UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD. v. SHAIK NIYAZ @ NIYAZ BASHA
MACMA/27/2019 · 2026-02-25
T C D Sekhar
Public Interest Litigationbody2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 14818 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 14818 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
1
APHC010017702019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3505] THURSDAY,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 27/2019 Between:
1. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD.,, REP BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER,21/361,RK K ROAD DARAKA TOWERS X ROADS SEVEN ROADS CIRCLE KADAPA
...APPELLANT AND
1. SHAIK NIYAZ NIYAZ BASHA, S/O ZAHARUDDIN 24 YEARS R/O NEELAKANTARAOPET RAMAPURAM MANDAL KADAPA DIST
2. S NAYAMTHULLA, S/O S SAHEB , AGE-MAJOR,OWNER OF AUTO ,R/O 4/22- 1,NEELAKANTARAOPET,RAMAPURAM MANDAL,KADAPA DIST
3. PILLINDLA ADINARAYANA, S/O NAGAIAH 43 YEARS DRIVER OF AUTO R/O SARASWATHIPALLI HARIJANAWADA H/O SARASWATHIPALLI RAMAPURAM MANDAL KADAPA DIST
...RESPONDENT(S):
2
Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying the High Court may be pleased to aggrieved by the decree and judgment passed in M.V.O.P 62 of 2015, dated 29.09.2018, on the file of motor accident claims tribunal -cum- V addl district judge at Rayachoty 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 to stay all further proceedings including the execution of decree and award dt. 29.09.2018 in MVOP.No. 62 of 2015, ON THE FILE OF MACT- CUM-V ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE, AT RAYACHOTY, pending disposal of the above appeal in the interest of justice and pass Counsel for the Appellant:
1. SRINIVASA RAO VUTLA Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. The Court made the following:
3
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR MACMA No.27 OF 2019 JUDGMENT:-
1. The present appeal is filed by the United India Insurance Company Limited questioning the order dated 29.09.2015 in M.V.O.P.No.62 of 2015 on the file of Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-V Additional District Judge, Rayachoty. 2. The 1st respondent filed claim petition under Section 166 & 166-A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1998 read with rules made there under, claiming compensation of Rs.22,50,120/- on the account of injuries sustained by him in the accident that was occurred on 28.07.2014 in which the offending Auto bearing Registration No.AP04TT1315 was involved. 3. Though several grounds are raised in the instant appeal, during the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the respondent confined his argument to the quantum of compensation of Rs.16,50,610/- awarded by the Tribunal. 4. Despite service of notice, there is no appearance for the respondent No.1. 4
5.
Heard, the learned counsel for the appellant. Perused the record. 6. It is strenuously contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the 1st respondent has not filed any documentary evidence to show that he was earning Rs.10,500/- per month and Rs.25,000/- per annum by cultivating the agricultural lands belonging to him. 7. A perusal of the order under challenge, it is clear that the Tribunal did not taken into consideration of the contention of the 1st respondent and after perusing the oral evidence adduced by PW.1 and PW.2 had fixed notional income of the 1st respondent as Rs.9,000/- per month. Further, it is the specific case of the petitioner that he was doing petty business apart from the same, he owns agricultural lands through which he is earning Rs.25,000/- per annum. As already noted supra, the Tribunal disbelieved the same and fixed the income of the 1st respondent as Rs.9,000/- per month. Though, the income fixed by the Tribunal is disputed by the appellant, it failed to disprove the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2. In the absence of any supporting material, the contention of the appellant cannot be accepted. 5
8. In such circumstances, the order under challenge does not require interference by this Court. Accordingly, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There is no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any shall stand closed. ________________ T.C.D.SEKHAR, J
26.02.2026 CMK/SSA
6
56 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR
MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 27/2019 26.02.2026
CMK/SSA