APHC010293412023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH TUESDAY,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS Between: 1. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, D.NO.10 GROUND FLOOR, GANDHI ROAD, CHITTOOR TOWN. 1. C RAJARATHNAM/C RAKESH, S/O C.NEERAJAKSHULU, AGED. 20 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE EMPLOYEE, WORKING IN AMARAJA BATTERIES AS MACHINARY MECHANIC, R/O. EACHANERI VILLAGE, THUMAKUPPAM POST, BANGARUPALEM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT 2. MALLINGAPPA, S/O KATTAPPA, AGED. NOT KNOWN, HINDU, OWNER OF THE VEHICLE, R/O. D. NEAR ESWAR TEMPLE, AMRUTHA HALI, SAHAKARA NAGAR, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA STATE 3. N NAVEEN KUMAR, S/O N. NARASIMHA MURTHY, AGED A AGED ABOUT. 23 YEARS, HINDU, DRIVER OF VEHICLE, R/O. D.NO. 41, THULASIPURAM, BANGALORE Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying tha pleased to present this Memorandum of Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal before this Hon'ble Court against the Order and Decree 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 299 OF RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, D.NO.10 GROUND FLOOR, GANDHI ROAD, CHITTOOR TOWN. ...APPELLANT AND C RAJARATHNAM/C RAKESH, S/O C.NEERAJAKSHULU, AGED. 20 OCC. PRIVATE EMPLOYEE, WORKING IN AMARAJA BATTERIES AS MACHINARY MECHANIC, R/O. EACHANERI VILLAGE, THUMAKUPPAM POST, BANGARUPALEM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT-517 416. MALLINGAPPA, S/O KATTAPPA, AGED. NOT KNOWN, HINDU, OWNER OF THE VEHICLE, R/O. D.NO. 26, BEHIND H.P. SCHOOL, NEAR ESWAR TEMPLE, AMRUTHA HALI, SAHAKARA NAGAR, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA STATE-560 092. N NAVEEN KUMAR, S/O N. NARASIMHA MURTHY, AGED A AGED ABOUT. 23 YEARS, HINDU, DRIVER OF VEHICLE, R/O. D.NO. 41, THULASIPURAM, BANGALORE-560 108. ...RESPONDENT(S): nder Order 41 of CPC praying that the High present this Memorandum of Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal before this Hon'ble Court against the Order and Decree IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3333] TUESDAY,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA APPEAL NO: 299 OF 2023 RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, D.NO.10-246, GROUND FLOOR, GANDHI ROAD, CHITTOOR TOWN. ...APPELLANT C RAJARATHNAM/C RAKESH, S/O C.NEERAJAKSHULU, AGED. 20 OCC. PRIVATE EMPLOYEE, WORKING IN AMARAJA BATTERIES AS MACHINARY MECHANIC, R/O. EACHANERI VILLAGE, THUMAKUPPAM POST, BANGARUPALEM MANDAL, MALLINGAPPA, S/O KATTAPPA, AGED. NOT KNOWN, HINDU, NO. 26, BEHIND H.P. SCHOOL, NEAR ESWAR TEMPLE, AMRUTHA HALI, SAHAKARA NAGAR, N NAVEEN KUMAR, S/O N. NARASIMHA MURTHY, AGED A AGED ABOUT. 23 YEARS, HINDU, DRIVER OF VEHICLE, R/O. D.NO. 41, ...RESPONDENT(S): t the High court may be present this Memorandum of Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal before this Hon'ble Court against the Order and Decree, dated 2 28.02.2022 in M.V.O.P.No.260 of 2016 on the file of Principal Motor Acciderits Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, at Chittoor. 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 363 days in filling the M.A.C.M.A. against decree and judgment dated 28-02-2022 in M.V.O.P.No.260 of 2016 on the file of Principal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, at Chittoor, and 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 grant stay of operation of decree and judgment dated 28-02-2022 in M.V.O.P.No.260 of 2016 on the file of Principal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, at Chittoor, pending disposal of the main M.A.C.M.A. and pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. HARINATH REDDY SOMA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. M VENKATA RAMANA REDDY The Court made the following Judgment: The Insurance Company/ Respondent No.3 filed the present Appeal challenging the order and decree 28.02.2022 in M.V.O.P.No.260 of 2016 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Chittoor, whereby and whereunder the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.13,74,360/- to the Claimant/ Respondent No.1 herein, as against the claim of 18,00,000/- (Rupees eighteen lakhs only) for the injuries sustained by the Claimant in a motor accident that occurred on 14.12.2015. 