APHC010132132023 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: 110/2023 Between: 1. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, VISAKHAPATNAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER. ...APPELLANT AND 1. SIMMALA TATA RAO, SON OF LATE GURUVULU, AGED 60 YEARS. HINDU, AYYANNAPETA VILLAGE, VIZIANAGARAM MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 2. VOOTA SRINU, SON OF LATE NAIDU, AGED 28 YERS HINDU, DRIVER OF CRANE BEARING NO.AP 26 AK 4173, PUDI VILLAGE, DEVARAPALLI MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT 3. M/S INDWELL CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD, REPRESENTED BY A.V.PANDURANGA RAO OWNER OF CRANE BEARING NO.AP 26 AK 4173 REGD., OFFICE 40-9-94, SAINAGAR, VIJAYAW DA. ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying that the High court may be pleased to memorandum of appeal being aggrieved by the decree and judgment passed in M.O.P.No.248 of 2017, dated 06-05-2022, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -cum- CHAIRMAN, MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-CUM-IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, VIZIANAGARAM 2 VS,J MACMA.No.110 of 2023 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 to condone the delay of (169) days in filing the appeal against M.O.P.No.248 of 2017, dated 06-05-2022 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -Cum- CHAIRMAN, MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-CUM-IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, VIZIANAGARAM and to 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 to suspend of operation of the Judgment and Decree made in M.O.P.No.248 of 2017 dated 06-05-2022 on the file of CHAIRMAN, MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-CUM,Pil -T ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, VIZIANAGARAM pending disposal of the above appeal in the interest of justice pending disposal of the above appeal in the interest of justice and pass IA NO: 3 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 to permit the 1st respondent to withdraw the deposited amount of Rs. 5,65,117/- in MACMA No. 110 of 2023 dated 06-05-2022 with interest thereon Counsel for the Appellant: 1. AMANCHARLA SATISH BABU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. KANAKALA DEVI PRASANNAKUMAR The Court made the following: 3 VS,J MACMA.No.110 of 2023 JUDGMENT: The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., filed the present appeal challenging the award passed in M.V.O.P.No.248 of 2017 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram, whereby and whereunder, the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-(Rupees Eight Lakhs only) to the petitioner herein as against the claim of Rs.8,00,000/-, on account of the injuries of Simmala Tata Rao. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. The case of the petitioners is briefly as follows: On 24.03.2017, at about 5.30 pm, he along with his wife got down from the bus and when they were going by walk on par left side of the road to go to their home, they reached over bridge, near Anjaneya Swamy statue, Vizianagaram, at that time a crane bearing No.AP 26 AK 4173 which driven by its driver i.e., 1st respondent came in a rash and negligent manner and ran over on the left leg of the petitioner, as a result the petitioner fell down on road, immediately after accident the injured was shifted to District Head Quarters Hospital, Vizianagaram and 4 VS,J MACMA.No.110 of 2023 from there he was shifted to Sri Venkata Rama Hospital, Vizianagaram for better treatment, where the doctors found crush injury and operation was conducted to his left foot below knee was amputated and he was treated there as inpatient for about 30 days and at the time of discharge, the doctors advised him to take further treatment as an out-patient by using medicines and extra nourishment. The SHO, Traffic police station, Vizianagaram registered a case in Crime No.43/2017 under section 338 of I.P.C against 1st respondent. Prior to the date of accident, the petitioner was a rickshaw puller and earning a sum of Rs.200/- per day, but due to removal of his left foot he is unable to attend his works, thereby, he was permanently disabled. Therefore, the petitioner sought compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- from the respondents. 4. Before the Tribunal, respondent Nos.1 & 2 remained ex parte. 5. Respondent No.3 filed counter and denied certain allegations of the petition and specifically contended that there is no negligence on part of respondent No.1. Hence, they are not liable to pay the compensation either jointly or severally. Therefore they prayed the court to dismiss the petition with costs. 6. Basing on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: 5 VS,J MACMA.No.110 of 2023 “1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver-R1 of Crane bearing No.AP 26 AK 4173, or due to the sudden and negligent crossing of the road by the petitioner, or both, causing injuries to petitioner? