APHC010067092022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3367] MONDAY ,THE TENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 58/2022 Between: The Oriental Insurance Company Limited ...APPELLANT AND Kunchala Durga Prasad and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant: SAMBOJU BALA GOPAL Counsel for the Respondent(S): The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge at Machilipatnam (hereinafter called as ‘the Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.111 of 2015 dated 27.10.2021. 2. The appellant is the insurer of the Lorry bearing No.AP 16T 8429 (hereinafter referred to as “crime lorry”). The respondent No.1 is the claimant before the Tribunal and respondent Nos.2 and 3 is the driver and owner of the said crime lorry respectively. 2 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as they arrayed before the tribunal. 4. The case of the claimant, in the petition before the Tribunal is that: i). On 02.11.2014 at about 04.00 p.m., while the claimant playing in-front of his house at Balliparru Laku of Pamarru Mandal, Krishna District, the 1st respondent driver of the crime lorry, driven the same in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, without blowing horn and without observing the traffic rules, dashed the claimant, dragged him to a distance of 100 yards, resulted the claimant sustained fracture on right foot and injuries to right left, right tibia. ii). He claimed compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- against the driver, owner, and insurer of the crime vehicle. 5. The respondent No.3/insurer filed counter denying the averments in the petition and pleaded that the 1st respondent is not having valid driving license to drive the crime lorry by the date of incident, thereby, the owner of the said vehicle is only 3 liable to pay compensation to the claimant; that the negligence is only on the part of the claimant, but not 1st respondent/driver; that the compensation claimed by the claimant is excessive and arbitrary, and thereby, prays to dismiss the petition against this respondent. 6. The Tribunal settled the following issues for enquiry basing on the material: “1.Whether petitioner sustained injuries due to rash and negligent driving of R.1 driver of Crime Lorry No.AP 16T 8429? 2.Whether the driver of offending vehicle was having valid and effective driving license at the time of accident? 3.Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount? and from which of the respondents? and 4.To what relief?” 7. During enquiry, on behalf of the claimant, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined, Exs.A.1 to A.8, X.1 and X.2 were exhibited. On behalf of the respondent No.3, none were examined, however, Ex.B.1 policy was marked by consent. 4 8. On the material, the Tribunal, having come to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash negligent driving of the crime lorry by the 1st respondent, held that claimant is entitled for the compensation of Rs.1,26,000/-, with interest at 9.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization against the respondents, for the injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident. 9. It is against the said award; the present appeal was preferred by the appellant/insurer. 10. Heard Sri S.Bala Gopal, learned counsel for the appellant/insurer. 11. Now, the point that arise for determination is “whether 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 incident, involvement of the crime lorry, rash, and negligent driving of 1st respondent in causing the incident and that Ex.B.1 policy issued in respect of the crime lorry is in 5 force by the date of incident. 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. 13. It is the main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the driver of the crime lorry is not possessing heavy goods vehicle driving license, thereby, violated the terms of the policy and insurer is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimant. 14. On the other hand, it is the case of the claimant that the 1st respondent is having valid license to drive the Transport vehicle by the date of incident under Ex.A.5 driving license, thereby, the said contention raised by the insurer has no legs to stand. The said fact was testified by P.W.1 father of the claimant in his evidence and got marked Ex.A.5. But, to fortify the contention of the insurer that the 1st respondent is not having valid driving license to driver the crime lorry, no material was placed on record. Even the insurer did not choose to examine any of the witness before the Tribunal to prove the same and made bald pleadings in the counter only. The Tribunal by 6 framing an issue answered the same thoroughly and rightly concluded that the insurer failed to prove that the 1st respondent is not having valid driving license to drive the crime lorry by the date of incident. Thereby, this Court has no reason to meddle with the said findings of the Tribunal. 15. Now, coming to the quantum of compensation entitled by the claimant is concerned, it is the contention of the insurer that the Tribunal erred in calculating the compensation entitled by the claimant. 16. To prove the treatment taken by the claimant and expenditure incurred by him, he relied upon the testimony of P.W.2-P.R.O., Help Hospital at Vijayawada coupled with Ex.A.2, A.3, A.8 and X.2. The insurer did not deny the treatment taken by the claimant in the said hospital. On perusal of Exs.A.2, A.3 and X.2, the claimant sustained two grievous injuries at dorsum region of right foot and plantar region of right foot, he took treatment in Help Hospital from 02.11.2014 to 10.11.2014 and operated the injuries on right foot. 7 17. By considering the above facts, nature of injuries, treatment taken by him and age of the claimant, the Tribunal rightly granted an amount of Rs.40,000/- for two grievous injuries, Rs.20,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.10,000/- towards Damage for nervous shock, Rs.5,000/- towards damages of clothing and articles, Rs.10,000/- towards transportation and Rs.10,000/- towards extra nourishment as well granted Rs.31,000/- under Ex.A.8 medical bills, in-total Rs.1,26,000/-, when claim is made for Rs.2,00,000/-. Thereby, this Court is of the considered opinion that no valid grounds urged by the appellant to interfere with the said calculations made by the Tribunal, 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. 18. In the result, M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. 8 Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, stand closed. _____________________ JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS Date: 10.03.2025 Krs 9 24 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS M.A.C.M.A.No.58 of 2022 (J U D G M E N T) DATE: 10.03.2025 Krs