APHC010343412019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3505] FRIDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1096/2019 Between: 1.ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER, DABAGARDENS, VISAKHAPATNAM. ...APPELLANT AND 1.NAGALA APPALARAJU, S/O.APPA RAO, 40 YEARS, SETTIBALIJI, FITTER IN NAVAL SCIENCE TECHNICAL LABORATORY, VISAKHAPATNAM, R/O.D.NO.13-156, GANDHI NAGAR, PENDURTHY VILLAGE AND MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM. 2.POLAMALA RAMA RAO, S/O.SUBBA RAO, AGED 55 YEARS, R/O.JUPUDI VILLAGE, KANCHIKACHARLA MANDAL, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 3.YUNUS MOHAMMED, S/O.MASTAN, AGED ABOUT NOT KNOWN BUT MAJOR, R/O.D.NO.41-21-89/1, BRAHMARAMBAPURAM, KRISHNA LANKA, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be pleased tothe order and decree dated 10.04.2019 passed in MOP No.553 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam and dismiss the MOP No.553 of 2015 filed by the Respondent No.1 herein / claim petitioner against the Appellant herein / Respondent No.3 and pass 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 condone the delay of 69 days in filing the above appeal against the proceedings dated 10.04.2019 in M.O.P.No. 553 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam and pass IA NO: 2 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 dispense with the filing of the original deposit receipt dated 10.04.2019 in M.O.P.No. 553 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam. IA NO: 3 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 dated 10.04.2019 in M.O.P.No. 553 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam including execution proceedings and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 may be pleased to permit the Petitioner / Appellant to publish the substituted service of notice against the Respondent No.3 in MACMA No. 1096 of 2019 by publishing the same in the local Telugu newspaper namely “Praja Shakthi” circulated in Jupudi Village, Kanchikacherla Mandal, Vijayawada, Krishna District and pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1.A JAYANTHI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR MACMA No.1096 OF 2019 JUDGMENT:- 1. The present appeal is filed by the Oriental Insurance Company aggrieved by order dated 10.04.2019 in MVOP No.553 of 2015, on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they were referred before the Tribunal. 3. The petitioner filed claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 r/w. Rules made thereunder claiming compensation of Rs.5 lakhs on account of injuries sustained by him in the accident that was occurred on 13.09.2014, in which the offending vehicle bearing Registration No.AP16U 9428 was involved. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that on 13.09.2024 at around 02:30 a.m., when he was proceeding to Nagarjuna Sagar in mini van bearing Registration No.AP16U 9428 on company work, when it reached Tetaii town near Tanuku Village, the driver of mini van drove the vehicle in rash and negligent manner and dashed the stationed lorry bearing Registration No.AP05TA 6566. As a result of which, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries and he was shifted to Government Hospital, Tanuku. Upon complaint, a case was registered in Crime No.188/2014 against the 1st respondent/driver. The said crime was investigated into and charge sheet was filed against the 1st respondent. In that view of the matter, the petitioner approached the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.5 lakhs for the injuries sustained by him by filing the above MVOP against the respondents. The driver of the offending vehicle was set ex-parte. The 3rd respondent/Insurance Company resisted the claim by filing counter affidavit stating that, it is not liable to pay compensation as the accident was occurred due to the negligence of 1st respondent. It was further contended that the petition is bad for non-joinder of the necessary parties as the petitioner did not array the owner of the lorry and its insurer as party respondents. 5. Further, the 3rd respondent contended that the petitioner has to prove that he was travelling in the said vehicle as owner of the goods and contended that he was unauthorized passenger. Further, it is stated that the amount claimed was excessive and prayed to dismiss the petition. 6. In order to prove the case, the petitioner himself was examined as PW-1 and Dr.A.Gopi Krishna, who treated the petitioner was examined as PW-2 and marked Ex.A1 to A14. On behalf of the 3rd respondent one Sri S.Srikar Babu, Incharge Manager of the 3rd respondent was examined as RW-1 and copy of the Insurance policy was marked as Ex.B1. Considering the oral and documentary evidence filed by the parties, the Tribunal partly allowed the petition awarding compensation of Rs.3 lakhs. 7. The counsel for the appellant would submit that the claim petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed in view of the fact that he did not show the insurer of the stationed lorry bearing Registration No.AP05TA 6556 and its owner as party respondents. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that, on perusal of the averments made in the claim petition, it is clear that the lorry bearing Registration No.AP05TA 6566 was stationed by the side of the road. Unless, it is proved that there is negligence on the part of the lorry due to which the accident was occurred by adducing cogent evidence, the question of dismissing the present claim petition on the ground of non-joinder of necessary party does not arise. Further by going the averments made in the claim petition, the lorry was stationed by the side of the road and the 3rd respondent/Insurance Company neither adduced any oral evidence nor filed any documents to substantiate its claim. Therefore, the said contention of the counsel for the appellant cannot be countenanced and the same is hereby rejected. 8. The other ground that was argued before this Court is that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation as the petitioner was travelling in the goods vehicle as unauthorized passenger. The counsel for the appellant would further submit that the petitioner is neither pleaded nor filed any documentary evidence to show that he was travelling in the offending mini van along with the goods. As no premium was collected for the passengers, if at all any compensation is to be paid, the same has to be paid by the owner of the vehicle alone, but not by the Insurance Company. 9. In order to prove the said contention, the 3rd respondent examined Incharge Manager of the Insurance Company as RW-1. RW-1 deposed that a premium of Rs.75/- was collected towards owner of the goods, but there is no proof to show that the petitioner was travelling along with the goods. Based on the said evidence, the counsel for the appellant would contend that the petitioner was travelling as unauthorized passenger and the same is also evident on perusal of report given to the police and the charge sheet. He would submit in such circumstances, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation. 10. On the other hand, it is the case of the petitioner that the 3rd respondent has collected premium for two (02) persons under the policy and the petitioner was travelling in the offending van along with driver, therefore he can be treated as the 2nd person and is entitled to claim compensation. On perusal of the record, it is clear that the petitioner was travelling in the offending vehicle on company work. As the accident was occurred due to the negligence of 1st respondent/driver and the vehicle is insured with the 3rd respondent, as directed by the Tribunal that the compensation has to be paid by the 3rd respondent Insurance Company and later the same can be recovered from the owner of the offending vehicle. The present appeal is filed questioning the liability of the 3rd respondent/appellant in paying compensation amount and the appellant did not dispute with regard to quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 11. As already noted supra, the Tribunal directed the 3rd respondent/appellant to pay compensation and the same can be recovered from the 2nd respondent, later this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order under challenge. Further on perusal of the order, the Tribunal while awarding the compensation of Rs.3 lakhs, the respondents are directed to pay interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petitioner till the date of award and interest @ 7.5% per annum thereafter till the date of realization. 12. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that this Court is consistently awarding interest @ 7.5% from the date of petition till the date of realization and taking into the fact that the claim petition is filed under beneficial legislation, the interest is enhanced from 6% to 7.5%. Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to modify the interest from 6% to 7.5% from the date of petition till the date of realization. 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 30.01.2026 DR 106 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR MACMA No.1096 of 2019 Date 30.01.2026 U DR