APHC010027692022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] MONDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 27/2022 Between: 1. PANGULURI HARI BABU, S/O. SUBBAIAH, AGED 63 YEARS, OCC AGRUCULTURE, R/O.D.NO.1-158,KOMMURU VILLAGE, KAKUMANU MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT AND 1. KORRAPATI SUMANTH BABU, S/O. VENKAT RAO, ABOUT 29 YEARS, DAILY WAGE, R/O.KOTAPADU VILLAGE, J.PANGANURU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 2. RAVI SURESH, S/O. HARI BABU, AGED 36 YEARS, OCC AGRUCULTURE, R/O.UPPALAPADU VILLAGE, PEDDANANDIPADI MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying that the High court may be pleased to Memorandum of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal before this Hon’ble Court against the order passed in M.V.O.P.No. 69/2017, dated 04-02-2020 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal District Court) Prakasam at Ongole for the following among other Grounds IA 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 dispense with the filing of the certified copy of order and decree passed in 2 VS,J MACMA.No.27 of 2022 MVOP.No.69 of 2017 dated 04-02-2020 by The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Principal District Court) Prakasam, At Ongole and pass IA NO: 2 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 suspend the operation of the orders passed in MVOP.No.69 of 2017 dated 04- 02-2020 by The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Principal District Court) Prakasam, At Ongole and pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. D V SASIDHAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. HANUMANTHA RAO BACHINA The Court made the following: 3 VS,J MACMA.No.27 of 2022 JUDGMENT: The appellant/respondent No.2 filed the present appeal challenging the award passed in M.V.O.P. No.69 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Ongole, whereby the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.5,80,555/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Eighty Thousand Five Hundred and Fifty-Five only) to the petitioner herein as against the claim of Rs.7,00,000/-, on account of the injuries sustained by Korrapati Sumanth Babu. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows: On 27.05.2016, the petitioner, being the driver of a lorry, loaded a proclainer onto the lorry and proceeded to Vetapalem near Tenali, and thereafter to Rangapuram village of Chebrolu Mandal, Guntur District, to carry out culvert work. At about 10:30 a.m., respondent No.1 operated and drove the proclainer in a rash and negligent manner. As a result, the petitioner’s right thigh was crushed between a pillar and the proclainer bearing No.6123 with Serial No.20010064.Immediately, the petitioner was shifted to Lalitha Super Specialty Hospital, Guntur, where the doctors operated on his left leg and found that the veins had been cut, 4 VS,J MACMA.No.27 of 2022 due to which the left leg of the petitioner became completely paralyzed. Consequently, the petitioner is unable to attend to his regular work. The petitioner is stated to have spent more than Rs.4,00,000/- towards medical treatment. 4. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.1 remained ex parte. 5. Respondent No.1 filed a written statement denying the material averments of the petition and specifically contended that he never drove the machine (proclainer) bearing No.6123 with Serial No.20010064 and that he was falsely implicated in the case. It was further contended that though the accident allegedly took place on 27.05.2016 at about 10:30 a.m., the complaint was lodged with Chebrolu Police only on 02.06.2016 at about 14:00 hours, and his name was not mentioned therein. Hence, he contended that he has been falsely implicated. 6. Respondent No.2 filed a written statement denying the material averments made in the petition and contended that he has nothing to do with the alleged vehicle and is neither a proper nor a necessary party to the proceedings. It was further contended that he has been falsely impleaded as respondent No.2 and is not liable to pay any compensation. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the petition. 5 VS,J MACMA.No.27 of 2022 7. Basing on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: “1. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in the accident that occurred on 27.05.2016 due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Proclainer bearing no.6123 with serial No.20010064? 2. Whether R1 is the driver, R2 is the owner of the Proclainer bearing No.6123 with serial No.20010064? 3. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount, against which of the respondents? 4. To what relief?” 8. On behalf of the petitioner, PWs.1 to 4 were examined, and Exs.A1 to A12 along with Exs.X1 and X2 were marked. On behalf of the 2nd respondent, RWs.1 and 2 were examined, and Exs.B1 to B3 were marked. 9. After hearing both parties and upon considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition against the respondents, awarding compensation of Rs.5,80,555/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Eighty Thousand Five Hundred and Fifty-Five only) with interest at 7.5% per annum along with proportionate costs. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 were directed to deposit the compensation amount within three months from the date of the award. 6 VS,J MACMA.No.27 of 2022 10. Aggrieved by the said award, the appellant/respondent No.2 preferred the present appeal contending that the Tribunal failed to consider that, if the vehicle in question belonged to the appellant, there would be insurance coverage reflecting his name; however, no such document has been filed. It is further contended that respondent No.1 could have claimed insurance, but no such claim was made. It is also pointed out that there is inconsistency in the version of the respondent/witness/police, who at different times stated that an auto, a proclainer, and a crane caused the accident. It is further contended that the appellant does not own any such vehicle and that there is no concrete evidence to establish the involvement of respondent No.2. Hence, the appellant prayed to allow the appeal. 11. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent No.1 supported the impugned award and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 12. Now the point for consideration is: Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference? 7 VS,J MACMA.No.27 of 2022 POINT: 13. To prove that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle by respondent No.1, the claimants relied upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 4 and documentary evidence marked as Exs.A1 to A12 and Exs.X1 and X2. PW1 is the injured himself. He relied upon Ex.A1, the attested copy of the First Information Report in Crime No.92 of 2016 of Chebrolu Police Station; Ex.A2, the charge sheet filed before the VI Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur; and Ex.A4, the treatment summary issued by Lalitha Super Specialty Hospital, Guntur. 14. Based on these documents, and upon considering the evidence of PW2, the Tribunal held that the petitioner/injured sustained a crush injury caused by the offending vehicle (proclainer) while he was sitting on a wall. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 failed to substantiate their contention that they were in no way concerned with the alleged accident through due process of law. In this regard, the petitioner also examined the Investigating Officer as PW4. On consideration of his evidence, the Tribunal concluded that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the proclainer. 8 VS,J MACMA.No.27 of 2022 15. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that, in the absence of detailed evidence regarding the manner of the accident, such as the number and model of the offending vehicle, proof of ownership of the said vehicle, and the petitioner’s driving licence and particularly due to the non-joinder of the Insurance Company as a party to the claim petition, several material issues remain unanswered. It is further contended that the Tribunal, without proper application of mind, concluded that the accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. It is therefore argued that the matter requires proper adjudication. 16. In view of the above facts and circumstances, this Court deems it appropriate to remand the matter to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication. 17. In the result, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the award passed by the Tribunal, and the matter is remanded back to the concerned Tribunal for proper adjudication, particularly in view of the non-joinder of the Insurance Company of either the auto or the proclainer, which is alleged to be the offending vehicle. The learned counsel for the respondents is directed to take necessary steps to implead the Insurance Company of the concerned vehicle, i.e., either the auto or the proclainer, as the case may be. Considering that the accident occurred in the year 2016, the Tribunal is directed to dispose of the 9 VS,J MACMA.No.27 of 2022 matter within six (6) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after affording an opportunity of hearing to both parties. Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 09.02.2026 PBS