APHC010293892022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 339/2022 Between: 1. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, ONGOLE KAMASASTRY ROAD, SANTAPETA, ONGOLE . ...APPELLANT AND 1. GOVADA CHANDRAIAH, S/OYESU RATNAM, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/O. RACHAVARIPALEM VILLAGE, MADDIPADU MANDAL PRAKASAM DISTRICT 2. M RAJAN, S/O. MANJUNATH OWNER OF THE LORRY MP 09 KB 7209 R/O.45, 8TH CROSS, 3RD PHASE, J.P. NAGAR, BANGALORE - 76 KARNATAKA STATE. 3. THOTI SIVA PRASAD, S/O. CHINNABBA DRIVER OF THE LORRY MP 09 KB 7209 GOVINDAREDDYPALLI VILLAGE GAJULAPALLI POST THAVANAMPALLI MANDAL CHITTOR DISTRICT . ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be pleased topleased to allow this appeal by setting aside the judgment and decree passed in M.V.O.P. No. 229 of 2015 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - CUM- Ist Addl. District Judge, Ongole, dated 5th day of October, 2021 and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2022 2 VS,J MACMA No.339 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 pleased to stay the execution of the decree and Judgment in M.V.O.P. No. 229 of 2015 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - CUM- 1st Addl. District Judge, Ongole, dated 5th day of October, 2021 pending disposal of the appeal and pass 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 pleased to vacate the stay in IA No.2 of 2022 in MACMA No. 339/2022 dt. 06- 09-2022 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 pleased to permit the petitioner to withdraw the ddeposited amount in OP.No.229/2015, 05-10-2022 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (I Addl District Judge, Prakasam at Ongole) and to pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. N RAMA KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PAVAN KUMAR PASUPULETI The Court made the following: 3 VS,J MACMA No.339 of 2022 JUDGMENT: The insurance company has preferred the present appeal challenging the order and decree dated 05.10.2021 passed in M.V.O.P.No.229 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ongole, wherein the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.2,45,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Forty Five Thousand only) to the petitioner/claimant, as against the claim of Rs.10,00,000/-, for the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident that occurred on 10.12.2010. 02. For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 03. The case of the claimants is briefly as follows: a) The petitioner was working as a Mastry for green leaf tobacco grading workers. On 10.12.2010 at about 7.30 a.m., while he, along with one Hanumantha Rao, was proceeding from Rachavaripalem to Pernamitta village on a Splender Plus motorcycle bearing No.AP 27 N 8052 in search of grading workers, and when they reached near V.V. & M college (Mangamma college) on NH-5 at Ongole North bypass road, the driver of the offending lorry bearing No.MP 09 KB 7209 (herein after referred to as the ‘offending vehicle’) came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle of the petitioner. As a result, the petitioner, Hanumantha Rao and G.Prabhakar fell on the road and sustained grievous injures. The petitioner suffered grievous to his left hand left leg, including a 4 VS,J MACMA No.339 of 2022 fracture to the left hand. He was initially shifted to RIMS Hospital, Ongole, thereafter to NRI Hospital, Mangalagiri, then to Osmania Hospital, Hyderabad, and finally to Gandhi Hospital, Hyderabad, where he underwent treatment for a period of six months and underwent surgeries. Basing on the report, Ongole Taluk Police registered a case in Crime No.419 of 2010 under Sections 338 and 337 IPC and Section 134(a) and (b) of the Motor Vehicles Act. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the 2nd respondent, who is the driver of the offending vehicle. b) The petitioner contended that he underwent surgeries and incurred medical expenses exceeding Rs.5,00,000/-. Hence, he filed the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the injuries sustained in the said accident. 04. Before the Tribunal, the 3rd respondent/insurance company filed a counter denying the material allegations and contended that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the rider of the motorcycle bearing registration No.AP 27 N 8052, who drove the vehicle at high speed in a zigzag manner and dashed against the offending vehicle. It was further contended that there was no fault on the part of the 2nd respondent. The petition was stated to be bad for non-joinder of the insurer of the motorcycle. It was also contended that the petitioner had not sustained any permanent disability and was in normal condition. Further, it was alleged that there was no valid insurance policy, registration or permit for the offending vehicle, and 5 VS,J MACMA No.339 of 2022 that the 2nd respondent did not possess a valid and effective driving license. It was also contended that the motorcycle did not have a valid insurance policy, registration, or permit. The claim was stated to be excessive. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 05. Basing on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: “1. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in a road accident which took place on 10.12.2010 at 7.00 a.m., near VV & M College on NH- 5 in Ongole north byepass road due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of Lorry bearing registration No.MP 09 KB 7209? 2. Whether the driver of the Lorry bearing No.MP 09 KB 7209 good carriage Ashok Leyland, is having valid and effective driving license at the time of accident? 3. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? 4. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the compensation and if so, for what amount and against whom? 5. To what relief?” 06. On behalf of the petitioner, he examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A7. On behalf of the 3rd respondent, the Assistant Manager was examined as R.W.1 and Exs.B1 and B2 were marked. 07. After hearing both parties and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation of Rs.2,45,000/- with interest @7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 were held jointly and severally liable to pay the said compensation and were directed to deposit the same within one from the date of the award. Out of the 6 VS,J MACMA No.339 of 2022 total compensation, the petitioner was permitted to withdraw an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest and costs and the remaining amount of Rs.1,45,000/- was directed to be kept in a fixed deposit in any Nationalized bank for a period of two years. 08. Aggrieved by the said award, the respondent No.2/insurer preferred this appeal contending that, as on the date of the accident, the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid driving licence. It was further contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the petitioner and that the Tribunal failed to properly appreciate the evidence of R.W.1. It was therefore contended that the liability ought to have been fastened on the owner of the offending vehicle and the claim against the insurance company should have been dismissed. 09. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner/respondent No.1 herein has supported the impugned award and prayed to dismiss the appeal. 10. Though the appellant contended that there was contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner, including allegations that three persons were travelling on the motorcycle, that the rider was not wearing a helmet, and that he did not possess a valid driving licence, no substantive evidence was adduced to prove the same except the testimony of R.W.1. ‘The 2nd respondent/driver of the offending vehicle remained ex parte. The Tribunal, in the absence of any contra evidence, relied upon the evidence of P.W.1 and Exs.A1 and A2 certified copy of FIR and charge sheet respectively, which 7 VS,J MACMA No.339 of 2022 clearly establish that the police registered a case against the driver of the offending vehicle and filed a charge sheet against him. In the absence of any rebuttal evidence, the Tribunal rightly held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. 11. With regard to the quantum of compensation, though the petitioner claimed that he was earning Rs.30,000/- per month, no documentary evidence was produced. The Tribunal, following the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Govind Yadav vs. New India Insurance Company Ltd. (Civil Appeal No.9014 of 2011 decided on 01.11.2011), fixed the notional income at Rs.36,000/- per annum. The Tribunal awarded Rs.2,00,000/- towards loss of earnings and other heads, Rs.25,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.10,000/- towards medical expenses, and Rs.10,000/- towards extra nourishment. Thus, a total compensation of Rs.2,45,000/- was awarded, which is just and reasonable. 12. So far as the liability to pay the compensation is concerned, it is to be noted that Ex.B1-Policy certificate would disclose that the offending vehicle was validly insured with the appellant and that the policy was in force as on the date of accident. Though it was contended by the appellant that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid driving license at the time of accident, which is a clear violation of the terms and conditions of the policy, the fact remains that the appellant did not examine the RTA authorities, such as the Motor Vehicle Inspector, or the owner of the offending vehicle, to prove 8 VS,J MACMA No.339 of 2022 that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid driving license. Admittedly, the burden lies on the insurer to prove that there is no valid license in favour of the driver of the vehicle, which the insurer has failed to discharge. In view of the same, and since the offending vehicle was insured with the insurer and Ex.B1-policy certificate was in force as on the date of accident, the Tribunal rightly held the respondent Nos.1 to 3 jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner. 13. Viewed from any angle, this Court does not find any grounds to interfere with the award impugned in the appeal. 14. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 24.02.2026 KGR