APHC010114282023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] MONDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 96/2023 Between: 1. M/S.THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, REP.BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, DARGAMITTA, NELLORE ...APPELLANT AND 1. KONGARA VENKATA PAVAN KUMAR, ( CLAIMANT ) S/O SRINIVASULU, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, FLAT NO.302, SRI VENKATESWARA NILAYAM, RAMJI NAGAR, 7TH STREET, NELLORE CITY, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 2. MUSUNURU ANVESH, S/O RAMESH BABU, AGE NOT KNOWN, 20- 6-128, NEAR VBS KALYANA MANDAPAM, VIRAT NAGAR, NELLORE CITY, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. (OWNER CUM RIDER OF YAMAHA FZ MOTOR CYCLE BEARING REGISTRATION NO.AP26BA 4454) ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be pleased tobe pleased to set aside the decree and Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-I Additional District Judge, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District in MVOP No 171 OF 2016, dt.27.09.2022, by allowing this appeal with costs throughout and pass 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 VS,J MACMA No.96 of 2023 be pleased to stay of all further proceedings to stay of all further proceedings in Pursuance of the order and the decree dt. 27.09.2022 passed in MVOP No. 171/2016 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- I Additional District Judge, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District and pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. KRISHNANAND VADAKATTU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. CHILUKURI KARTHIK The Court made the following: VS,J MACMA No.96 of 2023 J U D G M E N T: The Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the appellant/insurance company, aggrieved by the award dated 27.09.2022 passed in M.V.O.P. No.171 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Nellore, wherein the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.10,99,255.21 ps. towards compensation to the petitioner/claimant as against the claim of Rs.18,00,000/-, for the injuries sustained by the claimant in a motor accident that occurred on 12.03.2015. 2. For the sake of convenience, both the parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the clam petition. 3. The brief averments of the claim petition are as follows: a) On 12.03.2015 at about 5.00 p.m., the claimant, after completion of his college hours at Narayana Engineering College, Nellore, was proceeding to his house from east to west on Nellore–Muthukur Road on his motorcycle bearing registration No. AP-26-AH-7620. When he reached near the petrol bunk at 4th Line, Harnathapuram, Nellore City, a Yamaha FZ motorcycle bearing registration No. AP-26-BA-4454, being driven by its rider along with a pillion rider in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and on the wrong side of the road, while overtaking a vehicle ahead, came in the opposite direction and dashed against the claimant’s motorcycle. As a result, the claimant, as well as the rider and pillion rider of the offending vehicle, fell down on the road and sustained severe bleeding injuries. Immediately after VS,J MACMA No.96 of 2023 the accident, the claimant was shifted to Narayana General Hospital, Nellore, for medical treatment. A case in Crime No.94 of 2015 was registered by the Station House Officer, IV Town Police Station, Nellore, for the offences punishable under Sections 337 and 338 IPC against the rider-cum-owner of the Yamaha FZ motorcycle bearing registration No. AP-26-BA-4454, who is the 1st respondent. b) It is the contention of the claimant that he was aged about 19 years at the time of the accident and was hale and healthy prior to the accident. The claimant was admitted in Narayana General Hospital, Nellore, where he was treated for about seven hours and incurred an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards medical expenses. On the advice of the doctors, he was shifted to Dr. Kamakshi Memorial Hospital Pvt. Ltd., Chennai, where he was treated as an inpatient from 13.03.2015 to 29.03.2015. Surgeries were conducted for fracture of the left distal radius, and steel plates were inserted in his left hand to set right the fracture. Further surgeries were conducted for nasal bone fracture and head injury. After discharge, the claimant took outpatient treatment at Bolineni (KIMS) Hospital, Nellore, and also at the National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences, Bengaluru. He spent about Rs.6,00,000/- towards medical expenses and Rs.50,000/- towards transport charges. He is still undergoing continuous outpatient treatment at Bolineni Super Speciality Hospital (KIMS), Nellore. Due to the injuries sustained, including fracture of left distal radius, nasal bone fracture, nasal sinus fracture, and temporal contusion, the claimant suffered severe pain and disability. He is VS,J MACMA No.96 of 2023 unable to raise his left hand properly or carry weight and continues to experience pain due to improper healing. He was bedridden for about five months and lost one academic year. Due to head injury, he suffers from frequent headaches, giddiness, and memory loss, and is unable to properly identify things, resulting in mental disability. He is unable to pursue his studies as before, and his educational career has been adversely affected. Further, due to nasal bone fracture, he is unable to smell properly. Therefore, the claimant sought compensation of Rs.18,00,000/-. 4. Before the Tribunal, 1strespondent remained ex-parte. 5. The 2nd respondent/insurance company filed its counter denying the allegations regarding the manner of the accident and its liability, contending that the accident was not properly reported and that there was collusion between the claimant and the insured. It was further contended that no risk was covered in the absence of payment of full premium as required under Section 64-V(b) of the Insurance Act, 1938. The Insurance Company also contended that the rider of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid driving licence, and that the claimant himself, being a minor without a licence, contributed to the accident by his negligent riding. It was further contended that the claim petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, namely the owner and insurer of the claimant’s vehicle. Therefore, it prayed to dismiss the petition with costs. VS,J MACMA No.96 of 2023 6. Based on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled by the Tribunal for trial: (1) Whether accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the rider of Yamaha FZ motorcycle bearing registration no. AP-26-BA-4454? (2) Whether the claimant is entitled for compensation, if so to what extent and amount? (3) To what relief? 