IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI ,, oF TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS X . %» MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 233 OF 2022 Between: United India insurance Company Ltd., Rep by it's Authorised Signatory, C/o Divisional Office Holding at Sridevi Complex, Tilak Road, Tirupati, Chittoor District. ...Appellant AND 1. K N Krishna, S/o. K.V.Narayana Swamy, Aged 51 years, D.No 22-291- A, Kattamanchi, Chittoor District, Pin. 517001. 2. G. Vasudevan, S/o Gopala Chettiayar, Aged about 56 years, R/o at 30, Mariyamman Koivi Street, Sengotai Katpadi, Vellore District, Tamilnadu, Pin code. 632007. (Driver of the Lorry bearing No. TN 23 AJ 4201) 3. K.Vijayan, S / o. Kanniy an. Aged about not known. Major, D.No.113 Mettikulam, Katpadi, Vellore District, Tamilnadu, Pincode. 625501 (Owner of the Lorry bearing No. TN 23 AJ 4201) ...Respondents Appeal under Section 173 of M.V.Act, against the Judgment and decree dt. 13-12-2021 in M.V.O.P.No. 267 of 2016 on the file of the Chairperson, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-Principal M.A.C.T - Cum - Principal District Judge, Chittoor. This appeal corning 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 and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Srinivasa Rao Vutia, Advocate on behalf of the Appellant and Sri Suresh Kumar Reddy Kalava, Advocate for Respondents. w This Court Doth OF^DER and DECREE that the Decree of the Lowef Court be and hereby is confirmed and this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is Dismissed and this Court Doth further Order and Decree that there be order as to Costs in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. no Sd/- U. SRIDEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Chairperson, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-Principa l M.A.C.T - Cum - Principal District Judge, Chittoor. 2. Two CD Copies RAM HIGH COURT DATED:01/04/2025 DECREE MACWIA.No.233 of 2022 g O'! SEP 2025 ■S m Oill DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI if^ Jr TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE or 3 '•• • U C, ‘ fy ★ PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 233 OF 2022 Appeal under Section 173 of M.V.Act, against the Judgment and decree dt. 13-12-2021 in M.V.O.P.No. 267 of 2016 on the file of the Chairperson, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-Principal M.A.C.T - Cum - Principal District Judge, Chittoor. if ■>- .V- Between: United India Insurance Company Ltd., Rep by it's Authorised Signatory C/o Divisional Office Holding at Sridevi Complex, Tilak Road, Tirupati’ Chittoor District. ’ ...Appellant AND K N Krishna, S/o. K.V.Narayana Swamy, Aged 51 years, D No 22-291- A, Kattamanchi, Chittoor District, Pin. 517001. G Vasudevan, S/o Gopaia Chettiayar, Aged about 56 years, R/o at 30 Mariyamman Koivi Street, Sengotai Katpadi, Vellore District, Tamilnadu Pin code. 632007. (Driver of the Lorry bearing No. TN 23 AJ 4201) K Vjjayan, S / o. Kanniy an. Aged about not known. Major, D.No.113 Mettikulam, Katpadi, Vellore District, Tamilnadu, Pincode. 625501 (Owner of the Lorry bearing No. TN 23 AJ 4201) 1. 2. 3. ...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 executidh of the Award and Decree dt. 13-12-2021 passed in M.V.O.P.No. 267 Of 2016 on the file of The Principal M.A.C.T. - Cum- Principal District Judge, Chittoor ••a i Counsel for the Appellant: SRI SRINIVASA RAO VUTLA Counsel for the Respondents: SRI SURESH KUMAR REDDY KALAVA The Court made the following: / THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS / M.A.C.M.A.No.233 of 2022 JUDGMENT; This appeal is directed against the order of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge at Chittoor (hereinafter called as ‘the Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.267 of 2016 dated 13.12.2021. 2. The appellant is the insurer of the Lorry bearing No.TN 23 AJ 4201 (hereinafter referred to as “crime lorry”). The respondent No.l is the claimant before the Tribunal. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 are the driver and owner of the said cnme van. 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 4. Tribunal is that: i). On 05.02.2016 at about 08.45 p.m., while the claimant proceeding in Omini Van bearing No.AP 03 AQ 3553 (hereinafter referred to as “Omini van”) along with others from Boyakonda Temple to Chittoor, when they reached near G-Gollapalle on Piler-Chittoor road, the said Omini van hit the rear side of the crime lorry since the l®t respondent driver of the lorry applied 's \ % \ r 2 sudden brakes, resulted the claimant fracture injuries and became disabled. sustained ii). The claimant used to earn Rs. 15,000/- Rs.20,000/- by running tailoring shop. He claimed compensation of Rs.7,50,000/- owner and insurer of the crime lorry. The respondent No.2/owner filed averments in the petition and pleaded that the to against the driver. 5. counter denying the crime lorry was duly insured with the 3rd respondent; that there i on the part of the 1st IS no negligence respondent in causing the incident. thereby, prayed to dismiss the claim against this respondent. 