APHC010126802022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] TUESDAY,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 123/2022 Between: 1. BELLANA SURYANARAYANA,, S/O LATE REJINAIDU, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/O CHINNABOORADAPETA VILLAGE, NELLIMARLA MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT AND 1. ROUTHU VENKATARAJU, S/O PAIDAPPARAO, OWNER CUM DRIVER OF TATA ACE BEARING NO. AP30W3324, R/O H.NO.9-13-15, ROUTHU VEEDHI, WARD NO.9, VIZIANAGARAM. 2. SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, , REP BY THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, DWARKA NAGAR, VISAKAPATNAM ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be pleased tomemorandum of appeal being aggrieved by the decree and judgment passed in M.V.O.P.No. 323 of 2016, dated 12.02.2021,on the file of Motor Accident 2 VS,J MAMCA No.123 of 2022 Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Vizianagaramfor the following among other Counsel for the Appellant: 1. G SAI NARAYANA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. N RAMA KRISHNA 2. The Court made the following: 3 VS,J MAMCA No.123 of 2022 JUDGMENT: Aggrieved by the award and order passed in M.V.O.P.No.323 of 2016 passed by the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal IV Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram, the claimant preferred the present appeal, where the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.59,000/- as against the claim of Rs.2,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a road accident. 2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. The claimant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the injuries received by him in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 16.05.2015. 4. The case of the claimant is briefly as follows: On 16.05.2015 at about 5.00 p.m., the claimant and Gurubilli Ramakrishna were returning home from Nadupuru village to Chinabooradapeta village on his TVS Star city motor cycle and when they reached Narada banda on the way to 4 VS,J MAMCA No.123 of 2022 Pedabooradapeta village, the 1st respondent drove the aforesaid TATA Ace bearing No.AP 30 W 3324 in a rash and negligent manner, at high speed, without blowing horn, came in opposite direction and dashed the motor cycle. As a result, both of them fell on the road and the petitioner sustained grievous injury on his stomach. Immediately after the accident, the petitioner was shifted to Tirumala Nursing Home, Vizianagaram where he underwent treatment as inpatient for some time. The SHO, Nellimarla PS registered a case in Crime No.57 of 2015, under Section 338 of IPC against the 1st respondent-driver. The petitioner was aged 45 years, quite hale and healthy at the time of accident, he was working as Mason and used to earn Rs.300/- per day. But, after the accident, he became completely disabled and lost his entire earnings and became dependent. Hence, the claim. 5. While the respondent/driver-cum-owner of the crime vehicle remained ex parte, Respondent No.2/insurer filed written statement, opposing the claim petition and put the petitioner to strict proof of age, avocation, income of Rs.300/- per day as a mason, medical expenses, loss of earnings, and alleged permanent disability. It is contended that the accident occurred 5 VS,J MAMCA No.123 of 2022 solely due to the rash and negligent riding of the petitioner’s motorcycle and not due to any negligence on the part of the 1st respondent/driver-cum-owner. The police allegedly foisted a false case against the 1st respondent. The driver, owner, and insurer of the tractor are necessary parties and their non-joinder renders the petition bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The person driving the offending vehicle had no valid and effective driving licence as on the date of accident, amounting to a willful violation of the policy conditions. The insured failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, and the Station House Officer, Nellimarla P.S., failed to forward documents in compliance with statutory requirements. Even assuming the existence of a valid insurance policy for vehicle No. AP 30 W 3324 on the date of accident, the petitioner is not entitled to compensation from this respondent, and liability, if any, rests solely with the 1st respondent/driver-cum-owner. The claim of interest at 12% per annum is excessive. Hence, the 2ndrespondent prayed for dismiss of the petition. 6. Basing on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: 6 VS,J MAMCA No.123 of 2022 1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of vehicles TATA Ace bearing No.AP 30 W 3324 and Tractor bearing No.AP 35 W 5119 by its drivers causing injuries to petitioner? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, what amount and which of the respondents are liable to pay the same? 3. To what relief? 7. During the course of enquiry, on behalf of the claimant, PWs1 & 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A4 besides ExX1 was marked. On behalf of the respondent No.2/insurer, RWs 1 & 2 were examined and Exs.B1 to B4 were marked. 