7. On behalf of the claimant, P.W.s 1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A1 to A18 were marked and Ex.C1 was marked through P.W.3. On behalf of the respondents, R.W.s 1 to 3 were examined and Ex.B1 and Ex.X1 and Ex.X2 were marked. 8. After hearing both parties and considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition with the following terms: “In the result, the petition is allowed in part with proportionate costs against first respondent (R.1) awarding compensation of Rs.10,99,255.21 ps. (Rupees Ten lakhs ninety nine thousand two hundred and fifty five and twenty one paise only) with interest at 9% per annum from the date of presentation of the petition till date of deposit of realization. R.2 as insurer is directed to deposit within one month the said sum with interest at 9% per annum from the date of presentation of the petition (4.3.2016) till date of deposit or realization. VS,J MACMA No.96 of 2023 The second respondent is entitled to recover the said amount from first respondent. The petition is entitled for an amount of Rs.10,99,251.21 ps. (Rupees Ten lakhs ninety nine thousand two hundred and fifty five and twenty one paise only) with accrued interest and costs and he is permitted to withdraw Rs.5,99,251.21 ps. (Rupees Five lakhs ninety nine thousand two hundred and fifty one and twenty one paise only) and the balance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs only) with accrued interest and costs shall be kept in the Fixed Deposit in any Nationalized Bank for a period of two (2) years, thereafter, he is at liberty to withdraw the same. The rest of the claim of petitioner under other heads is dismissed without costs. The petitioner is directed to pay Court fee within 15 days from the date of this award. The office is directed to prepare the Decree only after payment of Court fee and endorse the same on the petition. The advocate fee is fixed at Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only).” 9. Aggrieved by the said award, the insurance company filed the present appeal on the ground that the Tribunal failed to consider that the 1st respondent did not possess a valid driving license and, therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. VS,J MACMA No.96 of 2023 10. Heard Mr.Vadakattu Krishnanand learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.Chilukuri Karthik, learned counsel for respondent No.1/claimant. Perused the material on record. 11. Now the point for consideration is: Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference? POINT: 12. The main contention of the appellant is that, as on the date of the accident, the rider of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving licence, thereby violating the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, and consequently, the appellant is not liable to indemnify the insured. In order to substantiate the said contention, the appellant examined R.W.2, Senior Assistant from the R.T.O. Office, Nellore, and marked Ex.X2 – driving licence. A perusal of Ex.X2 discloses that the driving licence in favour of the 1st respondent was issued only on 21.11.2016 and was valid up to 20.11.2036. Admittedly, the accident occurred on 12.03.2015. Therefore, it is evident that, as on the date of the accident, the 1st respondent did not possess a valid driving licence. Further, the evidence of R.W.3, the Investigating Officer, reveals that a charge sheet was filed against the 1st respondent for the offences punishable under Section 338 IPC and Sections 3 read with 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act, on the ground that he was driving the vehicle without a valid driving licence. Thus, from the evidence on record, it is clearly established that the rider of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid VS,J MACMA No.96 of 2023 driving licence at the time of the accident, resulting in violation of the policy conditions. However, in such circumstances, it is well settled that the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation to the claimant and thereafter recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle. The Tribunal has rightly followed the said principle and directed the Insurance Company to pay and recover the compensation. Therefore, this Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the finding of the Tribunal on this aspect, warranting interference. 13 With regard to the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal, after considering the evidence of P.W.2, the doctor who treated the claimant, and the medical bills marked under Exs.A5, A8, A9, A11, A13 and A16, awarded a sum of Rs.5,19,255.21/- towards medical expenses. The said amount is duly supported by documentary evidence and does not warrant any interference. Further, P.W.3, another doctor who treated the claimant, deposed that the claimant requires future treatment, i.e., bone grafting and implant dental rehabilitation, and estimated the cost of such treatment at about Rs.3,00,000/- to Rs.5,00,000/-. Taking the said evidence into consideration, the Tribunal awarded Rs.5,00,000/- towards future medical expenses, which appears to be just and reasonable. The Tribunal has also awarded Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering for the grievous injury sustained by the claimant, Rs.15,000/- towards extra nourishment, and Rs.15,000/- towards attendant charges. Having regard to the nature of injuries and the period of treatment, the amounts awarded under these heads are reasonable and do not warrant VS,J MACMA No.96 of 2023 interference. Thus, in total, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.10,99,255.21/- towards compensation. This Court is of the considered view that the said compensation cannot be said to be excessive or arbitrary. 14. In view of the above, this Court finds that the award passed by the Tribunal does not suffer from any infirmity and does not warrant interference in this appeal. The point is answered accordingly. 15. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 02.03.2026 KGR