3 2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. The case of the Petitioner is briefly as follows: On 14.12.2015, at about 5.45 p.m, the Claimant, after completion of his duty, while he was returning to his village, on a motorcycle bearing No. AP 03 AQ 7058 of one Mr. M. Prathap Achari as pillion rider, on the way, when they reached near Katappagaripalle cross, on Chittoor – Palamaner road (NH-4), one car bearing No. KA 54 4131 of Respondent No.1 driven by Respondent No.2 came at high speed in a rash and negligent manner on the wrong side of road while overtaking a tanker lorry and hit their motorcycle and thereby, they both fell down and the said car ran over his right leg and thereby he sustained fractures and other injuries. A case in Crime No. 168 of 2015 was registered by the Police, Banagarupalyam Police Station. 4. Before the Tribunal, Respondent Nos.1 and 2, who are owner and driver of the car bearing No. KA 54 4131 remained ex parte. 5. Respondent No.3/ Insurance Company filed Written Statement contending that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle on which the Claimant was proceeding at the relevant time. Therefore, the Respondents are not liable and at the time of accident, the rider of the motorcycle was not having valid driving license. There is violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Therefore, the Respondent No.3 is not liable to pay compensation. 4 6. Basing on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: “1. Whether the Petitioner/ C. Rajarathnam @ C.Rakesh sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 14.12.2015 at about 6.30 p.m, due to the rash and negligent driving of TATA Indica Car bearing No. KA 54 4131 belonging to the 1st respondent? 2. Whether the Petitioner is entitled for compensation? if so, to what amount and from which respondent? 3. To what relief?” 7. On behalf of the Claimants, P.Ws 1 to 6 were examined and Exs.A1 to A13 were marked and Exs.X1 to X5 were marked through PW-6. On behalf of respondent No.3/Insurance Company, no witness examined and Exs.B1 was marked. 8. After hearing both parties and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition against Respondent Nos.1 to 3, awarding compensation of Rs.13,74,360/- with subsequent interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization and directed Respondents No.1 to 3 to pay jointly and severally the said amount within a month from the date of the order. 9. Aggrieved by the said award, the Respondent No.3/Insurance Company preferred this appeal contending that there is no rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the car bearing No. KA 54 4131 and that the accident was occurred only due to rash and negligence of the rider of motor cycle only. Rider of the motor cycle failed to observe the opposite coming vehicle and 5 dashed the care in opposite direction. In the instant case, there is a collision of two vehicles in opposite direction does not looked into by the Tribunal. Further, the claim petition is bad for not making the rider, insured and insurer of the motor cycle as per and necessary party to the lis for proper adjudication. Further, the Insurance Company has no liability to pay compensation for the reason that the driver of the car did not have valid and effective driving license to drive the offending vehicle. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Claimant/ 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. The Insurance Company has preferred the present Appeal on the ground that the Tribunal failed to consider that there is no rash negligence on the part of the driver of the car bearing No. KA 54 4131 and the accident was occurred due to rash and negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle only, which in fact driven by the Claimant herein and this is a case of head of collision of two vehicles coming in opposite directions and as such, 50% of negligence ought to have been attributed against the Claimant also. 13. Learned counsel for the Appellant further argued that though the Claimant got marked Disability Certificate issued by the Medical Board, dated 04.06.2019 i.e Ex.A11. Basing on the evidence given by PW-5, who is one of 6 the Member of the Medical Board, who categorically deposed that the Claimant can work with his upper limbs and he can attend desk activities and as his right leg was impaired, therefore, he cannot drive tractor and it is also difficult to work on ridges in the fields to attend agricultural operations and it become difficult to have regular normal walk and also he cannot climb stairs. As the Tribunal ought not to have considered the disability of 50% as permanent disability, the Appellant requested to allow the Appeal. 