APHC010447982019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3505] THURSDAY,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 26/2020 Between: 1. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, MAIN ROAD, KAKINADA. ...APPELLANT AND 1. BODDU SATTHAMMA, W/O.LATE NAGESWARA RAO AGED 27 YEARS, K.SITAYYAPETA, H/O. VALLURU VILALGE, TUNI MANDAL. 2. BODDU PRASAD, S/O LATE NAGESWARA RAO, AGED 9 YEARS. 3. BODDU RAJU, S/O. LATE NAGESWARA RAO, AGED 7 YEARS. 4. BODDU SIVA, S/O. LATE NAGESWARA RAO AGED 5 YEARS. (RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY MOTHER 1ST RESPONDENT AS NATURAL GUARDIAN) 5. BODDU APPARAO, S/O. DANAIAH AGED 50 YEARS, CASTE VADABALIJA, K.SITAYYAPETA VILLAGE, H/O. VALLURU VILLAGE, TUNI MANDAL. 6. ADABALA ESWARA RAO, S/O. SURYARAO, AGED 25 YEARS, ANURU VILLAGE, THONDARGI MANDAL, DRIVER OF TRACTOR BEARING NO. AP 05 BB 6962 AND TRAI ER BEARING NO. AP 05 TC 8602. 2 7. TATIPARTI SRINU, S/O. DANDU DOOR NO. 5-84/3, PERUMALLAPURAM, TUNI MA IDAL, OWNER OF TRACTOR BEARING NO. AP 05 BB 6962 AND TRAILER BEARING NO. AP 05 TC 8602. ...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 dated 29.08.2019 passed in M.V.O.P.No.25 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - Cum - XII Addl. District Judge, East Godavari at Pithapuram and dismiss the M.V.O.P.No. 25 of 2017 filed by the Respondent Nos.1 to 5 herein / Claim Petitioners against the Appellant herein / Respondent No.3 in the lower cower 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 pleased to condone the delay of 32 days in filing the Above appeal against the proceedings dated 29.08.2019 in M.V.O.P. No.25 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -Cum- XII Additional District Judge, East Godavari, Pithapuram IA NO: 2 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 Pleased to dispense with the filing of the certified copy of the decree dated 29-08-2019 in MVOP.No.25 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum XII Additional District Judge East Godavari Pithapuram pending the above MACMA and permit the petitioner to file a Xerox copy of the certified copy of the decree dated 29- 08-2019 in MVOP.No.25 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum XIII Additional District Judge east Godavari Pithapuram in the interest of Justice IA NO: 3 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 pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings dated 29.C8.2019 in M.V.O.P. No.25 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents 3 Claims Tribunal-Cum-XII Additional District Judge, East Godavari, Pithapuram including execution proceedings IA NO: 1 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 permit the petitioners 1 and 5 / Respondents 1 and 5 to with draw the amount deposited by the appellant in compliance of orders dt. 24.1.2020 passed in IA No 3/2020 in MACMA No. 26/2020 which has been deposited by the appellant in compliance of the said order and may be Counsel for the Appellant: 1. A JAYANTHI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PALLA BALU ANIL KUMAR 2. YALLABANDI RAMATIRTHA 4 The Court made the following judgment: The present appeal is filed by the United India Insurance Company Limited, aggrieved by order dated 29.08.2019 passed in MVOP No.25 of 2017, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XII Additional District Judge, East Godavari at Pithapuram. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they were referred before the tribunal. 3. The petitioners i.e., the wife, children and father of one Sri Boddu.Nageswara Rao (herein after referred to as the deceased), filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.7,00,000/-, together with interest @18% per annum, from the date of petition till the date of realization on account of the death of the deceased in the accident that was occurred on 13.06.2015, in which the tractor bearing registration No. AP 05BB 6962 and trailer bearing registration No. AP 05TC 8602 were involved. 4. The case of the petitioners is that, the deceased was aged 27 years and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month by doing fish business and agricultural work, and they were depending on the earnings of the deceased. It is their further case that, on 13.06.2015 at 12.00 noon, the deceased was travelling on his motor cycle bearing registration No.AP 31N 5931, when he reached Pallavari water tank near Chamavaram village, the offending tractor and trailer came in a rash and negligent 5 manner and dashed the motor cycle of the deceased, as a result of which the deceased fell down on the road and sustained severe bleeding injuries on his head and testicles. The deceased was taken to Area Hospital, Tuni, and while undergoing treatment he died on the same day at 3.00 pm. In those circumstances, the petitioners approached the tribunal claiming compensation on account of the death of the deceased. 5. The 2nd respondent/owner of the tractor and trailer filed counter affidavit denying the averments made in the claim petition. It was the further case of the 2nd respondent that, there was no negligence on the part of the 1st respondent/driver, inasmuch as the deceased was unable to control the motor cycle as it was triple riding. It was further contended that, the tractor and trailer had a valid permit and fitness certificate and were insured with the 3rd respondent. Therefore, they prayed to dismiss the claim petition against them, by contending that if at all any compensation has to be paid, it is only by the 3rd respondent. 