, also not in dispute that It is no appeal was preferred by the owner of the claimant, driver, and findings of the Tribunal. crime lorry against the 5 It is the only contention of the learned counsel for the 14. appellant by the date of incident, the crime lorry was driven by the cleaner, who has no valid driving license, but not 1 St respondent, thereby, the 2nd respondent violated the terms and conditions of Ex.B.l policy, as such, the insurer is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimant. 2. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1/claimant submits that the Tribunal after considering the material on record rightly fastened the liability on the appellant/insurer, which requires no interference of this Court. 3. In view of the above contention, this Court has perused the material available on record. To substantiate the said contention, the appellant primarily relied upon Ex.A.4, the charge sheet filed by the claimant. On perusal of the same, it is noted that the Investigating Officer concluded that respondent Nos.l and 4 were responsible for the incident. However, apart from this important document, no other substantial material has been placed on record by the appellant to disprove the said contention. It is well-settled law that a police investigation is not 6 conclusive proof of the facts stated therein. For which, the appellant has to examine the investigative officer to prove the contents. But, the appellant/insurer did not choose to examine the Investigating Officer to conclusion was drawn. Which legs to stand. ascertain the basis on which such goes to show that defense has a no 4. It is not in dispute that R.W.l, who is official of insurance company, is not an eyewitness to the incident as well R.W.2 i examined to prove the nature of driving license hold IS by the 4^^ respondent. Thereby, as discussed supra, except that document under Ex.A.4, nothing was placed on record to time of incident, the crime lorry respondent/cleaner, but not respondent/dri say that by the was driven by the 4*^ iver. 5. It is needless to say that, the Tribunal after considering the testimony of P.W.2 coupled with Ex.A.3, A.5 to A. 16 rightly calculated and Rs. 1,30,324/- under the heads of awarded compensation to a one grievous injury, medical expenses, loss of income during the course of income, extra sum of 1 7 nourishment and transport, which requires no interference in the considered opinion of this Court. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that no valid grounds urged by the appellant to meddle 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 order as to costs. 6. 7. no Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, stand closed Sd/- U. SRIDEVI assistant r^istrar //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 2. One CC to Sri Gudi Srinivasu, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri Naga Praveen V/ankayalapati 4. Two CD Copies Advocate [OPUC] RAM HIGH COURT DATED:17/04/2025 JUDGIVIENT+ DECREE MACIVIA.No.131 of 2022 2 ^ SEP 2025 I o;t Co Uciu it DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS