• ^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI TUESDAY. THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE %) : -V» V ih PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS MACMA No : 262 OF 2024 Between: Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd, Represented by Manager, 1003-E-8, RIICO Industrial (Policy No. 10002/31/14/000726 valid from 20-04-2013 to 19-04-2014 its branch Sitapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan. area ...APPELLANT/ 2"*^ RESPONDENT AND 1. Pappu Jagannatha Reddy. S/o. late Subbi Reddy, Aged about 74 resident of Pujagani Palle, Punganur Mandal, Chittoor District 2. P.Ramesh, aged about 48 years, son of Pillar Reddy, Hindu, Business, resident of Door N0.6I/A, Parathi Nagar Attibailu, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore. 3. K.Prakash Reddy, S/o.Rangareddy, Aged 28 years, Driver, Resident of Palempalle, H/o.Sugali Mitta, Punganur Mandal, Chittoor District. years. ...RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS Appeal under Section 173 of MV Act, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in M.V.O.P.No.103 / 2015 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Cum-Court of Second Madanapalle on 21st day of April, 2023 Additional District Judge This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the judgment and decree of the Tribunal and the material papers in the appeal and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Gudi Srinivas, Advocate for the Appellant and Sri Guttapalem Vijaya Kumar, Advocate for the Respondent No.1 This Court doth order and decree as follows: 1. That the appeal be and hereby is Dismissed 2. That the shall be no order as to costs in this Appeal SD/- U.SRIDEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum II Additional District Judge Madanapalle, Chittoor District 2. Three CD Copies MV TAC y HIGH COURT DATED: 22/04/2025 DECREE MACMA. No. 262 of 2024 2 0 JUN 2025 5 a: fiespATc^ DISMISSING THE MACMA No.262 OF2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE ! PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS MACMA No : 495 of 2023 Between: Pappu Jagannatha Reddy, S/o. late Subbi Reddy, Aged about 83 resident of Pujagani Palle, Punganur mandal, Chittoor District. years. ...APPELLANT/ PETITIONER AND 1. P.Ramesh, S/o. Pilla Reddy, Hindu, Business, aged about 48 years R/o. D. No. 61/A, Parvathi Nagar, Attibailu, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore. 2. Shriram General Insurance Co ltd.. Represented by its Branch Manager, Office at 1003-E -8. RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA Rajasthan. 3. K. Prakash Reddy, S/o. Ranga Reddy, Aged about 28 years. Driver, resident of Palem Palle, H/0 Sugali Mitta, Punganur Mandal District Sitapura, Jaipur, Chittoor ...RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS Appeal under Section 173 of MV Act, against the Decree and Order dated 21-04-2023 in MVOP.No. 103 of 2015 Accidents Madanapalle,Chittoor District. on the file of the Motor Additional Claims Tribunal-cum District Judge, 41 This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the judgment and decree of the Tribunal and the material papers in the appeal and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Guttapalem Vijaya Kumar, Advocate for the Appellant and Sri Gudi Srinivas Advocate for the Respondent No.2 This Court doth order and decree as follows: 1. That the appeal be and hereby is allowed in part 2. That the order of the Tribunal be and here by is modified to the extent that the appellant/claimant is entitled rate of interest at 9% per annum instead of 7.5% per annum on the awarded sum by the Tribunal. 3. That, rest of the order passed by the Tribunal shall remain intact. 4. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. SD/- U.SRIDEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum II Additional District Judge, Madanapalle, Chittoor District 2. Three CD Copies MV TAC HIGH COURT DATED: 22/04/2025 DECREE MACMA.No.495 of 2023 ALLOWING THE MACMA No.495 OF 2023 IN PART IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSANDAND TWENTYFIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS MACMA No’s : 495 of 2023 & 262 of 2024 MACMA No : 495 of 2023 Appeal under Section 173 of MY Act, against the Decree and Order dated 21-04-2023 in MVOP.No. 103 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum II Additional District Judge, Madanapalle, Chittoor District Between: Pappu Jagannatha Reddy, S/o. late Subbi Reddy, Aged about 83 resident of Pujagani Palle, Punganur mandal, Chittoor District. years. ...APPELLANT/ PETITIONER AND 1. P.Ramesh, S/o. Pilla Reddy, Hindu, Business, aged about 48 years R/o. D. No. 61/A, Parvathi Nagar, Attibailu, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore. 2. Shriram General Insurance Co ltd.. Represented by its Branch Manager, Office at 1003-E -8. RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA, Sitapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 3. K. Prakash Reddy, S/o. Ranga Reddy, Aged about 28 years. Driver, resident of Palem Palle, H/0 Sugali Mitta, Punganur Mandal, Chittoor District ...RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant : SRI GUTTAPALEM VIJAYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 : SRI GUDI SRINIVAS MAGMA No: 262 OF 2024 Appeal under Section 173 of MV Act, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in M.V.O.P.No.103 / 2015 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Cum-Court of Second Madanapalle on 21st day of April, 2023 Additional District Judge Between: Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd, Represented by Manager, 1003-E-8, RIICO Industrial (Policy No. 10002/31/14/000726 valid from 20-04-2013 to 19-04-2014 its branch area, Sitapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ...APPELLANT/ 2"*^ RESPONDENT AND 1. Pappu Jagannatha Reddy, s/o.late Subbi Reddy, Aged about 74 resident of Pujagani Palle, Punganur Mandal, Chittoor District 2. P.Ramesh, aged about 48 years, son of Pillar Reddy, Hindu, Business, resident of Door N0.6I/A, Parathi Nagar Attibailu, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore. 3. K.Prakash Reddy, S/o.Rangareddy, Aged 28 years. Driver, Resident of Palempalle, H/o.Sugali Mitta, Punganur Mandal, Chittoor District. years ...RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS lA NO: 2 OF 2024 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 y V' pleased grant stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the decree and judgment dated the 21 day of April, 2023 passed in M.V.O.P.No.103 / 2015 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Cum -Court of Second Additional District Judge Madanapalle, including execution proceedings pending disposal of the main M.A.C.M.A. j Counsel for the Appellant : SRI GUDI SRINIVASU Counsel for the Respondent No.1; GUTTAPALEM VIJAYA KUMAR The Court made the following JUDGMENT : y,yt THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS M.A.C.M.A.Nos.495 of 2023 & 262 of 2024 COMMON JUDGMENT: These appeals are directed against the order of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge at Madanapalle (hereinafter called as ‘the Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No. 103 of 2015 dated 21.04.2023. Since these appeals arise out of same accident and as the 2. material facts are common, the same are being disposed of by this common judgment. M.A.C.M.A.No.495 of 2023 is preferred by the 3. claimant before the Tribunal for enhancement of compensation. The respondent Nos.l to 3 are the owner, insurer and driver of the Tipper Lorry bearing No.KA 51A 593 (hereinafter referred to as “crime lorry”) respectively. M.A.C.M.A.No.262 of 2024 is preferred by the insurer 4. of the said 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: i). On 12.09.2013 at about 07.00 p.m., while the claimant proceeding from Punganur to Poojaganipalli 2 in a car bearing No.AP 03 Q 515 (hereinafter referred to car”) on Mandanapalle to Punganur road, when he reached shuttle court, the crime lorry driven by the respondent in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the said car, resulted the claimant sustained injuries all over the body and fractures to both his legs, ii). The claimant has taken treatment in various hospitals and spent an amount of Rs.6,20,000/- towards treatment and medical expenses. Due to injuries sustained in the accident, the claimant is unable to attend his transport business. He claimed compensation of Rs.40,00,000/- against the insurer, and driver of the said crime lorry respectively. The respondent Nos.l and 3/owner and driver filed respective counters denying the averments in the petition and pleaded that the accident occurred was due to the rash and negligent driving of the car in which the claimant was travelling, but not 3’^‘i respondent driver of the crime lorry; that the crime lorry is validly insured with the 2^^ respondent; that the 3'''^ as owner. 7. 3 respondent is having valid driving license by the date of incident, thereby, prayed to dismiss the petition. The respondent No.2/insurer filed counter denying the averments in the petition and pleaded that there is negligence on the part of the 3^*^ respondent in causing the incident; that the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties; that the compensation claimed by the claimants is excessive, thereby, prayed to dismiss the petition. The Tribunal settled the following issues for enquiry 8. no 9. basing on the material: “1.Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the vehicle bearing No.KA 51 A 593? 2.Whether the injuries caused to the petitioner due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle? 3.Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, for what amount and from whom? and 4.To what relief?” During enquiry, on behalf of the claimants, PWs.l to 7 examined and Exs.A.l to A.25 and X. 1 to X.5 were 10. were 4 exhibited. On behalf of the respondent No.2, its offieial was examined as R.W.l and Ex.B.l was marked. On the material, the Tribunal, having eoncluded that the aecident oeeurred due to the negligent driving of the erime vehicle by its driver/S^d respondent, held that claimant is entitled for the compensation of Rs. 18,30,000/-, with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization against the respondent Nos.l to 3, for the death of the deceased in the accident. 11. 12. It is against the said order; these appeals are preferred by the claimant and insurer of the crime lorry respectively. Heard Sri Guttapalem Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant/claimant in M.A.C.M.A.No.495 of 2023 and Sri Gudi Srinivasu, learned counsel for the appellant/insurer in M.A.C.M.A.No.262 of 2024. 13. 14. Sri Guttapalem Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submits that it is well established before the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime lorry by the 3''^ respondent; that 0 5 the Tribunal awarded meager compensation to the claimant since the claimant is entitled to award compensation as claimed; that the Tribunal ought to have awarded interest @ 9% per annum, thereby, prays to consider the appeal preferred by the claimant. Per contra, Sri Gudi Srinivasu, learned counsel for the 15. appellant/insurer submits that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the car, but not 3*''* respondent driver of the crime lorry; that the Tribunal erred in calculating the compensation entitled by the claimant and awarded excessive compensation, thereby, prays to consider the appeal preferred by the insurer. Now, the points that arises for determination are: 16. 1.Whether there can be any contributory negligence attributed against the driver of the car in causing the incident? 2.Whether the compensation awarded to the claimants is just compensation? and 3.To what relief? 6 17. POINT NO.l: On this point, the Tribunal held that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the crime loriy by the respondent. It is not in dispute about the involvement of the crime lorry as well car in which the claimant was proceeding the date of incident. on 18. To establish the rash and negligent driving of the crime lorry by the 3rd respondent, the claimant examined P.W.2. He categorically testified that on 12.09.2013, while he was riding his motorcycle behind the car in which the claimant travelling, and when the said car reached near the Shuttle Court, the crime lorry, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, came from the opposite direction and collided with the car. As a result, the claimant sustained fractures in both legs. He further deposed that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime lorry. Nothing was elicited during the cross-examination to discredit the testimony of P.W.2. was ft 1 19. On perusal of Exs.A. 1 and A.3—F.I.R. and Charge Sheet respectively, it is evident that the investigating agency, after a thorough investigation, concluded that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime loriy by the 3rd respondent. The testimony of P.W.2, when read in conjunction with Exs.A. 1 and A.3, clearly establishes that the accident was caused solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime lorry by the 3rd respondent. 20. The 3rd respondent, who is driver of the crime loriy, is the best person to testify about the manner of the incident and deny the case of the claimant that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime lorry, but he did not choose to enter into witness box, even he made his appearance before the Tribunal by filing written statement. Furthermore, it is not the case of the respondents that by the time of incident the 3rd respondent is not the driver of the crime lorry. 21. Admittedly, R.W.l who is official of 2nd respondent insurer, is not an eyewitness to the incident. Thereby, except bare denial in the written statements filed before the Tribunal, 8 no piece of paper produced before the Tribunal to deny the rash and negligent driving of the crime lorry by the 3^^ respondent causing the incident. Having regard to the above, it is clear in vivid terms that the Tribunal, after appreciating the material on record in the right perspective, rightly concluded that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime lorry by the 3rd respondent. This finding requires no interference, and no contributory negligence can be attributed to the driver of the in causing the incident. Accordingly, this point is answered. 23. POINT NO.2: in 22. car Coming to the just compensation is concerned, it is not in dispute about the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant in the incident. 24. As per the testimony of P.Ws.3 to 5 coupled with Exs.A.7 to A. 17 and A.25, the claimant sustained eight injuries in the accident, underwent two surgeries as well removal of implant in left femur by P.W.3, taken treatment in various hospitals, sustained permanent disability of 85% due to the injuries 9 sustained in the accident under Ex.A.25 permanent disability certificate. 25. By considering the above facts and nature of the injuries sustained by the claimant and disability due to the said injuries sustained in the accident, the Tribunal after thorough appreciation of the matter, rightly awarded a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- for eight injuries, Rs.50,000/- towards loss of income, Rs. 10,000/- towards extra nourishment, Rs.25,000/- towards attendant charges, Rs.25,000/- towards transport charges. Rs.5,00,000/- towards permanent disability. Rs.20,000/- towards loss of earning for three months and Rs. 10,00,000/- towards past and future medical expenses, in total awarded a sum of Rs. 18,30,000/- towards compensation to the claimant. Thereby, this Court has no reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal regarding quantum of compensation entitled by the claimant. 26. INTEREST: - Coming to the rate of interest granted by the Tribunal is concerned, it is the contention of the claimant that the Tribunal 10 ought to have granted interest @ 9% per annum instead of 8% per annum. In Kumari Kiran v. SaJjan Singh and others^ the Apex Court set aside the judgment of the Tribunal therein awarding interest @ 6% as also the judgment of the High Court awarding interest @ 7.5% and awarded interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition. In Rahul Shcimia & Another v. National Insurance Company Limited and Others^, the Apex Court awarded @ 9% interest per annum from the date of the claim petition. Also, in Kirthi and another v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited?, the Apex Court allowed interest @ 9% per annum and in Smt.AnJali and others v. Lokendra Rathod and others^, the Apex Court while referring to Malarvizhi & Ors. United India Insurance Co.Ltd. & Ors.s allowed interest @ 9% per annum. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid precedents, on the award amount the claimant is entitled to V. 1(2015) 1 see 539 2 (2021) 6 see 188 3 (2021) 2 see 166 -• (2022) see OnLine Se 1683 5(2020) 4 see 228 grant interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition till realization. Thus, this point is answered accordingly. 27. POINT NO.3: In view of the discussion in point Nos. 1 and 2, the order passed by the Tribunal warrants interference only regarding percentage of interest on the awarded compensation. 28. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A.No.495 of 2023 is allowed in part by modifying the order to the Tribunal to the extent that the appellant/claimant is entitled rate of interest at 9% per annum instead of 7.5% per annum on the awarded sum by the Tribunal. The rest of the order passed by the Tribunal shall remain intact. There shall be no order as to costs. 29. The M.A.C.M.A.No.262 of 2024 is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, stand closed. SD/- U.SRIDEVI ISTRAR ASSISTANT R //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To. 1 The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum II Additional District Judge, Madanapalle, Chittoor District (with records if any) 2. One CC to Sri Guttapalem Vijaya Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri Gudi Srinivas, Advocate [OPUC] 4. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati 5. Three CD Copies MV TAC HIGH COURT DATED: 22/04/2025 COMMON JUDGMENT+ DECREE MACMA.No.495 of 2023 & 262 of 2024 ALLOWING THE MACMA No.495 OF 2023 IN PART DISMISSING THE MACMA No.262 OF2024