APHC010232742019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3505] FRIDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 739/2019 Between: 1. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REP BY ITS THE BRANCH MANAGER, D.NO.9-9-2, 2ND FLOOR, UPSTAIR BUILDING OF YES BANK, OPP. NIKHIL HOSPITAL, BANK STREET, ARUNDELPET, NARASARAOPET TOWN, GUNTUR DISTRICT, A.P. ...APPELLANT AND 1. BATHULA SANKARA RAO, S/O.ANANTHA RAMAIAH, AGED 61 YEARS, OCCU. FARMER, R/O. BESIDE POLERAMMA TEMPLE, CHEEMALAMARRI POST, NEKARIKALLU MANDAL, NARASARAOPET, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. ISTHALA JAYA RAO, S/O.JAGGAIAH, AGED 34 YEARS, OWNER OF AUTO BARING NO.AP 07 W 9161, R/O. D.NO.2-233, KASU VENGALA REDDY COLONY, RAVIPADU POST, NARASARAOPET MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. NANDIPATI SUNDARA RAMI REDDY, S/O SRINIVASA REDDY, AGED 24 YEARS, DRIVER OF AUTO BARING NO.AP 07 W 9161, R/O. CHALLAGUNDLA CROSS ROADS POST, NEKARIKALLU MANDAL, NARASARAOPET, GUNTUR DISTRICT, A. P. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be pleased toMemorandum of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against the Decree and judgment Dt.28-02-2019 in M.V.O.P.No. 42 of 2016, on the file of the Chairman - cum- XIII Addl. District Judge, Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal, Narasaraopet IA NO: 1 OF 2019 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 stay of all further proceedings including the execution of the Decree and judgment dated 28.02.2019 in M.V.O.P.No.42/2016, on the file of the Chairman - cum - XIII Addl. District Judge, Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal, Narasaraopet. Counsel for the Appellant: 1. AMANCHARLA SATISH BABU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. P SAI SURYA TEJA 3 The Court made the following judgment: The present appeal is filed by the New India Assurance Company Limited, aggrieved by order dated 28.02.2019, passed in MVOP No.42 of 2016, on the file of the Chairman-cum-XIII Additional District Judge, Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal, Narasaraopet. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they were referred before the Tribunal. 3. The petitioner has filed claim petition under Sections 140 & 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and the rules made there under, claiming compensation of Rs.5,39,460/-, on account of the injuries received by him in which the offending auto rickshaw bearing registration No. AP 07 W 9161 was involved. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that on 11.01.2015, he was returning to Chimalamarri Village from Nekarikallu in the offending auto. When the auto driver about to overtake the tractor ahead, drove the auto in a rash and negligent manner thereby, the auto turned turtle on the road margin. As a result of which the petitioner sustained grievous injuries on his head, left shoulder, chest and left lower limbs, left leg and abrasions over the body. The petitioner was shifted to Mahatma Gandhi Super Specialty Hospital, Narasaraopet, where he underwent treatment from 11.01.2015 to 25.01.2015. Subsequently, he was referred to Orthopedician, Y.S.Rao Memorial Varababu Hospitals, Narasaraopet for treatment, where he 4 underwent surgery for his left leg which later became amputated. A case has been registered against the 2nd respondent/driver of the offending auto in Cr.No.7 of 2015, under Section 337 IPC on the file of Nekarikallu Police Station. The police investigated into the matter and filed charge sheet under Sections 337 & 338 IPC. On account of the injuries received by the petitioner, he approached the tribunal by filing claim petition under MVOP No.42 of 2016. 5. The respondent Nos.1 & 2 remained ex-parte before the tribunal. The 3rd respondent filed counter affidavit resisting the claim of the petitioner by contending that the driver of the offending auto had no valid and effective driving license and thereby the owner of the auto violated the terms of the policy issued by the insurance company. Apart from the same, the 3rd respondent also disputed the avocation of the petitioner and further contended that the compensation claim was excessive. With the above pleadings, the 3rd respondent prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 6. In order to prove the case of the petitioner, he was examined as PW.1, PW.2 and PW.3 and marked Exs.P1 to P21. On the other hand, the 3rd respondent examined RWs.1 & 2 and marked Exs.R1 to R6. 7. Considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence put forth by the parties, the tribunal by order dated 28.02.2019, allowed the claim petition filed by the petitioner by awarding compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-, by holding respondent Nos.1 to 3 jointly and severally 5 liable to pay the said amount. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed by the insurance company. 8. Heard counsel for the appellant and the counsel for the respondent No.1. 9. Perused the record. 10. The counsel for the appellant would strenuously contend that the tribunal did not appreciate the facts put forth by it in its proper perspective. It is the specific case of the insurance company that the driver of the offending auto had no valid driving license as on the date of accident. To substantiate the same, the Insurance Company got examined employee of Regional Transport Office, Narasaraopet, as RW.2, who categorically deposed that the Regional Transport Office, Narasaraopet, issued Ex.R6 letter dated 07.02.2019, stating that the Regional Transport Office, Narasaraopet, has not issued driving license in favor of the 2nd respondent/driver of the offending auto. Based on the evidence adduced by RW.2 coupled with Ex.R6, the Insurance Company would contend that the tribunal erred in fastening the liability on the Insurance Company. The said contention of the counsel for the appellant does not merit consideration, in view of the fact that, upon a close perusal of the evidence of RW2, it is succulently clear that the employee of the Regional Transport Office, Narasaraopet, has categorically admitted that the 2nd respondent would have obtained license from any other Regional 6 Transport Office. Merely because the Regional Transport Office, Narasaraopet, had not issued a license in favour of the driver of the offending auto, it would not suffice to hold that the 2nd respondent did not possess valid driving license as on the date of accident. In that view of the matter, the letter dated 07.02.2019 issued by the Regional Transport Office, Narasaraopet, marked as Ex.R6, also does not equally merit consideration. 11. Further, the Insurance Company failed to prove that the 2nd respondent did not possess a valid driving license by producing any cogent evidence before the tribunal. In the absence of any evidence on record, the contention of the counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company cannot be countenanced and accordingly the same is rejected. 12. The appellant filed the present appeal on the ground that, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation as the owner of the vehicle violated the terms and conditions of the policy inasmuch as the driver had no valid driving license. For the reasons recorded supra the Insurance Company has failed to establish that the driver of the offending auto did not possess a valid driving license at the time of accident. In the circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the order impugned. 13. Further, on perusal of the award of the tribunal it is evident that no interest was granted. Taking into consideration of the facts of the case on 7 hand, the petitioner is entitled to interest @7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment. 14. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with the above observations. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________ JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR Dt.23.01.2026. DSB 8 175 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR MACMA.No.739 OF 2019 Date: 23.01.2026 U DSB