IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA FRIDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF u TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY present the honourable SRI JUSTICE PRADESH AT AMARAVATI MAY FIVE V SRINIVAS lyU-C.IVI.A No’s : 62.59 fL Ri jyi-A.C.IVI.A No’s : fig pf 2079 Appeal under Section 173 of MV Act, decree passed in M.V.O.P. No. 581/2016 Claims Tribunal - aggrieved by the judgment on the file of the Motor Accidents Judge, Kurnool, dated and cum Additional District 16.07.2021 Between: Cholamandalam MS General Manager, Dare House Insurance Company Limited ■’ floor, No.234, NSC Bose Road Rep. by its Chennai. -Appellant/2"^ Respondent AND Reddy District. ^ ^ Kukatpalli-S500075, Ranga years, Hindu, -Respondent/Claimant , Hindu, Owner of Shapur Nagar, 2. P. Vijaya Prakash the vehicle R/o'^n?’ M ° R®ddy, Major deedimetia, Hyderabad -Respondent/ Respondent lA NO: 1 OF 7n?9 if, , 151 CPC ^^ ‘.^the affidavit filed i feeCfo grant stay of all further W-dgment dated 16th day of July, on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Judge, Kurnool, including execution main M.A.C.M.A. praying that in the circumstances may be proceedings pursuant to the decree and 2021 passed in M.V.O.P.No.581 of 2016 Tribunal - cum I Additional District proceedings, pending disposal of the in support of the petition, the High Court pie, Counsel for the Appellant: SRI GUDI SRINIVASU Counsel for the Respondents: -- M.A.C.M.A No : 59 OF onoo Appeal under Section 173 decree passed in M.V.O.P.No.582 of 2016 Claims Tribunal - of July, 2021. of MV Act aggrieved by the judgment and ! on the file of Motor Accidents cum - I Additional District Judge, Kurnool, dated 22"“ day Between: Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Manager, 'Dare House', 2nd floor, No.234 Company Limited, Rep. by its NSC Bose Road, Chennai. ...Appellant/ 2"^ Respondent AND 1. P.Swarnalatha, W/o P. Vijaya Prakash Reddy, Aged 51 Agnculture Work, R/o Pottipadu Village District Jeedimetia, Hyderabad. years, Hindu, Vajrakarur Mandal, Anantapur Shapur Nagar ¥5^ ...Respondents/ 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 all further proceedings pursuant to the decree and judgment dated 22nd day of July, 2021 passed in M.V.O.P.No.582 of 2016 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal I Additional District Judge, Kurnool, including execution proceedings, pending disposal of the main M.A.C.M.A. cum Counsel for the Appellant: SRI GUDI SRINIVASU Counsel for the Respondents:--- M.A.C.M.A No : 61 OF 2022 Appeal under Section 173 of MV Act, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in M.V.O.P.No.583 of 2016 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - I Additional District Judge, Kurnool, dated 22ndday of July, 2021. Between: Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited, Rep. by its Manager, Dare House, 2nd floor, No.234, NSC Bose Road, Chennai. ...Appellant/ 2"^* Respondent AND 1. P. Likhitha, D/o P. Vijaya Prakash Reddy, Aged 27 years, Hindu, HR in Amazon, Hyderabad, native of Pottipadu village, Vajrakarur Mandal, Anantapur District. ...Respondent/ Claimant 2. P. Vijaya Prakash Reddy, S/o P. Narayana Reddy, Major, Hindu, Owner of the vehicle, R/o Flat No.414, Ushodaya Towers, Shapur Nagar, Jeedimetia, Hyderabad. ...Respondents/ 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 all further proceedings pursuant to the decree and judgment dated 22nd day of July, 2021 passed in M.V.O.P.No.583 of 2016 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - I Additional District Judge, Kurnool, including execution proceedings, pending disposal of the main M.A.C.M.A. Counsel for the Appellant: SRI GUDI SRINIVASU Counsel for the Respondents:--- The Court made the following Common Order: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS M.A.C.M.A.Nos.62. 59 & 61 of 2022 COMMON JUDGMENT; These appeals are directed against the order of the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-1 Chairman, Additional District Judge at Kurnool (hereinafter called as ‘the Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.Nos.581, 582 and 583 of 2016, dated 16.07.2021, 22.07.2021 and 22.07.2021 respectively. Since these appeals arise out of same accident and as the material facts are common, the same are being disposed of by 2. this common judgment. All the M.A.C.M.As. are preferred by the insurer of the Car bearing No.AP 28 BR 3264 (hereinafter referred to car”). The respondent No.l herein is the claimant before the Tribunal in the respective petitions. The respondent No.2 is the driver-cum-owner of the said crime car. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as they arrayed before the tribunal. The case of the claimants, in the petitions before the 3. as crime 4. 5. Tribunal in M.V.O.Ps. is that; i). On 29.08.2016 at about 09.15 a.m., while the claimants in the respective petitions along with their fgOTyily proceeding in the crime car, when they reached \ H \ 2 Amakathadu Tollgate on N.H.44 road, the 1st respondent driver-cum-owner of the crime car driven the same in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, lost control over the same, dashed the divider of the road, resulted the inmates in the car sustained grievous injuries and one person died on the spot. ii). They claimed compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-, Rs.20,00,000/- and Rs.8,00,000/- respectively against the driver-cum-owner and insurer of the crime car. 6. The respondent No.2/insurer filed counter in all matters before the Tribunal denying the averments in the petition and pleaded that respondent No.l is not informed about the accident to the insurer, thereby violated Section 134© of M.V.Act; that the compensation claimed by the claimants is excessive and prayed to dismiss the petitions against this respondent. 