APHC010051632021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3505] THURSDAY,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 93/2021 Between: 1. M/S SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REP., BY ITS MANAGER, HEAD OFFICE, E-F, RICO INDUSTRIAL AREA, SEETHAPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN STATE. ...APPELLANT AND 1. PALAGIRI SAROJAMMA, W/O LATE PALAGIRI DIWAKAR REDDY, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, HINDU, (WIFE OF THE DECEASED), RESIDING AT F-5/11, KRISHNANAGAR COLONY, ZUARI CEMENT, YERRAGUNTLA POST AND MANDALAM, KADAPA DISTRICT 2. PALAGIRI VENKATA RAHUL KRISHNA REDDY, S/O LATE PALAGIRI DIWAKAR REDDY, AGED 22 YEARS, HINDU, STUDENT, REST - DO - 3. PALAGIRI SPANDANA, D/O LATE PALAGIRI DIWAKAR REDDY, AGED 18 YEARS, HINDU, STUDENT, REST - DO - (CLAIMANTS 1 TO 3) 4. AKULA HARI, S/ O SUBBARAYUDU, AGED NOT KNOWN, BUT MAJOR, HINDU, OWNER OF THE AUTO BEARING NO AP04 TT 4193, RESIDENT OF D.NO.15/ 776-1, ZINNA ROAD, 2 TCDS,J M.A.C.M.A.NO.93 OF 2021 PRODDATUR TOWN, KADAPA DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be pleased tobegs to prefer this memorandum of appeal being aggrieved by the Decree and Order, dt.23-07-2018 in M.V.O.P.No.131 /2013 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal court II Addl., District Judge, Proddatur IA NO: 1 OF 2021 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 condone the delay of 396 days in filing the above MACMA in M.V.O.P.No.131 / 2013, dated 23-07-2018 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum II Addl., District Judge, Proddatur, otherwise the petitioner will suffer irreparable loss IA NO: 2 OF 2021 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 suspend the Decree and Order, dt.23-07-2018 in M.V.O.P.No.131 /2013 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum II Addl., District Judge, Proddatur, pending disposal of the MACMA and pass such other Order or Orders in the interest of justice. pending disposal of the above appeal in the interest of justice and pass IA NO: 3 OF 2021 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 permit us to withdraw the deposited amount deposited by the appellant in pursuance of the orders of this Honble court dated 23-02-2020 in MACMA 93/2021 against MVOP. 131/2013 on the file of the court of the Chairman-Motor Accidents claims Tribunal cum -II Additional District judge, YSR District at Proddatur and pass Counsel for the Appellant: 3 TCDS,J M.A.C.M.A.NO.93 OF 2021 1. V HEMANTH KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. V R REDDY KOVVURI The Court made the following: 4 TCDS,J M.A.C.M.A.NO.93 OF 2021 JUDGEMENT:- The present appeal is preferred by the appellant/M/s.ShriRam General Insurance Company Limited aggrieved by the order dated 23.07.2018 passed in M.V.O.P.No.131 of 2013 on the file of Chairman- Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum -II Additional District judge, YSR District at Proddatur 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they were referred before the Tribunal. 3. The claimants who are wife and children of Palagiri Diwakar Reddy (herein after referred to as deceased) filed petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act r/w Rules 475 and 476 of Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules 1989 claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- for the death of the deceased in road accident that was occurred on 08.12.2011. 4. It is the case of the claimants that on 08.12.2011, the deceased along with his friend Kasi Kondareddy was travelling on a motor cycle, and when they reached Potladurthy daba, the friend of the deceased asked him to stop the vehicle to attend nature’s call then the deceased stopped the vehicle. At that time, auto bearing registration No.AP 04 TT 4193 came in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed the motor cycle and the deceased. As a result of which the deceased 5 TCDS,J M.A.C.M.A.NO.93 OF 2021 fell down and suffered with severe bleeding injuries on his head. It is further stated that the deceased has also sustained contusions on his hands and legs and fell unconscious on the spot. Later the deceased was shifted to Government Hospital, Produttur, from there he was shifted to Government General Hospital, Nandyal for better treatment. Subsequently, he was shifted from Nandyal to Care Hospital, Hyderabad, where he was treated as inpatient for 20 days and thereafter he was shifted to Ramaiah Orthopadetic Hospital, Bangalore. While he was undergoing treatment, he died on 26.02.2012. A complaint was registered in Cr.No.181 of 2011 on the file of Yerraguntla Police Station under Section 337 of IPC and after the death of the deceased it was altered to Section 304-A of IPC. As the deceased died due to the injuries received in the accident occurred on 08.12.2011, the claimants filed M.V.O.P.No.131 of 2013 claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-. 5. The 1st respondent remained ex-parte before the Tribunal. 