8. After hearing both parties and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal partly allowed the claim with proportionate costs awarding compensation of Rs.59,000/- to be deposited by R2/Insurance Company though the respondent Nos.1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the same with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the petition till the date of deposit. Rest of the claim of the petitioner is dismissed with costs. The 2nd respondent/Insurance company is directed to deposit the cheque for Rs.59,000/- with accrued interest thereon 7 VS,J MAMCA No.123 of 2022 and costs by drawing an account payee cheque in the name of the petitioner and to file the same before this Tribunal with due notice to the petitioner within 30 days from the date of this order and thereafter the petitioner shall file his bank pass book and the same shall be sent to the Bank where the petitioner has Bank Account along with cheque after due identification, to credit the same to his account, to withdraw the same. 9. From a perusal of the evidence of PW-1, it is clear that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. Ex.A1-FIR shows that basing on the statement of the injury, the police registered a case in Cr.No.57 of 2015 for the offences under sections 338 & 337 of IPC. Ex.A2- Wound Certificate shows that the petitioner has received the grievous injury. Ex.A3-Motor Vehicle Inspector(MVI Report) shows that the accident occurred not due to any mechanical defects of the offending vehicles. 10. Considering the evidence of PW-1 coupled with Ex.A1, A2 and A3, the Tribunal rightly held that the 1st respondent is solely responsible for the accident occurred causing injuries to the petitioner. 8 VS,J MAMCA No.123 of 2022 11. From the Ex.A2 wound certificate, it is clear that the petitioner has received the grievous injury. From Ex.X1 case sheet, it is clear that the petitioner got admitted in Tirumala Multi speciality Hospital (India Private Limited, Vizianagaram) and that a surgery was conducted on 18.05.2018 and got discharged on 26.05.2018. 12. From the evidence of PW-2 the Doctor who treated the claimant immediately after the accident, it is clear that besides surgery other treatment was also done to remove the bleeding and air inside the chest of the petitioner through pipes and fractured ribs were fixed and that the claimant also underwent treatment as an out-patient for one month. 13. Except Ex.A2 wound certificate and Ex.X1 case sheet, the petitioner did not chose to file any piece of paper in support of his claim towards medical and other expenses and also regarding his disability resulting in loss of his avocation and income. Further, the petitioner took treatment under Aarogyasri scheme. Thus, the Tribunal refused to grant compensation towards medical expenses including treatment charges and costs of medicines, 9 VS,J MAMCA No.123 of 2022 but awarded for compensation of Rs.9,000/- @ Rs.3,000/- each towards attendant charges, travelling charges and extra- nourishment charges. The petitioner awarded a compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering sustained by him due to fracture injury. Thus, in total the petitioner awarded a compensation of Rs.9,000/- + 50,000/- for the fracture injury received by him in the accident. There is no dispute that by the time of accident, the offending vehicle is validly insured with R2 Company under Ex.B1 policy which was marked through RW-1 and that the same is valid and in force by the date of accident in favour of R1 driver-cum-owner. Even in his cross-examination, RW-1 has admitted the said fact and further stated that the petitioner is 3rd party to the policy. No iota of evidence is let in by the 2nd respondent to prove their contention that the 1st respondent driver-cum-owner had no valid and effective driving license and knowing fully well the said fact drove the offending vehicle and caused the accident and thereby willfully committed the breach of terms and conditions of Ex.B1 policy. Moreover, the 2nd respondent has examined the 1st respondent as their witness as RW2 and nothing is elicited from his mouth in this regard. Thus, the Tribunal rightly held that respondent Nos.1 & 2 are 10 VS,J MAMCA No.123 of 2022 jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation of Rs.50,000/- along with interest at 9% from the date of petition till the date of deposit. The rest of the claim of the appellant is rightly dismissed by the Tribunal. This Court finds no error in the order of the Tribunal granting the said compensation to the claimant, while dismissing the rest of the claim under other heads. 14. Viewed from any angle, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the award impugned in the appeal. 15. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. Pending miscellaneous application, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA 27.01.2026 LSP