7. The Tribunal settled the following issues for enquiry basing on the material in all matters: I 3 1 .Whether the accident occurred on 29.08.2016 at 9.15 a.m. near Amakathadu tollgate due to rash and negligent driving of R1 being driver-cum-owner of Car bearing No.AP 28BR 3264 wherein the petitioner sustained injuries? 2.Whether R1 had valid driving license on the date of accident? 3.Whether R1 vehicle insured with R.2 insurance company and whether policy was in force on the date of accident? 4.Whether R1 violated provisions of M.V.Act by not informing the accident to R2 insurance company? 5.Whether petitioner is entitled to claim compensation if so what amount and from whom? and 6.To what relief?” During enquiry, in M.V.O.P.No.581 of 2016, on behalf of 8. the claimant, PWs.l and 2 were examined and Exs.A.l to A. 12 were exhibited. On behalf of the respondent No.2/insurer, none were examined, however, Ex.B.l policy was marked by consent. During enquiry, in M.V.O.P.No.582 of 2016, on behalf of 9. the claimant, PWs.l and 2 were examined and Exs.A.l to A. 10 were exhibited. On behalf of the respondent No.2/insurer, none were examined, however, Ex.B.l policy was marked by consent. 4 10. During enquiry, in M.V.O.P.No.583 of 2016, on behalf of the claimant, PWs.l and 2 were examined and Exs.A.l to A.7 were exhibited. On behalf of the respondent No.2/insurer, none were examined, however, Ex.B.l policy was marked by consent. On the material, the Tribunal, having concluded that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime car by the Dt respondent, held that the claimants entitled for the compensation of Rs.12,50.000/-, Rs.5,00,000/- and Rs.2,05,800/- respectively, with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization against the respondent Nos.l and 2, for the injuries sustained by them in the accident. 11. are It is against the said orders; these appeals are preferred by the insurer of the crime vehicle. 12. 13. Heard Gudi Srinivasu, learned counsel for the appellant/insurer in all the matters. 14. Now, the point that arises for determination is whether the order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside, if so, to what extent? 5 15. POINT: It is not in dispute about the injuries sustained by the claimants in the respective petitions in the accident, involvement of the crime car, rash, and negligent driving of the same by its driver, the Ex.B.l policy issued in respect of the crime car is in force by the date of incident. It is also a fact that the claimants in the respective petitions as well owner of the crime car did not prefer any appeal against the findings of the Tribunal. The foremost contention of the appellant is that the driver 16. of the crime car is not having valid and effective driving license to drive the same by the date of incident. 17. On this contention, the Tribunal categorically made a finding by framing a specific issue that “the petitioner in M.V.O.P.No.517 of 2016, who is one of the inmates of the car. got filed Ex.A.4 Motor Vehicle Inspector’s report, wherein it is shown that R. 1 got driving license to drive non-transport motorcar with gear, light motor vehicle issued on 24.07.1996 and valid uptO 11.10.2016”. Furthermore, no piece of paper \ 6 material placed on record by the insurer to say that respondent No.l is not having valid driving license to drive the crime car. Thereby, the Tribunal rightly came to the conclusion that insurer failed to prove that respondent No.l has no driving license on the date of accident, which requires no interference by this Court. It is also contention of the learned counsel for the 18. appellant that the Tribunal erred in calculating the compensation entitled by the claimants and awarded excessive compensation. As stated supra, it is not in dispute about the nature of 19. injuries sustained by the respective claimants in the accident. The Tribunal by considering the testimony of P.W.2 doctor, who treated the claimants, nature of injuries sustained by them as specified in Ex.A.2 wound certificates, rightly awarded an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards pain and suffering as a consequence of injuries as well Rs.60,000/- towards loss of earnings during the period of treatment and also Rs.20,000/- towards transport and extra nourishment. Furthermore, by 7 considering the medical bills produced by the respective claimants awarded an amount of Rs.8,70,000/-, Rs. 1,20,000/- and Rs.25,800/- towards medical expenses. Thereby, this Court has no hesitation to come to conclusion that the Tribunal after appreciating the material on record in right perspective calculated the compensation entitled by the respective claimants and awarded just compensation. Having regard to the above discussion, there are no valid reasons warrant interference of this Court to the findings recorded by the Tribunal in all aspects, as such, the appeals preferred by the insurer is liable for dismissal. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A.Nos.62, 59 and 61 of 2022 are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, stand closed. _ Sd/-G HELANAIDU . , , ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 20. 21. //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum -1 Additional District Judge, Kurnool , Kurnool District [with records if any ] 2. One CC to Sri Gudi Srinivasu, Advocate [OPUC] 3. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati 4. Three CD Copies MV HIGH COURT DATED: 09/05/2025 COMMON ORDER + DECREE MACMA.No’s.62,59 & 61 of 2022 DISMISSING The MACMA.No’s.62,59 & 61 of 2022 V IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI FRIDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS M.A.C.M.A No : 61 OF 2022 Between: Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited, Rep Manager, Dare House, 2nd floor, No.234, NSC Bose Road, Chennai. . by its ...APPELLANT/ 2"** RESPONDENT AND 1. P. Likhitha, D/o P. Vijaya Prakash Reddy, Aged 27 years, Hindu, HR in Amazon, Hyderabad, native of Pottipadu village, Vajrakarur Mandal, Anantapur District. ...RESPONDENT / CLAIMANT 2. P. Vijaya Prakash Reddy, S/o P. Narayana Reddy, Major, Hindu, Owner of the vehicle, R/o Flat No.414, Ushodaya Towers, Shapur Nagar, Jeedimetia, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS Appeal under Section 173 of MV Act, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in M.V.O.P.No.583 of 2016 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - I Additional District Judge, Kurnool, dated 22ndday of July, 2021. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the I ^ment and decree of the Tribunal and the material papers in the appeal lon; Clearing the arguments of Sri Gudi Srinivasu, Advocate for the none appeared for the Respondents an .i ^ % - ' Tbiglfourt doth order and decree as follows: 1. That the appeal be and hereby is Dismissed 2. That the shall be no order as to costs in this Appeal Sd/- G HELA NAIDU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum -1 Additional District Judge, Kurnool, Kurnool District 2. Three CD Copies MV s HIGH QPURT DATED: 09/05/2025 DECREE MACMA.No.61 of 2022 '' =a 0 * AUK 2U» Lu/rtntSecti DISMISSING THE MACMA IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVAT^^^O^" FRIDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS M.A.C.M.A No : 59 OF 2022 Between: Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited, Rep. by its Manager, 'Dare House', 2nd floor, No.234, NSC Bose Road, Chennai. ...APPELLANT/ 2"'* RESPONDENT AND 1. P.Swarnalatha, W/o P. Vijaya Prakash Reddy, Aged 51 years, Hindu, Agriculture Work, R/o Pottipadu Village, Vajrakarur Mandal, Anantapur District 2. P. Vijaya Prakash Reddy, S/o P. Narayana Reddy, Major, Hindu, Owner of the vehicle, R/o Flat No.414, Ushodaya Towers, Shapur Nagar, Jeedimetia, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS Appeal under Section 173 of MV Act, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in M.V.O.P.No.582 of 2016 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - I Additional District Judge, Kurnool, dated 22"^^ day of July, 2021. i i . r This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the judgment and decree of the Tribunal and the material ancTtjppn hearing the arguments of Sri Gudi Srinivasu, Advocate for the A^pell^t ar^ none appeared for the Respondents Th|§|^urt doth order and decree as follows: 1. That the appeal be and hereby is Dismissed 2. That the shall be no order as to costs in this Appeal papers in the appeal 4 ^ .i ii .1 Sd/- G HELA NAIDU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum -1 Additional District Judge, Kurnool, Kurnool District 2. Three CD Copies MV / HIGH COURT DATED: 09/05/2025 DECREE MACMA.No.59 of 2022 ;1 5( 0 4 AUG m o Co trt enl Section.-^'^'^ DISMISSING THE MACMA \ IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAV, FRIDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS M.A.C.M.A No : 62 of 2022 Between: Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited, Rep. by its Manager, Dare House-, 2nd floor, No.234, NSC Bose Road, Chennai. ...APPELLANT/ 2"'* RESPONDENT AND 1. N.Sujatha, W/o late N. Sakaleswara Reddy, Aged 52 years, Hindu, Business, R/o Villaa 346, Indu Fortune Fields, Phase 13, Near Hitech City, Railway Station, Kukatpalli Housing Board, Kukatpalli-S500075, Ranga Reddy District. ...RESPONDENT / CLAIMANT 2. P. Vijaya Prakash Reddy, S/o P. Narayana Reddy, Major, Hindu, Owner of the vehicle, R/o Flat No.414, Ushodaya Towers, Shapur Nagar, Jeedimetia, Hyderabad-2 ...RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT Appeal under Section 173 of MV Act, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in M.V.O.P. No. 581/2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum 16.07.2021 - I Additional District Judge, Kurnool, dated % ». This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, * ‘he Tribunal and the material papers in the appeal hearing the arguments of Sri Gudi Srinivasu, Advocate for the nd none appeared for the Respondents ■> ■ .1 ^his C6uft|l6th order and decree as follows: 1. Ttiat the appeal be and hereby is Dismissed 2. That the shall be no order as to costs in this Appeal Sd/- G HELA NAIDU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal District Judge, Kurnool, Kurnool District 2. Three CD Copies - cum -1 Additional MV I . j ! HIGH COURT DATED: 09/05/2025 DECREE MACMA.No.62 of 2022 DISMISSING THE MACMA 4 %■