6. The 2nd respondent resisted the claim by filing a counter-affidavit, denying the averments made in the claim petition and contended that the driver of the offending vehicle, i.e., the auto bearing Registration No.AP 04 TT 4193, did not have a valid driving license at the time of the accident. It was further contended that since the owner of the offending 6 TCDS,J M.A.C.M.A.NO.93 OF 2021 vehicle had violated the terms and conditions of the policy, the 2nd respondent is not liable to pay compensation. It was further contended that there was a delay of 22 hours in reporting the alleged accident to the police. With the above contentions, the 2nd respondent pleaded to exonerate from the liability. 7. In order to prove the case of the claimants, they have examined PW-1 to PW-3 on their behalf and marked Exhibits A1 to A13. On the other hand, the 2nd respondent examined RW-1 and Exhibits B1 to B6 were marked. 8. The Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence putforth by the parties, by order dated 23.07.2018 partly allowed the claim petition by awarding compensation of Rs.17,51,000/- to the petitioners by making the respondent nos.1 & 2 jointly and severally liabile to pay the said amount with future interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of deposit. Aggrieved by the said order, the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company preferred the present appeal. 9. Heard Sri V.Hemanth Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Tahsila Ravi Teja, learned counsel representing Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants. 7 TCDS,J M.A.C.M.A.NO.93 OF 2021 10. Perused the material. 11. The appeal was filed on the ground that the offending vehicle, i.e., the auto bearing Registration No.AP 04 TT 4193 was not involved in the accident as alleged by the claimants. The learned counsel for the appellant would further submit that at the time of giving report to Police by the eye witness i.e., PW-2, the details of the offending auto were not mentioned and the vehicle number was for the first time included in the charge-sheet after investigating into the crime. It is strenuously contended that the offending vehicle was not at all involved in the accident and it was erroneously included by the claimants for wrongful gain. 12. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents would contend that at the time of giving report to police, the registration number of the offending vehicle was mentioned clearly and the same is apparent on a perusal of the FIR in crime No.181 of 2011 dated 08.12.2011. Further, it is submitted that a copy of FIR was marked as Exhibit A1. On a perusal of the Exhibit As-FIR, it is evident that the registration number of the offending auto was mentioned as AP 04 TT 4193. Further, the said crime was investigated into and charge-sheet was lodged, in which it is clearly mentioned the number of the offending vehicle. From the above documentary evidence putforth by the 8 TCDS,J M.A.C.M.A.NO.93 OF 2021 claimants, it can be safely held that the vehicle i.e., auto bearing registration No.AP 04 TT 4193 was involved in the accident that was occurred on 08.12.2011 in which the deceased received grievous injuries and later he died on 26.1.2012. 13. From the above, without any hesitation, it can be held that the offending auto bearing registration No.AP 04 TT 4193 was involved in the accident. Therefore, the contention of the appellant that the said vehicle was not involved cannot be sustained, and accordingly, the same is hereby rejected. 14. The other ground on which the present appeal is filed is that the Tribunal without properly appreciating the case has erroneously taken the income of the deceased as Rs.17,175/- per month. Though the income of the deceased was disputed by the appellant, in order to disprove the same, the appellant/Insurance Company neither adduced any oral evidence nor filed any documentary evidence. 15. On the other hand, on a perusal of Exhibit A5/salary certificate, it is evident that at the time of the accident the deceased was drawing an amount of Rs.17,175/- as salary per month from his employer. Further, the claimants have also examined Pw-3 the Senior Manager, HR, who categorically deposed that the deceased was earning an amount of Rs.17,175/- per month as salary. In view of the concrete evidence 9 TCDS,J M.A.C.M.A.NO.93 OF 2021 putforth by the claimants, contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted. Further on a perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal, it is evident that while computing compensation, the Tribunal has followed the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Ltd., vs. Pranay Sethi & others 1and awarded an amount of Rs.17,51,946/- towards compensation. 16. For the foregoing reasons, this Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal and as there are no merits in the present appeal, the same is hereby dismissed. 17. It is needless to mention that the 2nd respondent is directed to pay the compensation awarded by the Tribunal within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after deducting the amounts already paid. No costs. As a sequel, Miscellaneous Applications, if any, pending shall also stand dismissed. _____________________ JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR Dt.13.11.2025 LSP 1 2017 ACJ 2700 10 TCDS,J M.A.C.M.A.NO.93 OF 2021 253 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 93/2021 Dt.13.11.2025 LSP