6. The 3rd respondent/Insurance Company filed separate counter affidavit denying the narration of the accident. It was further contended that, the deceased was not holding valid driving license. It was also contended that, the driver of the offending tractor and trailer also had no valid driving license. It was further contended that, the accident was occurred due to the triple riding of the motor cycle by the deceased and that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the tractor and 6 trailer. It was further contended claimed that, the compensation was excessive and prayed to dismiss the petition. 7. In order to prove the case of the petitioners, the 1st petitioner was examined as PW.1 and one Sri Y.Ram Babu, eye witness to the accident was examined as PW.2 and marked Exs.A1 to A4. On the other hand, the respondents have examined the employee of the Insurance Company as RW.1 and did not produce any documentary evidence. 8. Appreciating the oral and documentary evidence of the parties, the tribunal by impugned order allowed the claim petition by awarding compensation of Rs.8,35,000/- on the respondent Nos.1 to 3 together with interest @7.5% from the date of petition i.e., 22.03.2017, till the date of realization. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed. 9. Heard counsel for the appellant, counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5 and the counsel for respondent No.6. Despite service of notice, there is no appearance for respondent No.7. 10. The counsel for the appellant would strenuously contend that, at the time of accident, the deceased was riding the motor cycle with two other persons as pillion riders and contend that, the same is evident on perusal of the claim application filed by the petitioners and contend that, the chief affidavit filed by PW.1. In view of triple riding, the deceased lost control over the motor cycle and thereby the accident was occurred. He would further contend that, there was no negligence on the part of the 1st 7 respondent/driver of the offending vehicle as contended by the petitioners. On the contrary, it was contended by the counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 5 that, there was no triple riding as alleged by the respondent No.3, inasmuch as the eye witness to the accident was examined as PW.2 who categorically deposed that, the deceased was proceeding on his motor cycle, he and the other person were following the deceased on another motor cycle. Apart from the same, he would also further submit that, PW.2 initially gave a complaint to the police and the same was registered in Cr.No.108 of 2015 dated 13.06.2015, on the file of Tuni Rural Police Station, East Godavari District. The said crime was investigated into and charge sheet was also filed. On perusal of the charge sheet, it is evident that there was a discussion with regard to the manner in which the accident was occurred. Further, at the time of accident the motor cycle of the deceased was dragged to some distance by the offending tractor and trailer. If such is the case, it is obvious that the alleged pillion riders also ought to have received injuries. In the case on hand, it is specifically deposed by PW.2 that, he was following the deceased on another motor cycle. The evidence of PW.2 is also corroborated with the FIR and charge sheet filed as Exs.A1 to A4. Furthermore, the contents of the claim petition cannot be taken into consideration, inasmuch as PW1 was not the eye witness. It is not out of place to mention that, the crime was registered on 13.06.2015 which is earliest point of time. In the complaint it was specific case of PW.2 that, 8 there was no triple riding and he was travelling on another motor cycle following the deceased. The instant claim petition was filed on 22.03.2017 i.e., much after the filing of the complaint against the 1st respondent/driver of the offending tractor and trailer. Therefore, as rightly observed by the tribunal, the averments made in the claim petition and in the chief affidavit filed by the PW.1 cannot be taken into consideration in view of the fact that she was not eye witness to the accident. From the above evidence of PW.2 coupled with Ex.A1 and A4, it can be held that it was not triple riding at the time of accident. Therefore, the contention of the appellant in this regard is liable to be rejected. 11. It was further case of the appellant that, the deceased and the driver of the offending vehicle had no valid deriving license. In order to substantiate the same, the appellant did not produce any documentary evidence nor adduced any oral evidence. In the absence of the same, the said contention of the appellant cannot be countenanced. Further, on perusal of the record, it is clear that the 3rd respondent admitted that the trailer is covered with insurance policy issued by the 3rd respondent/appellant. Therefore, the Insurance Company cannot be escaped from the liability of payment of compensation. Further, the liability was fixed on all respondents including the driver and owner of the offending tractor and trailer. Further, the tribunal after taking into consideration of the facts and evidence put forth by the petitioners, the tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.8,35,000/- towards compensation 9 under various conventional heads. As already noted supra, in the absence of any evidence on behalf of the 3rd respondent to disprove the case of the petitioners, it would have to be held that the order under challenge does not warrant interference by this Court. 12. Accordingly, this Court does not find any illegality in the order passed by the tribunal. For the foregoing reasons, there are no merits in the appeal and accordingly the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________ JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR Dt.29.01.2026. DSB 10 71 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR MACMA.No.26 OF 2020 Date: 29.01.2026 U DSB