1 APHC010321612020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3505] WEDNESDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 442/2020 Between: 1. IFFCO -TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED PUNJAB,, REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED LOCAL BRANCH MANAGER RAGHU S/O. ANANTHA CHARYA AGE. 48 YEARS BRANCH OFFICE, DNR TOWERS, KOTI REDDI CIRCLE, KADAPA TOWN AND CITY ...APPELLANT AND 1. GUNDLURU VENKATESWARLU, S/O SIDDAIAH, DUDEKULA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS (DIED) 2. GUNDLURU SUBBAMMA, W/O VENKATESWARLU, DUDEKULA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE 3. GUNDLURU AMATHA ALIAS SUNKESULA AMATHA, D/O VENKATESWARLU W/O MOULALI, DUDEKULA, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT DOOR NO. 2/62, RACHAPALLI VILLAGE, RACHAGUDIPALLI POST, VONTIMITTA MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT - CLAIMANTS /FTLIBEERRS 4. JAMSHED, SIO DUNA, MUSLIM, AGED 40 YEARS, OWNER OF THE LORRY BEARING NO. HR.74.BD.2849 RESIDING AT VILL LAHARWADI, GURGAON HARIYANA STATE, CELL NO. 9999999999 5. ABDUL HIDAYATH, S/O RAMJAN, MUSLIM, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, LORRY DRIVER, RESIDING AT RALASALI VILLAGE, 2 TECH - TIJARA, AIWAR DISTRICT, RAJASTHAN STATE ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be pleased toMemorandum of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 173 of M.V.Act aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in M.V.O.P. No, 566 of 2017 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - cum - Principal District Judge, Kadapa, dated 28th day of January, 2020 IA NO: 1 OF 2020 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 all further proceedings including the execution of the award Dt:21-05-2020 in MVOP.No.258 of 2018 on the file of Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- Principal District Judge, Kadapa IA NO: 1 OF 2021 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 condone the delay of 75 days in representing the I.A.SR 26191 of 2021 in IA 1/2020 in MACMA 442/2020 and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2021 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 petitioners herein to withdraw the amounts deposited by the appellant in MACMA 442 of 2020 to the credit of MVOP No. 566 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- Principal District Judge, Kadapa pending disposal of above MACMA and pass IA NO: 3 OF 2021 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 order dated 17-11-2020 made in I.A.No. 1 of 2020 in MACMA No. 442 of 2020 and pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. GUDI SRINIVASU 3 Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. 2. MUDE SAI KUMAR NAIK 4 The Court made the following judgment: Aggrieved by order dated 28.01.2020 in MVOP No.566 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Kadapa, the present appeal is filed by IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited. 2. The claimants filed petition under Section 166 and 166 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act and the rules made thereunder claiming compensation of Rs.16,00,000/- on account of the death of Gundluru Siddaiah, who was the son of claimant Nos.1 & 2 and brother of 3rd claimant. The claim was resisted by the appellant stating that the offending lorry bearing registration No.HR 74 2849 had no valid permit at the time of accident. Though the appellant has raised several grounds in the appeal, during the course of hearing, the counsel for the appellant confined his argument that the offending lorry had no valid permit as on the date of the accident. 3. In order to substantiate the said contention, the counsel for the appellant would rely on the evidence of RW.2, SI of Police, who filed the charge sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle. The counsel for the appellant would further submit that, on perusal of the evidence of RW.2, it is categorically stated in his evidence that permit of the offending vehicle was not filed along with the charge sheet. On the other hand, the counsel appearing for the claimants would submit that, mere non filing of 5 the permit will not exonerate the liability of the insurance company and the same is not fatal to the case on hand. Having gone through the record and after appreciating the rival contentions of the counsel on either side, it is pertinent to note that the merely because the permit of the offending lorry was not filed along with the charge sheet, it cannot be said that there was no permit at all to the offending lorry at the time of the accident. Further, on careful perusal of the evidence of RW.2, he has deposed that, copy of the permit was not filed along with the charge sheet and it is not his case that, the offending lorry did not have permit. Therefore, the evidence of RW.2 will not come to the rescue of the appellant insurance company. Apart from the same, the appellant insurance company does not file anything on record to show that there was no valid permit to the offending vehicle. Further, a perusal of the order under challenge, the Tribunal after following the law laid down by this Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs Mahaboob Ali Khan and Others 1, had rejected the contention of the appellant. In this judgment it was held that non possession of the fitness certificate and permit will not amount to violation. As already observed above, the appellant insurance company miserably failed to establish that the offending lorry did not have permit as on the date of the accident. In such circumstances, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order under challenge and accordingly the appeal is dismissed. 1 2017 Supreme(kar) 1282 6 4. During the course of hearing, the counsel for the respondent/claimant contended that the Tribunal had awarded interest at the rate of 6% per annum, which is meager. He would further submit that, this Court has consistently granting interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, particularly in the cases those arise under beneficial legislation. After considering the submissions, this Court finds merit in the contention of the counsel for the claimants and accordingly the interest component is enhanced from 6% to 7.5% per annum. 5. It is needless to mention that, the 2nd respondent is directed to pay the compensation together with interest at the rate of 7.5% to the petitioners from the date of petition till the date of realization within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________ JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR Dt.01.04.2026 DSB 7 108 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR MACMA No.442 of 2020 Date 01.04.2026 U DSB