14. Perused the Award passed by the Tribunal. It can be observed that the Claimant got examined himself as PW-1. PW-2 is the rider of the motorcycle, on which PW-1 was a pillion rider, who is also an eye witness to the said accident, who deposed about the nature of accident in support of PW-1. PW-2 categorically deposed that at the time of accident, the Claimant and himself were proceeding in a slow manner on the left side of the road margin and at that time, the car of Respondent No.1 driven by Respondent No.2 while overtaking a tanker lorry, came to extreme right side of road and hit their motorcycle coming in the opposite direction. Considering the evidence of PW- 2, coupled with Ex.A1 i.e copy of FIR and Ex.A2 i.e copy of Charge Sheet, wherein the Police after due investigation has registered a crime as against the Respondent No.2, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the car by the Respondent No.2 and there is no negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle i.e PW-2 and answered the issued in favour of the Claimant. 7 15. With regard to issue No.2, as per the evidence of PW-1, he sustained fractures and other injuries. Immediately after the accident he was taken to Government Hospital, Bangarupalyam and thereby private hospital at Tirupati i.e Sri Sai Sudha Hospital, where the Claimant had taken treatment in two spells. To prove the injuries received in the accident, he examined himself as PW-1 and got marked Ex.A3 – Would Certificate issued by the Government Hospital, Bangarupalyam, which disclosed that the Claimant has received following injuries viz., 1) Swelling and deformity of right leg. 2) Severe pain and tenderness over left knee. 3) Lacerated wound about 3 x 1 cm over right leg and below the knee. 4) Lacerated wound on middle or right leg 2x1 cm. 5) Lacerated wound 1 x 1 near medial malleous on right foot. To prove Ex.A3 Wound Certificate, the Claimant also examined the doctor as PW-4, who issued the Wound Certificate. The Claimant got marked two discharge summaries in relation to the two spells treatment taken by him. As per Ex.A5 discharge summary, the Claimant had taken treatment from 16.12.2015 to 23.12.2015 and Ex.A6 discharge summary would show the Claimant joined in the same hospital on 25.01.2016 and surgery was conducted on 28.01.2016 and discharged on 02.02.2016. 16. The Tribunal considered the fact that as per Ex.A5 and Ex.A6, two surgeries were conducted over the right leg of Claimant in Sri Sai Sudha Hospital, Tirupati awarded an amount of Rs. 80,000/- towards pain and suffering. Rs. 20,000/- under the head of medical expenditure, medical and extra nourishment; Rs. 10,000/- under the head of attendant charges, though, 8 the Claimant claimed a sum of Rs.20,000/- under extra medical charges paid to Sri Sai Sudha Hospital, Tirupati on four occasions. In the absence of any cogent evidence, the Tribunal refused to grant such amounts to the Claimant. Apart from the same, The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs. 50,000/- under the head of future medical expenses, considering the fact that there is every possibility of requirement of further surgery in future for removal of implants. The Tribunal relying upon the Ex.A7 i.e Bills issued by Paul’s Physiotherapy Clinic, Chittoor, dated 07.03.2016, awarded an amount of Rs. 10,000/-, under the head of Physiotherapy, out of Rs.50,000/-. Though, the Claimant got marked Ex.A10 i.e bunch of 2 receipts issued by the auto owner for transportation from village to Chittoor for a sum of Rs. 54,000/- i.e from 07.03.2016 to till 17.05.2016 and from 19.05.2016 o 07.06.2016 at Rs. 600/- per day and for a period of 90 days. Disbelieving the fact that the Claimant might have spent an amount of Rs. 54,000/- towards auto charges, the Tribunal granted only Rs. 25,000/- under the head to transportation. 