APHC010043742022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] MONDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 82/2022 Between: 1. S.KARIMULLAH,, S/O BASHA,AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, OCC- MIXING OPERATOR IN KISAN PVC PIPES FACTORY, RESIDING AT D. NO. 18/319, YANADHI COLONY, PRODDATUR TOWN, KADAPA DISTRICT. ANDHRA PRADESH ...APPELLANT AND 1. SHAIK ABDUL RASHEED, S/O S. ABDUL JABBAR, AGED MAJOR, OCC- OWNER OF MARUTHI SWIFT DZIRE BEARING NO. TN 10 V 9888, RESIDING AT SRI RAJA RAJESWARI ORCHID, CHINMAYA MERKUNDRAM STREET, CHINMAYA NAGAR, CHENNAI-600092. 2. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, BRANCH OFFICER, PRODDATUR. 3. A PRASAD, S/O BALA GURRAPPA, AGE ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCC- DRIVER OF 151 RESPONDENTS MARUTHI SWIFT DZIRE CAR, R/O. D.NO. 1/15, NANGANURUPALLI VILLAGE, PRODDATUR MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Appellant: 1. V NITESH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. N RAMA KRISHNA 2. The Court made the following: 2 VS,J M.A.C.M.A.No.82 of 2022 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 82/2022 JUDGMENT: 1. Aggrieved by the Award passed by the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum- II Additional District Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur vide orders dated 07.12.2021 passed in M.V.O.P.No.142 of 2017, the present Appeal is preferred praying to set aside the Order and Decree passed by the II Additional District Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur in M.V.O.P.No.142 of 2017 dated 07.12.2021 and to award compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- to the Appellant/Petitioner. 2. The appellant before this Court has filed M.V.O.P. No.142 of 2017 claiming Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a Motor Vehicle accident that occurred on 11.11.2016 at about 3.00 p.m., at Yellamma Temple, Balaji Nagar of Khaderbad village on Proddatur-Mydukur main road, Proddatur Mandal due to rash and negligent driving of the 3rd respondent, who is the driver of 1st respondent’s Maruthi Swift Dzire Car bearing No.TN-10-V-9888. 3. While dealing with the matter, the Court below has framed following issues: (1) Whether the Claimant sustained injuries in the Motor Vehicle accident that occurred on 11.11.2016 at 3 p.m., at Yellamma Temple of Khadarabad village situated on Proddatur-Mydukur main road, Proddatur Mandal due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of 1st Respondent’s car bearing No.TN 10 V 9888? (2) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for compensation if so, to what amount and from whom? (3) To what relief? 4. The main contention of the appellant/claimant is that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the car by its driver and Petitioner sustained grievous bleeding injury on left side of frontal region, took 3 VS,J M.A.C.M.A.No.82 of 2022 treatment as inpatient from 11.11.2016 to 15.11.2016, spent Rs.30,000/- towards medicine and extra nourishment and the doctor advised to take rest for a period of three months. Hence, prayed to Award compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- by fixing liability on the Respondents. 5. The claimant got himself examined as P.W.1 and also examined his employer – S.Khaleem as P.W.2 and got marked Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.9 documents. Ex.A.1 is attested copy of F.I.R in Cr.No.206 of 2016 of Proddatur Rural Police Station. Ex.A.2 is attested copy of wound certificate of claimant; Ex.A.3 is attested copy of charge sheet in Cr.No.206 of 2016 of Proddatur Rural Police Station, Ex.A.4 is hospital bill bearing No.3203 dated 15.11.2016 for Rs.8,300/- issued by Priyabhavana Hospital, Proddatur, Ex.A.5 is medical bills 924 in number) for Rs.8,616/- issued by the Priyabhavana Pharmacy, Proddatur, Ex.A.6 is C.T Scan of brain report issued by Krishna Diagnostics dated 11.11.2016, Ex.A.7 is report of Scan of whole Abdomen issued by Priyabhavana Hospital, Proddatur, Ex.A.8 is prescriptions six (06) in number issued by Priyabhavana Hospital, Proddatur, Ex.A.9 is salary certificate of the claimant. On behalf of contesting 2nd Respondent, its In-charge Branch Manager – Manikumar Govind got examined as R.W.1 and got marked true copy of Insurance Policy as Ex.B.1. 6. The first issue was answered in favour of the appellant/claimant by giving a finding that the appellant/claimant sustained injuries because of the rash and negligent act of the 3rd respondent who was driver of the 1st respondent. 7. However, with regard to the second issue, the Court below having while giving a finding that the appellant has not proved the medical bills and has not filed any disability certificate, has dismissed the M.V.O.P., filed by the appellant/claimant. 4 VS,J M.A.C.M.A.No.82 of 2022 8. Heard Sri N.Akash, learned Counsel representing Sri V.Nitesh, learned Counsel for the Appellant and the learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No.2. 9. It is an admitted fact that the claimant got examined himself as PW1 and considering the evidence on record the Court below have clearly given a finding that there is no contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the motor cycle i.e., the claimant and it is the 3rd respondent being the driver of 1st respondent’s Maruthi Swift Dzire car bearing No.TN 10 V 9888 who drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and hit the motor cycle from rear side of the motor cycle on which the claimant is the rider and held that the claimant sustained injuries because of the rash and negligent act on the part of the driver of the 1st respondent’s vehicle i.e., 3rd respondent. Having coming to a conclusion that the claimant sustained injuries because of the rash and negligent act on the part of the driver of the 1st respondent’s vehicle, the Court below even without considering the medical documents filed by the claimant vide Ex.A.4 to A.8 have dismissed the M.V.O.P., on the sole ground that the claimant failed to prove the medical bills. 10. The claimant has filed Ex’s.A.4 and A.5 hospital bills to a tune of Rs.8,300/- and Rs.8,616/- and also wound certificate - Ex.A.2 as per which the injury is swelling over left side of frontal region which is simple in nature. However, it is an admitted fact that the appellant/claimant has sustained some injuries during the course of the accident which is proved by the appellant. In spite of the same the Court below dismissed the M.V.O.P.No.142 of 2017 filed by the claimant on frivolous ground. 11. The Motor Vehicle Act is a beneficial legislation which has been framed with the object of providing relief to the victims or their families by way of just compensation either by the owner of the motor vehicle or by the authorized insurer of the motor vehicle. Therefore, the lower Tribunal ought to have granted some reasonable compensation for the injuries sustained by the 5 VS,J M.A.C.M.A.No.82 of 2022 claimant considering Exs.A.1 to A.9, having answered issue No.1 in favour of the claimant. 12. Considering the fact that the claimant was aged about 27 years as on the date of the accident and he was hale and healthy and also working as Mixing Operator in Kisan PVC Pipes Factory, Industrial Estate, Proddatur and getting a salary of Rs.7,500/- per month and has admittedly suffered injuries in the accident, this Court feels it appropriate to grant an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation under all aspects. The Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable for payment of the above said compensation to the claimant. 13. Accordingly, the Appeal is allowed in part awarding compensation of Rs.50,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. The Respondents 1 to 3 are directed to deposit the compensation amount into the Tribunal below within two (2) months from today. On such deposit, the Petitioner claimant is permitted to withdraw the same. No costs. _____________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 19.01.2026 KS/PBS 6 VS,J M.A.C.M.A.No.82 of 2022 131 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 82/2022 DATED 19.01.2026 KS/PBS