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so, what amount and which of the respondents are liable to pay the same? 3. To what relief?” 7. On behalf of the petitioner, the petitioner himself was examined as PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A5. Dr. K.V. Murali Mohan was examined as PW2 through an Advocate-commissioner and got marked Ex.A6 through him. On behalf of 3rd respondent/Insurance company, the Deputy Manager was examined as RW1 and got marked Ex.B1 & B2. The Senior Assistant in Regional Transport Office was examined as RW2. 8. After hearing both parties and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal allowed the claim petition against respondents, awarding compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-(Rupees Eight lakhs only) along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization and respondent No.3 is directed to deposit the said compensation within one month from the date of passing of award. In turn, the respondent No.3 Insurance company is entitled to recover the compensation amount deposited by it, 6 VS,J MACMA.No.110 of 2023 under “Pay and Recovery” from the 2nd respondent/owner of the crime vehicle, by taking necessary steps, as per Law. 9. Aggrieved by the said award, the respondent No.3 preferred this appeal contending that the Tribunal failed to consider that the driver of vehicle is having LMV/NON-Transport driving license only and the vehicle is involved in the accident is Hydraulic Mobile Crane and the vehicle comes under medium motor vehicle and the vehicle is registered as vehicle fitted with equipment. Therefore, prayed to allow the appeal. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the injured/ respondent No.1 herein has supported the impugned award and prayed to dismiss the appeal. 11. Now the point for consideration is: Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference? POINT: 12. To prove the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle by the respondent No.1, the petitioner himself was examined as PW1 and Civil Surgeon was examined as PW2 besides marking documentary evidence as Exs.A1 to A6 and Ex.X1. The Tribunal through the oral evidence of PW1 & PW2 coupled with documentary evidence 7 VS,J MACMA.No.110 of 2023 i.e., Exs.A1 to A6 and Ex.X1 established that the accident was occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle by the 1st respondent, due to which the petitioner sustained injuries. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly articulated the rash and negligent driving of driver of crime vehicle which needs no interference. 13. With regard to the disability PW2, Civil Surgeon stated that the extent of disability is 70% and stated that PW1 cannot walk without the help of stick and cannot ride any two or three wheeler as part of his leg i.e., foot was amputated. Considering the evidence of PW2, coupled with Ex.A6 disability certificate held that the respondent – claimant has suffered 70% disability, as such he is entitled for 70% of his income towards loss of earning capacity. Therefore, this Court finds no error in the said finding of the Tribunal, warranting interference with the impugned award. 14. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, as the injured PW1 is a rickshaw puller and earning Rs.200/- per day as on the date of accident but he has not filed any record to that effect. The Tribunal assumed the monthly income of the injured as Rs.6,000/- per month and annual income would be Rs.72,000/-(Rs.6,000/- x 12). As the age of the injured was 60 years as on the date of accident, the Tribunal 8 VS,J MACMA.No.110 of 2023 below rightly applied the multiplier as ‘9’ in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla Varma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation Ltd1. After applying the multiplier ‘9’, it would come to Rs.4,53,600/- (Rs.72,000/- x 70% x 9) which is towards loss of earning capacity of future prospectus of income. In addition to the above, the Tribunal also awarded Rs.48,955/- towards medical expenses, Rs.10,000/- towards attendant charges, Rs.20,000/- towards loss of amenities, Rs.10,000/- towards travelling charges, Rs.10,000/- towards extra nourishment and food and the Tribunal below has also awarded Rs.2,50,000/- towards pain and suffering. In total, the Tribunal held that the respondent is entitled for Rs.8,08,555/-, however restricted the compensation to Rs.8,00,000/-. Respondent No.3 is directed to deposit the compensation and is entitled to recover the compensation amount deposited by it, under “Pay and Recovery” from the 2nd respondent/owner of the crime vehicle. Thus, no interference is required with the said finding of the Tribunal. 15. In view of the above reasons, this Court finds no error in the said finding of the Tribunal, warranting interference with the impugned award. 16. In the result, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 1 2009 ACJ 1298 9 VS,J MACMA.No.110 of 2023 Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 09.02.2026 PBS