APHC010235542019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3505] FRIDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 840/2019 Between: 1. SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, OFFICE AT E-8, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA, SITAPURA, JAIPUR, STATE OF RAJASTHAN - 302 022. (POLICY NO.10003/31/12/034583, VALID FROM 18.05.2011 UPTO 17.05.2012) ...APPELLANT AND 1. G CHIRANJEEVI NAIDU, S/O. G.MUNASWAMY NAIDU, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, RESIDING AT SESHAPURAM VILLAGE, PALAMAKULAPALLI POST, BANGARUPALYEM MANDAL, CHITOOR DISTRICT. (AADHAR NO.387447673466, MOBILE NO.9703189360) 2. A DORASWAMY, S/O. MUNIRATHNAM, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, RESIDING AT CHANDRAKUMARAPURAM VILLAGE (C.K.PURAM), S.R.PURAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR (DRIVER - CUM - 2 OWNER OF LORRY AP-04/T - 7216). ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be pleased topleased allow the appeal by setting aside the Order and Decree passed in M.V.O.P.No.32 of 2018 on the file of The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - VIII Additional District Judge, Chittoor, dt.l9th day of March, 2019, and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2019 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 pleased to condone the delay of 2 days in filing the M.A.C.M.A. against the Judgment and award passed in M.V.O.P.No.32 of 2018 on the file of The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - VIII Additional District Judge, Chittoor, dated 19th day of March, 2019, and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2019 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 pleased to grant stay of operation of the decree and Judgment in M.V.O.P.No.32 of 2018 on the file of The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - VIII Additional District Judge, Chittoor, dt.l9th day of March, 2019, pending disposal of the main M.A.C.M.A., and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 pleased to vacate the interim orders dated 14.07.2021 in I.A.No.2 of 2019 in MACMA No.840 of 2019 and pass s Counsel for the Appellant: 3 1. GUDI SRINIVASU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GUDI SRINIVASU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. Y MAHA LAKSHMI The Court made the following: 4 The Court made the following judgment: The present appeal is filed by the appellant/Shriram General Insurance Company Limited aggrieved by order dated 19.03.2019, passed in MVOP No.32 of 2018, on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VIII Additional District Judge, Chittoor. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they were referred before the Tribunal. 3. The facts leading to the case on hand are as follows: (i) The petitioner claims that he is working as a Teacher in Sarojini English Medium School, Bangarupalyam and was drawing an amount of Rs.7,000/- per month. It is his further case that, he used to cultivate the lands belonging to his family and was earning annual income of Rs.2,00,000/-. (ii) It is further case of the petitioner that on 01.03.2012 at about 07.00 a.m. near Ragimanupenta cross of Bangarupalyam town, while he was proceeding on his motor cycle bearing registration No.AP 03 AD 6779, lorry bearing registration No.AP 04 T 7216 came in opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and hit the motor cycle of the petitioner. As a result of which, the petitioner sustained 5 multiple injuries and immediately he was taken to Government Hospital, Bangarupalyam and later he was shifted to Government Hospital, Chittoor. It is further case of the petitioner that he was subsequently shifted to CMC Hospital, Vellore for better treatment, where he underwent treatment for the injuries and he was discharged on 08.03.2012. A case in Crime No.23 of 2012 under Section 338 of IPC was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle. It is further the case of the petitioner that he spent more than Rs.3,00,000/- towards treatment and other attendant charges. (iii) It is further case of the petitioner that due to the injuries received by him, he sustained permanent disability of 50%. Therefore, he filed claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- with future interest at the rate of 18% per annum. (iv)The claim was resisted by the 2nd respondent/appellant by filing counter affidavit, inter-alia contending that the petitioner has to prove that the 1st respondent is the owner of the offending crime vehicle and was insured with the 2nd respondent and the policy was in force as on the date of accident. 6 (v) It is further contended that the driver of the offending vehicle had no driving license as such, there is violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. In view of the said violation, the Insurance Company/appellant is not liable to pay compensation and prayed to dismiss the claim petition. It was further contended that the claim made by the petitioner was excessive and it has to be dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of Insurance Company of the motor cycle. (vi) In order to prove the case of the petitioner, P.Ws.1 to 9 were examined and Exs.A1 to A9 were marked. On behalf of respondents, no oral evidence was adduced. Copy of the insurance policy was marked as Ex.B1. Exs.X1 to X5 were marked through P.Ws.7 and 8. (vii) Having considered the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence put forth by the parties, the Tribunal, by order under challenge, partly allowed the claim petition by awarding an amount of Rs.9,06,947/- towards compensation under various conventional heads. Aggrieved by the said award, the present appeal is preferred. 