17. Now coming to the Claim made by the Claimant under the head of permanent disability is Rs. 2,00,000/-. According to the Claimant, he sustained 50% of disability. To substantiate the said fact, the Claimants relied on Ex.A11issued by the Medical Board and also got examined PW-5, who is a Member of the Medical Board, who deposed that the Claimant can work with his upper limbs and he can attend desk activities as his right leg was impaired. Further, deposed that the Claimant cannot drive the tractor and also difficult to walk on ridges in the fields to attend agricultural operations. It is also difficult 9 to walk normally and he cannot climb stairs. Further, during the cross examination, he deposed that he issued disability certificate i.e Ex.A11 which would show that the fracture bones are united and the wounds are healed. Apart from the same, the Claimant also got examined PW-3 doctor, who treated him in Sri Sai Sudha Hospital, Tirupati, who also categorically deposed that the wound got healed well and he can attend daily activities with some difficulty, for which he has to do hard work. Further deposed that because of said disability, the Claimant is not able to do cultivation though their family is having agricultural lands and therefore, the disability of the Claimant must be at 100% and relied as per the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in “Jithendran v. The New India Assurance Company Ltd., and Another” 1. 18. It is also the case of the Claimant that he also used to earn Rs. 8,200/- per month during probation period, after completion of probation period, they would pay a sum of Rs. 9,000/- per month, because of said accident, he lost his source of income. To prove the fact that the Claimant’s family members are doing agricultural operations from their land and he used to attend the agricultural operations, apart from working in Amararaja Batteries, the Claimant got marked Ex.A12 i.e ROR and 1-B Extract, which would show that the property to an extent of Ac.4.90 cents stands in the name of mother of the Claimant and also got marked Ex.A8 i.e letter of appointment dated 07.09.2015. The Claimant got examined the Assistant General Manager, 1 2022 SAR (Civil) 248. 10 Amararaja Batteries as PW-6 and through him got marked Ex.X3 to Ex.X5. i.e the computer generated attendance particulars of the Claimant. 19. In support of their case, the Claimants also got examined PW-6, who deposed that the Claimant joined in the office on 07.09.2015 and he worked up to 14.12.2015. During that period, their company paid a sum of Rs. 7,800/- per month as stipend and if any trainee not attended duties continuously for a period of 15 days, his name would be removed from muster rolls and had the Claimant completed training for 24 months, he would have secured monthly salary of Rs. 9,000/- to Rs. 9,300/- basing on his performance during training period. 20. As the Claimant suffered injuries in the said accident, the Claimant could not continue to work as a machinery mechanic in Amararaja Batteries and lost his livelihood. However, the Tribunal considering the evidence of PW-6 that if the Claimant completed his probation period, his salary would be enhanced to Rs.9,000/- or Rs. 9,300/-, considering the stipend amount as basis has fixed notional monthly income of the deceased as Rs.10,920/- per month. The permanent disability of the Claimant is fixed at 50%. As the age of the Claimant is 20 years as on the date of accident, the appropriate multiplier applicable is ‘18’ as per “Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation2”, if the same is calculated, the loss of dependency would come to (Rs.10,920/- x 12 x 18 x 50%) Rs.11,79,360/- and in total the Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.13,74,360/-. 2 2009 ACJ 1298 11 21. Considering the material available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the amount of Rs.13,74,360/- awarded by the Tribunal to the Claimant, for the injuries sustained by him, was on reasonable basis and is sustainable under law, which needs no interference. 22. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 31.03.2026 KK