1 VS,J MACMA_62 of 2023 APHC010088082023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] TUESDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 62/2023 Between: 1. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD, DIVISIONAL MANAGER, SRIKAKULAM, REP BY ITS MANAGER, DATTASAI VEMURI TOWERS, LABBIPET, VIJAYAWADA ...APPELLANT AND 1. GURUVANA BANGARU NAIDU, S/O LATE RAMULU, AGE 40 YRS, OCC AGRICULTURE LABOUR, R/O DOOR NO 118, GOLLA STREET, APPALAMMAPETA (VI), VANTHARAM POST, THERLAM (M), VIZAYANAGARAM. 2. RAJAPU APPALANAIDU, S/O. SWAMY NAIDU, AGED 48 YRS, KAPU BY CAST, OCC DRIVER, R/O. HARIJANA PEDDAVEEDI, RAJAM TOWN AND MANDAL. 3. YARABATH KRISHNA, S/O ADIYYA , AGE 43 YRS, HINDU THANA STREET, SARADHI, RAJAM (T AND M). SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC before the High Courtaggrieved with the Decree and Judgment dated. 21-01-2022 passed in M.V.O.P.No.393 of 2016 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- 2 VS,J MACMA_62 of 2023 Special Judge for Trail of cases under SCs AND STs ( POA) Act 1989-cum- IV Addl. District Judge, Srikakulam IA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 pleased to condone the delay of 277 days caused in filing an appeal challenging the Decree and Judgment passed M.V.O.P.No.393 of 2016 on the file of Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Special Judge for Trial cases under SC AND ST (POA) Act 1989-cum-IV Addl. District Judge Srikakulam and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2023 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 be pleased to STAY all further proceedings in the Decree and Judgment dated. 21-01-2022 passed in M.V.O.P.393 of 2016 on the file of Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Special Judge for Trail of cases under SCs AND STs ( POA) Act 1989-cum- IV Addl. District Judge, Srikakulam and pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. K MADHUSUDHAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. A RAVI SHANKAR The Court made the following: 3 VS,J MACMA_62 of 2023 JUDGMENT:- This appeal is filed by the appellant/respondent No.3/insurance company challenging the compensation awarded by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – Special judge for Trial of Cases under SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989 – cum – IV Additional District Judge, Srikakulam in M.V.O.P.No.393 of 2016 vide judgment dated 21.01.2022. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referredto as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. The claimant is the injured, respondent No.1 is the driver, respondent No.2 is the owner and respondent No.3 is the insurer of the tractor and trailer bearing No.AP-30-T-1951/AP-30-W-2687. On 18.06.2014, the claimant boarded the tractor and trailer of the 2nd respondent for attending coolie works and when it reached Maruvada village, the 1st respondent drove the same in high speed and negligently and the tractor turned turtle as a result of which, the claimant fell down and sustained injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to G.M.R. Varalaxmi Care hospital, Rajam and for expert treatment, he was later shifted to Dr. Mangamma hospital, Visakhapatnam. The incident was reported to Police and a case in Crime No.55 of 2014 was also registered against the 1st respondent and after investigation, a charge sheet was also filed against the 1st respondent before the learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Palakonda. The claimant is said to be aged about 40 years as on the date of accident and used to earn Rs.7,000/- per month by attending agricultural labour works. As he incurred expenses for his treatment in G.M.R. Care Hospital, Rajam and Dr. Mangamma hospital, Visakhapatnam, the claimant filed a petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-. 4 VS,J MACMA_62 of 2023 4. The respondent No.1 and 2 remained exparte. The 3rd respondent/insurance company filed its written statement alleging that as on the date of accident, the 2nd respondent had not valid and effective driving license which is in violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Hence, requested to dismiss the claim petition. 5. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: 1) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent as driver of tractor and trailer bearing registration No.AP 30 T 1951 and AP 30 W 2687, resulting injuries to Guravanabangaru Naidu (Petitioner)? 2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim of compensation and if so, to what amount; from which of the respondents? 3) To what relief? 6. During the course of trial, the claimant was examined as P.W.1 and one Dr. Ch. Surendra was examined as P.W.2. Exs.A1 to A11 were marked on behalf of the claimant. On behalf of the respondents, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and they got marked Exs.X1 to X5. 7. The Tribunal, after considering all the facts and material available before it, came to a conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1strespondent and awarded a compensation of Rs.1,75,000/- to the claimant to be payable by respondent Nos.2 and 3 jointly and severally. Challenging the said compensation, respondent No.3/insurance company has approached this Court by filing this appeal on the ground that the insured, while entering into contract of insurance has no chosen to cover the risk of labour and 5 VS,J MACMA_62 of 2023 had not paid the premium to cover the labour; that though evidence of R.W.1 is clear that the fitness of insured vehicle expired on 10.02.2013 which is way before the accident, the Tribunal fastened the liability of paying compensation to the claimants on the 3rd respondent. 8. Heard Sri. Madhusudhan Reddy Kasi, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. A. Ravi Shankar, learned counsel for the 1st respondent. 9. Perused the entire material available on record. Relying on the oral evidence adduced by the claimant himself as P.W.1 and Ex.A1 – FIR filed against the 1st respondent and Ex.A4 – Charge sheet filed against the 1st respondent before jurisdictional Court, the Tribunal answered issue No.1 in favour of the claimant by concluding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent. 10. With regard to the quantum of compensation, the claimant filed Ex.A3 – wound certificate which would show that he sustained grievous head injury. Immediately after the accident, the claimant was treated in GMR Care hospital, Rajam and on 18.06.2014, he was shifted to Dr. Mangamma hospital, Visakhapatnam. He got discharged from the said hospital on 27.06.2014. Furthermore, the claimant filed medical bills incurred by him in both the hospitals, however, the Tribunal, after considering the receipts issued by Dr. Mangamma hospital alone, awarded Rs.1,00,000/- towards medical expenditure. In addition, Rs.50,000/- was awarded to the claimant towards pain and suffering, which is reasonable as the claimant had admittedly suffered a head injury. Rs.10,000/- was awarded towards attendant and extra nourishment, Rs.10,000/- for loss of comforts and Rs.5,000/- towards loss of income during treatment. It is not in dispute that any person who met 6 VS,J MACMA_62 of 2023 with an accident requires extra care and extra nourishment and the claimant being an agricultural worker, lost his income for several days while he was being treated in hospital. Thus, the amount awarded by the Tribunal under the abovementioned heads is just and reasonable and need not be interfered in the considered opinion of this Court. Thus, the impugned judgment by way of which the claimant was awarded Rs.1,75,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by him in an accident that occurred due to the negligent driving of the 1st respondent is just and proper and needs no interference. 11. In the result, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V. SUJATHA Date:17.03.2026. Gss