4. Heard Sri N.Rama Krishna, learned counsel representing Sri G.Srinivasu, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and 7 Smt.Y.Maha Lakshmi, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1. 5. Perused the record. 6. The counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company would contend that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner and there was no fault on the part of the driver of the lorry bearing registration No.AP 04 T7216. In order to prove the same, the appellant did not examine the driver of the offending vehicle. On the other hand, on perusal of the evidence of P.W.1/the claimant and evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4, who are the eye-witnesses, categorically deposed that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. The appellant not adduced any evidence to disprove the same. In the absence of any evidence by the appellant, it can be held that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending lorry. Therefore, the contention of the Insurance Company cannot be countenanced and the same is hereby rejected. 7. Coming to the aspect of non-joinder of necessary party i.e., the insurer of the motorcycle is concerned, on perusal of the charge sheet filed against the driver of the offending vehicle, it is 8 succinctly clear that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending lorry. Since the offending vehicle was insured with the 2nd respondent/appellant, non- joinder of the insurer of the motor cycle is not fatal to the case and therefore, the said contention of the appellant is also rejected. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant would further submit that the compensation claimed by the petitioner/claimant is excessive. In order to prove the case of the claimant, he has examined P.Ws.5 to 8 to show that he has sustained grievous injuries in the accident and marked Exs.A4 to A9 to substantiate his claim. Further, P.W.5, the Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government Head Quarters Hospital, Chittoor, deposed that petitioner received following injuries:- 1. 6 x 1 CM laceration over left parietal region. 2. A 10 x 2 cm laceration over right foot and deforming of right foot. 3. A 8 x 3 cm abrasion over anterior aspect of right thigh. 9. He further deposed that the petitioner was referred to CMC Hospital, Vellore, he underwent CT Brain scanning, in which it was diagnosed that the left parietal bone comminuted and 9 depressed fracture. It was further deposed that the right ankle shows fracture of talus and lateral malleolus. He further deposed that the injuries 1 and 2 were grievous in nature and the 3rd injury was simple in nature. P.W.5 further deposed that he also issued Ex.A4/wound certificate to that effect. 10. Apart from the same, the claimant also examined P.Ws.6 and 7, the Medical Officers of CMC Hospital, Vellore, who deposed that the petitioner underwent external fixation of fracture of the right ankle on 02.03.2012 and he was given treatment for wound debridement and Orthofix application and ORIF of talus neck. Later he was discharged with advice to have review for brain injury. Further, the petitioner also examined P.W.8, the Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government Head Quarters Hospital, Chittoor, who treated the petitioner along with the team of doctors and issued Ex.A7/disability certificate dated 21.10.2013, under which the petitioner was assessed with 50% disability stating that the same is permanent in nature. P.W.8 further deposed that the injury affected the talus bone which is the weight receiving bone due to which the patient cannot deliver his lower limb activities i.e., difficulty in walking, climbing slops, climbing stairs, kneeling, standing on affected leg, turning around the axis and his 10 dorsiflexion, plantarflexion inversion and eversion affected at ankle joint. Apart from the same, the petitioner also marked Exs.A4 to A9 in order to prove the claim. 11. Though, the petitioner examined one Sri N.P.Sudhakar Naidu, who was the founder and advisor of Sarojini English Medium School as P.W.9 and marked Ex.A6 salary certificate showing that the petitioner was drawing an amount of Rs.7,000/- per month, the tribunal disbelieved the same as there was no corroborative evidence showing that he has worked in the school either as Senior assistant or as Teacher. In those circumstances, the tribunal has taken the monthly income of the petitioner at Rs.5,000/- notionally. 12. By taking into consideration of the case of the petitioner, the tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.9,06,947/- towards compensation under various conventional heads as already noted supra the appellant/insurance company miserably failed to adduce any oral or documentary evidence to disprove the case of the claimant. In the absence of the same, this Court does not find any merits in the present appeal. 11 13. For the reasons recorded supra, there are no grounds to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal and accordingly, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________ JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR Dt.07.11.2025 JLV 12 46 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR MACMA.No.840 OF 2019 Date: 07.11.2025 JLV