1 APHC010139282022 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: 130/2022 Between: 1. KANDI SATYANARAYANA, S/O LATE NARAYANAPPADU, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/O D.THALLAVALASA VILLAGE, DENKADA MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT AND 1. BHUPATI VASU, S/O LATE KRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, DRIVER OF LORRY BEARING NO.AP 31 TB 9696, R/O ROUTHUPALEM VILLAGE, PADMANABHAM MANDAL, VISAKAPATNAM DIST. 2. NAMMI APPALARAJU, S/O LATE SIMHACHALAM, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OWNER OF LORRY BEARING NO.AP 31 TB 9696, R/O D.NO.24-93, BOTTAVANIPALEM VILLAGE, PADMANABHAM MANDAL, VISAKAPATNAM DIST. 3. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD, SRIKAKULAM, REP BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER. 2 ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be pleased toThe decree and order passed in M.O.P. no. 251/2015,dated 12.07.2018, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - cum - (I Additional District Court), Vizianagaram. IA NO: 1 OF 2022 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 1253 days in filing the appeal against M.O.P.No.251 of 2015, dated 12.07.2018 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - Cum- (I Addl District Court), Vizianagaram and to pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. G SAI NARAYANA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. P SATYA MANJULA 2. The Court made the following: 3 JUDGMENT: The appellant/Claimant filed challenging the award passed in M.V.O.P.No.251 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Court, Vizianagaram, dated 12.07.2018, whereby and whereunder, the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.2,56,000/- to the petitioner herein as against the claim of Rs.10,00,000/-, on account of the injuries of appellant/claimant. 2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. The case of the claimant is briefly as follows: On 28.05.2014, at 01:00 PM, at Kommadi Bus Stop, the 1st respondent drove the lorry bearing registration No.AP 31 TB 9696 in a rash and negligent manner and hit the van in which the petitioner was going as a cleaner, as a result of which the petitioner was crushed in the van and his both legs were broken besides receiving injuries all over his person. The petitioner underwent surgery and was treated as inpatient for 60 days in KG Hospital, Visakhapatnam and thereafter in MIMS Hospital, Nellimarla. The Station House Officer, PM Palem Police Station, 4 registered a case in Crime No.295 of 2014 under Section 338 of IPC as against the 1st respondent. The claimant contended that he used to attend cleaner works and earn Rs.4,000/- per month besides batta and due to the disability suffered in the road accident, he was unable to attend works. 4. Before the Tribunal, respondent Nos.1 & 2 – driver and owner of the crime vehicle remained ex parte. 5. Respondent No.3/insurer filed counter denying the allegation of rash and negligent driving by respondent No.1 and manner in which the accident is stated to have occurred. The case of the petitioner that he received fracture injuries, underwent surgeries, medical treatment and the income of the petitioner are also denied. It is the case of the 3rd respondent that the 1st respondent was not holding valid and effective driving license at the time of accident. The 2nd respondent had willfully and knowingly entrusted the offending vehicle to 1st respondent who does not hold valid driving license. The offending vehicle was not covered by valid registration certificate and permit at the time of accident. The 2nd respondent has violated the terms and 5 conditions of policy. The petitioner has contributed for the accident in a negligent manner and there was no negligence on the part of the 1st respondent. The petitioner suppressed registration number of van in which he was allegedly travelling. The 3rd respondent is not liable to pay any compensation. The petition is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties. It was further averred that the compensation claimed is excessive and exorbitant and the rate of interest claimed is also on higher side. Hence, it was prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 6. Basing on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: “1. Whether the accident took place due to the rash and negligence driving of the Van by its driver or due to the rash and negligence of the driving of 1st respondent (lorry) or both of them have contributed for the accident? If so, to what percentage? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation and if so, at what quantum and from which of the respondents? 3. To what relief?” 7. On behalf of the claimants, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A8 were marked. On behalf of the respondent 6 No.3/insurer, no oral evidence was adduced; however Ex.B1- copy of policy was marked. 8. After hearing both parties and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition awarding compensation of Rs.2,56,000/- payable with interest @7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of payment by respondent Nos.1 to 3 as indicated in the operative portion extracted above. Aggrieved by the decree and award seeking enhancement, this appeal was filed by the claimant on the ground that the amount of compensation awarded is inadequate and that the Tribunal erred in differentiating the disability suffered by the claimant as 50% partial permanent and whole body disability as 25% which is unheard of. It is also contended that the Tribunal has failed to consider Ex.A5-medical bills and that the Tribunal having believed the nature and extent of the multiple surgeries and hospitalizations over a period of three years, erred in awarding a very meager amount for pain and suffering. 9. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent contended that the order impugned does not require any interference. 7 10. In support of the case of the claimant, he relied upon the evidence of P.W.2, the Doctor who treated him and conducted surgeries and Ex.A5 Medical bills. A perusal of the record reveals that as per the evidence of PW2, Dr. M.Venkateswara Rao, Professor, Orthopedic surgeon, MIMS Hospital, Nellimarla, who examined the petitioner, advised the claimant to take latest X-ray to his right femur which shows old fracture with delayed union of right leg femur and that the petitioner underwent surgery on 24.09.2014 and was fixed with ORIF plating with bone grafting right femur and further advised the petitioner to take treatment as outpatient after his discharge on 24.10.2014. He further deposed that on 18.05.2015 another surgery was conducted by fixing lizarous right sinus over the right leg femur, and that on account of the injuries sustained by the petitioner, he cannot walk without help of walker, cannot squat and feels difficulty while stooling and cannot do any type of labour work and that he is suffering with 50% of disability which is partial and permanent in nature. From the evidence of PW2, it can be seen that there is no nexus between the accident and surgery as the accident occurred on 28.05.2014, whereas, the petitioner underwent surgery on 24.09.2014 and thereafter on 18.05.2015. 8 Be that as it may, the Tribunal having gone through Ex.A8 disability certificate observed that the disability can be taken as 25% for the whole body and accordingly calculated the loss of earnings and awarded compensation of Rs.2,16,000- towards loss of earnings besides granting Rs.20,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.20,000/- towards extra nourishment and attending charges including travel; total compensation awarded is Rs.2,56,000/-. 11. When the accident took place on 28.05.2014, and the surgeries undergone by the appellant are on 24.09.2014 and on 18.05.2015, this Court opines that there is no nexus between the accident and the surgeries undergone by the appellant, as such, the appellant is not entitled for any compensation towards medical expenses for the said surgeries, which in fact are no way related to the accident that took place on 28.05.2014. The amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable. Therefore, this Court does not see any reasons to interfere with the award. 12. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 9 Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. [[ ____________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 27.01.2026 LSP