APHC010013822022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 28/2022 Between: 1. KATTA KALADHAR, , S/O SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, HINDU, OCC- PRIVATE EMPLOYEE IN LORAS LABS, OPP- RADIO STATION, KUMARPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...APPELLANT AND 1. ENUGULA MOHAN RAO, S/O SIMHADRI, OCC- DRIVER OF LORRY BEARING NO.AP 31 TD 3617, R/O DOOR NO.27-1-127, GAJUWAKA, VISAKHAPATNAM, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. K K TANS LOGIX PRIVATE LTD, REP BY B.RAVI SANKAR, S/O NOT KNOWN, OCC- OWNER OF LORRY BARING NO. AP 31 TD 3617, R/O 10-37-27, RAMNAGAR, VISAKHAPATNAM TOWN AND DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, VISAKHAPATNAM, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be pleased topleased to allow the appeal as prayed in claim petition MVOP No.923/2016 on the file of the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal cum X Additional District Judge, Anakapalile and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 2 VS,J M.A.C.M.A. No.28 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 may be pleased to seeking a direction remand the MVOP No.28/2022 to the court of the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal cum X Additional District Judge, Anakapalii for adjudication of the claim of the Petitioner/appellant by setting aside the order dt.31-08-2021 in MVOP.No.923/2016 in the interest of justice and pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. RAMA KRISHNA A Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. A JAYANTHI 2. The Court made the following: 3 VS,J M.A.C.M.A. No.28 of 2022 JUDGMENT: Aggrieved by the dismissal order dated 31.08.2021 passed in M.V.O.P.No.923 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – X Additional District Judge, Anakapalle, the present appeal has been preferred by the claimant. 2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. The case of the claimant is briefly as follows: a) The petitioner is an employee in Laurus Labs, Visakhapatnam and on 29.11.2013 at about 10.30 p.m., while he was going on his motorcycle bearing registration No.AP 23 Q 3227, the 1st respondent, who was driving the Lorry bearing No.AP 31 TD 3617 from Parawada to Lankelapalem, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed and dashed the petitioner from his behind and dragged him at Lankalapalem Bridge down. As a result, the petitioner fell down on the road and sustained severe injuries to his right thigh exposing pelvis to knee, head injuries and multiple abrasions all over the body. Immediately, the petitioner was shifted to Old Care Hospital in an Ambulance of Lauras Company, where he was treated as an inpatient for 38 days and was advised bed rest for eight (8) months. A criminal case in Crime No. 246 of 2013 under Section 338 of IPC was registered by the Paravada Police against respondent No.1. The accident occurred solely due to the rash 4 VS,J M.A.C.M.A. No.28 of 2022 negligent driving of respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 is the owner of the offending vehicle and respondent No.3 is its insurer. b) It is further contended that, prior to the accident, the petitioner was hale and healthy; however, due to the injuries sustained in the said accident, he is unable to perform his duties as earlier. As such, the injured/claimant filed the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the injuries sustained in the said accident. 4. Respondent No.3/insurance company filed a counter denying the material allegations and contended, inter alia, that the petitioner must prove that he possessed a valid driving licence and was wearing a helmet at the time of accident. It was further contended that the FIR was not given in time, income and medical expenses were not proved, and that the claim was exaggerated. It was also pleaded that the petitioner must establish the existence of a valid insurance policy, compliance with statutory provisions and that the driver of the offending vehicle possessed a valid driving licence. Respondent No.3 prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 5. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: “1. Whether there is violation of permit and terms and conditions of the Policy and hence R-3 not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner? 2. Whether the compensation claimed is highly exaggerated? 3. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation as prayed for? If so, from which of the respondents? 5 VS,J M.A.C.M.A. No.28 of 2022 4. To what relief?” 6. During the course of trial, the petitioner examined P.W-1 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-9. On behalf of the respondents, no oral evidence was adduced and Ex.B-1 copy of insurance policy was marked. 7. After hearing both parties and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition solely on the ground that the petition as against respondent Nos.1 and 2 who are the driver and owner of the alleged offending vehicle was dismissed for default and therefore, the claim against respondent No.3/insurance company alone was not maintainable. 8. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed contending that the Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim solely on a technical ground that the petition was dismissed for default against respondents No.1 and 2 and failed to take into consideration the legal position that the object of beneficial legislation shall not be frustrated due to the technical flaws. 9. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.3/insurance company supported the impugned order and sought dismissal of the appeal. 10. Now the point for consideration is: Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference? 6 VS,J M.A.C.M.A. No.28 of 2022 11. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.3/insurance company. POINT: 12. In support of the contentions advanced by him, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a judgment in Peddaboina Laxmi and others vs. Lamba Road Lines and another1 . 13. A perusal of the said judgment reveals that, under similar circumstances, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Sunita Rathi 2 held that the Insurance Company cannot be fastened with liability in the absence of the owner of the vehicle in the proceedings. However, it was further held that the claimants have the option under Order IX Rule 4 CPC either to file a fresh suit in the event of dismissal of claim for non-payment of batta or to file an application for setting aside the order of dismissal. 14. Further, this Court specifically observed that the appellants/claimants had not only lost an earning member of the family but were also placed in an unfortunate situation of being denied compensation, due to the errors committed by the advocate appearing on their behalf. It was further held that, had the owner of the vehicle been made a party respondent, neither the Insurance Company nor the owner of the vehicle would have had any valid 1 2002 (6) ALD 132 2 (1998) 1 SSC 365 7 VS,J M.A.C.M.A. No.28 of 2022 defence to deny compensation. This Court further held that the object of beneficial legislation should not be frustrated due to mistakes committed by counsel for the parties and, in the interests of justice, it was held that it is open to the appellants either to bring a fresh claim petition or to file an application for setting aside the order of dismissal passed by the trial Court. Accordingly, the judgment of the Tribunal was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Tribunal for fresh disposal by following the procedure laid down under Order IX Rule 4 CPC. 15. In the present case also, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition solely on the technical ground of dismissal of the petition against respondent Nos.1 and 2 for default, without adjudicating the claim on merits. Such an approach cannot be sustained. 16. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed, setting aside the order dated 31.08.2021 passed in M.V.O.P. No.923 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-X Additional District Judge, Anakapalle. The matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh disposal in accordance with law, by following the procedure under Order IX Rule 4 CPC, after affording reasonable opportunity to all parties. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 27.01.2026 KGR