APHC010073002019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] FRIDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 154/2019 Between: J Narasimha Rao ...APPELLANT AND M China Mastan Naidu and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant: 1. A RAJENDRA BABU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GUDI SRINIVASU 2. The Court made the following: 2 VS,J MACMA No.154 of 2019 JUDGMENT: The appellant/petitioner filed the present appeal seeking enhancement against the order and decree 19.01.2017 in M.V.O.P.No.149 of 2012 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XII Additional District Court, Guntur, whereby and whereunder the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.2,20,530/- (Rupees Two lakhs Twenty Thousand five hundred and thirty only) to the appellant/petitioner herein, as against the claim of Rs.6,20,000/-, towards damages incurred to his car in the said accident. 02. For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 03. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows: The petitioner is resident of Chalapadu, Chebrolu Mandal, Guntur District and he is owner of the Tata Indigo (Manza) Car bearing registration No.AP 7 AR 1144. On 16.12.2010 at about 9.30 p.m., while the petitioner’s vehicle was proceeding from Tenali to Ananthapuram and reached near Agraharam – Katuvaripalem on Podili main road, the driver of a lorry bearing registration No.AP 26 TT 6327 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, without taking any precautions, and by applying sudden brakes, stopped the lorry suddenly on the middle of the road. Due to which, the driver of the car hit the lorry from back side and later the said lorry driver without observing the car, dragged the car to some distance. As a result, the inmates of the car also received injuries. Basing on the report, the 3 VS,J MACMA No.154 of 2019 police registered a case in Cr.No.161/2010, under Sections 337 of IPC and 134(a) (b) and 187 of M.V.Act against the driver of the lorry i.e., the 3rd respondent. 04. The petitioner claims that he being the owner of the car, spent nearly Rs.6,00,000/- towards repairs to his car, apart from Rs.20,000/- towards transport and conveyance charges for the damaged vehicle. During the period the vehicle was under repair, the petitioner had to hire another car by paying Rs.10,000/- per month. The petitioner contends that the 1st respondent being owner of the lorry involved in the accident, is vicariously liable for the negligent act of his driver i.e., 3rd respondent. The 2nd respondent, being the insurer of the said lorry, is also liable. Therefore, all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner, along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of accident till realization. 05. Before the Tribunal, respondents No.1 and 3 owner and driver of the lorry remained ex parte. 06. Respondent No.2-insurer of the lorry, filed a written statement contending that as per the procedure, the damaged vehicle should be inspected by a qualified surveyor approved by IRDA, who must assess the loss in accordance with IRDA norms and policy conditions, including applicable depreciation on parts. However, in the present case, such inspection was not conducted. Further, respondent No.2 was not served complete photographs of the damaged vehicle parts to assess the damage 4 VS,J MACMA No.154 of 2019 caused to the vehicle and whether those parts are partly and fully damaged. It was also stated that the petitioner ought to have claimed damages from his own insurer rather than proceeding against respondent No.2, the insurer of the opposite party vehicle. The petitioner failed to implead the insurer of the Tata Indigo car bearing No. AP 07 AR 1144 which is essential for the proper adjudication of the matter. Respondent No.2 further contended that the driver of the lorry bearing registration No.AP 26 TT 6327 did not possess a valid and effective driving license by the date of the accident, thus violating the terms and conditions of the policy. Further, respondent No.2, alleged that the accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the driver of the Tata Indigo Car, who drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, and hit the lorry on back side and without having valid and effective driving licence and caused the accident. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner is highly excessive and exorbitant and that the petitioner is not entitled for a huge compensation of Rs.6,20,000/- with higher rate of interest. 07. Basing on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: “1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing registration No.AP 26 TT 6327? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the compensation, if so, from whom? 3. To what relief?” 5 VS,J MACMA No.154 of 2019 08. On behalf of the petitioner, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined, and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. On behalf of respondent No.2, RW1 was examined, and Ex.B1 was marked. Exs.X1 to X4 were also marked. 09. After hearing both parties and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal allowed the claim petition against respondent Nos.1 and 2, awarding compensation of Rs.2,20,530/- towards damages to the petitioner. The respondent No.2 was directed to deposit the said amount within two months, along with proportionate costs and with interest @ 9% from the date of petition till the time of depositing of the amount. 10. Aggrieved by the said award, the petitioner has filed this appeal contending that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry, specifically due to the sudden application of brakes, without observing the Car, which was behind the said lorry. The petitioner asserts that the Tribunal ought to have awarded the compensation as claimed towards damages caused to the car. The petitioner further contends that the Tribunal erred in finding the oral statements and the preliminary or final reports filed and marked through PW4 to be suspicious, in the absence of contra evidence. The Tribunal has only awarded Rs.1,90,552/- towards repairs and Rs.30,000/- towards transport, incidental and miscellaneous expenses, which requires to be enhanced. 6 VS,J MACMA No.154 of 2019 11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents herein has supported the impugned award and prayed to dismiss the appeal. 12. Now the point for consideration is: Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference? 13. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Gudi Srinivasu, learned counsel for respondent No.2/insurance company. POINT: 14. A perusal of the award shows that the petitioner claims that he had spent nearly Rs.6,00,000/- to get his car repaired in Jasper Industries Private Limited, Guntur and also spent Rs.20,000/- towards transportation of his car from the accident place to the garage. In support of his claim, he has produced Ex.A4 - three invoices named as retail invoices and one proforma invoice retail bill issued by Jasper Industries. The Tribunal found that none of the said invoices were signed by the authorized signatory for Jasper Industries Private Limited and hence, cannot be relied upon. However, through PW3, Ex.X2 - two sets of bills were marked. The Tribunal found that one retail invoice captioned as ‘Bill No.3’ was found issued under the head ‘Jasper Auto Services Pvt. Ltd.’, duly signed by authorized signatory, for grand total amount of Rs.1,90,530/-. As such, among the documents filed and marked by the petitioner, only one bill issued for an amount of Rs.1,90,530/- under Ex.X2 was found authentic and valid. Though PW4 was examined on behalf of 7 VS,J MACMA No.154 of 2019 petitioner to prove that he had assessed the loss at Rs.4,50,000/- it can be seen that PW4 has admitted that he has assessed the same, without deducting the depreciation for plastic and rubber parts. Further, the evidence of PW4 would show that he has failed to prove that he was authorized to conduct survey by the Reliance Insurance Company. In view of the same, the Tribunal found the oral statement and the preliminary or final reports filed and marked through PW4 to be suspicious and not acceptable, which, in the opinion of this Court, is justifiable. In view of the same, awarding an amount of Rs.1,90,530/- by the Tribunal towards repairs and payment under bills, is just and reasonable and in the absence of cogent evidence, no enhancement in that regard is required. 15. So far as the amount of Rs.30,000/- granted towards transport, incidental and miscellaneous expenses is concerned, though no documents were filed to show as to what were the amounts spent by the petitioner towards transport charges or conveyance, the Tribunal opined that the transport, incidental and miscellaneous expenses incurred by the petitioner to shift the vehicle from the place of accident to the work shop cannot be ruled out. Hence, the Tribunal thought it appropriate to award a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards transport, incidental and miscellaneous expenses, which is reasonable and in the absence of any evidence, this Court finds no ground to enhance the said amount. 8 VS,J MACMA No.154 of 2019 16. Viewed from any angle, this Court does not find any grounds to interfere with the award impugned in the appeal. 17. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 02.05.2025 KGR