6. The respondent No.3/insurer of the crime lorry filed counter denying the averments in the petition and pleaded that the accident occurred was due to the rash and negligent driving but not 1st of the Omini Van, respondent; that the 1st to drive the crime respondent towards the payment of the premium was dishonoured and the respondent is not having valid driving license lorry; that the cheque issued by the 2*td same was 3 intimated to him, thereby, prayed to dismiss the claim against this respondent. The Tribunal settled the following issues and additional 7. issues for enquiry basing on the material: ‘1.Whether the accident in question occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of lorry bearing RegistrationNo.TN 23 AJ 4201? 2.Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, what amount and from whom? and 3.To what relief?” any During enquiry, on behalf of the claimant, P.Ws. 1 and 2 8. were examined, Exs.A.l to A.7, X.l and X.2 were exhibited. On behalf of the respondent, he was examined as R.W. 1 and Ex.B.l policy was marked. On behalf of the 3rd respondent, R.Ws.2 and 3 were examined and EXs.B.2 to B.8 were exhibited. Based on the material on record, the Tribunal concluded that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of both the Omni van and the crime lorry and accordingly apportioned the liability equally. It held that the claimant is entitled to compensation of ?2,44,500, with interest at 7.5% per 9. \\ ■i 4 annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization, payable by respondent Nos. 1 to 3, for the injuries sustained in the aceident. However, the 3rd respondent is entitled to recover the amount deposited, along with interest, from the 2nd respondent by filing an execution petition (E.P). It is against the said award; the present appeal was preferred by the appellant/insurerof the crime lorry. 10. Heard Sri Vutla Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the appellant/insurer and Miss.Jagarlamudi Anjana Priya, learned counsel representing Sri Suresh Kumar Reddy Kaluva, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 /claimant. Now, the point that arise for determination is “whether 11. the order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside, if so, to what extent?' 12. POINT: It is not in dispute about the injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident, involvement of Omini van as well crime lorry, rash and negligent driving of the crime lorry as well Omini van in causing the incident, quantum of compensation 5 awarded by the Tribunal. It is also not in dispute that no appeal was preferred by the claimant, driver and owner of the crime lorry against the findings of the Tribunal. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the 13. appellant is that there is no contract between the insured and insurer since the cheque issued towards payment of premium amount was dishonoured, thereby, the Tribunal erred in fixing the liability on the appellant/insurer. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the Tribunal 14. after appreciating the material on record in right perspective fastened liability on the insurer by ordering pay and recovery. there are no valid grounds urged by the appellant to meddle with the findings arrived by the Tribunal. In view of the above contention, this Court perused the 15. material available on record. As per Exs.B.l and B.2, the insurer issued policy in respect of the crime lorry. It is the case of the appellant, on 05.02.2016 itself, they have cancelled the policy issued in respect of the crime vehicle and the same was intimated to the 2^^^ respondent/owner as well RTO. / 6 16. On perusal of Exs.B.7 and B.8 acknowledgement, the 2^^ respondent as well RTO on 11.02.2016 and 10.02.2016 that the accident the date of incident, received the notice under Ex.B.3 letter respectively. It is not in dispute was occurred on 05.02.2016. Thereby, as on the 2nd knowledge about the cancellation after thorough appreciation of respondent/owner has of said policy. The Tribunal the matter and by following the various high courts rightly no pronouncements of came to the respondent is liable to indemnify the recover the amount paid to E.P. with interest from the conclusion that the respondent initially and thereafter 2nd the claimant by way of filing respondent/insured, which Court. 2nd requires no interference by this 17. It is needless to say that the Tribunal by considering the material on record rightly calculated and awarded entitled by the claimant, which is not in dispute. compensation 18. Having regard to the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that no valid grounds urged by the appellant arrived by the Tribunal in all to interfere with the findings \ '/ 0 1 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. It is needless to say that the Tribunal by considering the material on record rightly calculated and awarded compensation entitled by the claimant, which is not in dispute. In view of 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 result, M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed. There shall be no 19. 20. 21. order as to costs. Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, stand closed. Sd/- U. SRIDEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR / SECTIO'^FFICER //TRUE COPY// To 1. The Chairperson, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-Principa l M.A.C.T - Cum - Principal District Judge, Chittoor. 2. One CC to Sri Srinivasa Rao Vutla, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri Suresh Kumar Reddy Kalava, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies RAM A, . HIGH COURT DATED:01/04/2025 JUDGMENT+DECREE MACWIA.No.233 of 2022 c> s g 0 'I SEP 2025 Co . DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS