1 MACMA NO. 570 OF 2023 VS,J. APHC010451922023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] MONDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 570/2023 Between: 1. KANISETTY SAI DEEPAK, S/O. SUDHAKARA BABU, NOW AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/O. KOTHUR VILLAGE, NELLORE RURAL MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT ...APPELLANT AND 1. KANISETTY SAI THEJA, S/O. SUDHAKARA BABU, NOW AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, (OWNER-CUM-DRIVER OF THE CAR BEARING NO. AP 10 AK 7070) R/O. PLOT NO. 64, NEAR IRON FACTORY, KARIKRISHNA BABU NAGAR, KOTHUR AK NAGAR, NELLORE. 2. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD., REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, GANDHI NAGAR, NELLORE, (INSURER OF THE OFFENDING VEHICLE CAR BEARING NO. AP 10 AK 7070 ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Appellant: 1. SIVA PRASAD KATAKAMSETTY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. KIRAN KUMAR BALIGAMSETTI 2. The Court made the following: 2 MACMA NO. 570 OF 2023 VS,J. THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 570/2023 J U D G M E N T: 1. Aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 06.07.2023 in M.V.O.P.No.424 of 2017 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short MACT) –cum- III District Judge, Vijayawada for awarding Rs.1,41,000/- to the petitioner towards compensation as against the claim of Rs.5,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident, the claimant preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement. For the sake of convenience and to avoid confusion, the parties hereinafter are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal i.e., appellant herein as Petitioner; Respondents No.1 and 2 herein as Respondents No.1 and 2. 2. The Petitioner is the injured. 1st respondent is owner cum driver, 2nd respondent is insurance company to crime motorcycle No.AP16 CR 2493. The Petitioner filed claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act for grant of compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- with interest and for petition costs, for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident on 04.04.2018. 3. Brief averments of the claim petition are that: the injured-Kanisetty Sai Deepak was aged 27 years by the time of accident and he was doing Real Estate business and thereby earning Rs.10,000/- per month and contributing the 3 MACMA NO. 570 OF 2023 VS,J. same to his family. On 04.04.2018 at 10.00 a.m. the injured and his family members and relatives after having Darshan at Kanipakam temple were returning from Kanipakam in Indica VS Car bearing No.AP 10 AK 7070 driven by the 1st respondent - Sai Theja. At about 6.10 p.m, when the car reached Rangaiahgaripalli village petrol bunk, Pakala Mandal on Chittoor -Tirupathi National Highway, the 1st respondent drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, with high speed, lost control over the steering and dashed the opposite coming Ertiga Car bearing No.TS 10 EA 9887, as a result, the relative of the claimant Sigha Lakshmi sustained severe bleeding injuries and died on the spot and the claimant and other inmates of both the cars sustained severe bleeding injuries. They were shifted to Ruia Hospital, Tirupathi and both the vehicles were damaged. Thereafter the injured was shifted to Jaya Bharath Hospital, Nellore for better treatment, there the injured was treated as inpatient, Surgery was conducted to his left leg and steel plates were inserted in his left leg and also another surgery was conducted on the left side of nasal bone. Due to the fracture of his left leg, the injured/ claimant cannot walk properly and cannot stand for long time and also cannot squat on the floor by bending his both legs. Even now the claimant is getting pain in his left leg while walking, due to the non-healing of fracture and thus he became permanently disabled and he could not attend to his normal duties for about five months and thus he lost his earnings. 4 MACMA NO. 570 OF 2023 VS,J. The Station House Officer, Pakala Police Station, Chittoor District registered a case in Crime No. 49/2018 for the offence punishable under Sections 304-A, 338 and 279 of IPC against the owner-cum-driver of the car i.e. 1st respondent bearing No.AP 10 AK 7070. The 1st respondent, who is the driver- cum-owner of the offending vehicle, had committed the accident and the 2nd respondent is the Insurance Company and the Insurance Policy was in force, hence, both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claim petitioner. 4. The 1st respondent remained ex-parte. 5. 2nd respondent filed counter denying the age of the injured, his earnings, the manner of accident and contended that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the opposite vehicle i.e., Ertiga Car bearing No.TS 10 EA 9887 and as such, the owner and Insurance Company of the opposite car are proper and necessary parties and the compensation, if any, has to be apportioned against both owners of both the vehicles, as there was contributory negligence on the part of the drivers of both the vehicles and prayed to dismiss the petition. 6. Basing on the above pleadings the following issues were settled by the Tribunal for trial: 5 MACMA NO. 570 OF 2023 VS,J. 1) Whether the alleged accident occurred on 04.04.2018 at 06.10 Ρ.Μ., on Chittoor - Tirupathi NH 140 near the Rangaiahparipalli village petrol bunk, Pakala Mandal, Chittoor District, was due to rash and negligent act of the driver of the car bearing Registration No.AP 10 AK 7070 and whether it resulted into injuries to the claimant/Kanisetty Sai Deepak? 2) Whether the claimant is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents? 3) To what relief? 7. During the course of trial on behalf of the claim petitioner, petitioner himself got examined as P.W.1 and the Doctor who treated the petitioner got examined as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.A1: Attested copy of FIR in crime No.49/2018 Ex.A2: Attested copy of wound certificate; Ex.A3: Attested copy of Charge sheet; Ex.A4: Bunch of medical bills. On behalf of 2nd respondent one B.Ramesh, Administrative Officer of 2nd Respondent insurance company got examined as RW.1 and got marked Ex.B1 - Insurance Policy. 8. Upon hearing both counsel and upon perusing the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal allowed the petition in part awarding compensation of Rs.2,81,934/-, with proportionate costs, directing the 6 MACMA NO. 570 OF 2023 VS,J. respondents No.1 and 2 jointly and severally to pay 50% of compensation amount of Rs.1,41,000/- to the petitioner, with interest at 9% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of deposit, as there was contributory negligence on the part of the drivers of both the vehicles. The 2nd respondent is directed to deposit the amount of compensation within one (01) month from the date of Order. 9. The claimant/appellant preferred the present appeal on the ground that the Tribunal grossly erred in apportioning the liability in between the drivers of both offending vehicles at the rate of 50% each, and that the Tribunal grossly erred in not determining the total liability of the respondents jointly and severally, that the Tribunal erred in not granting just compensation under the head of special diet and attendant charges and in not granting any amount to be spent for future treatment by ignoring the nature of the injuries sustained by the appellant that requires prolonged treatment, special care, along with other grounds. 10. Heard the learned counsel for appellant as well as respondents. 11. Now the point for determination is: Whether the Order/Award passed by the Tribunal needs any interference? 12. POINT: Counsel for the appellant argued that 1st respondent being the driver of the offending car bearing Registration No AP10 AK 7070 drove the car in a rash and negligent manner, with high speed, due to which, he lost control 7 MACMA NO. 570 OF 2023 VS,J. over the steering and dashed against the opposite coming Ertiga car bearing No.TS 10 EA 9887 and as a result one of the inmates of the offending vehicle – Sigha Lakshmi died on the spot and inmates of both the cars, including petitioner, sustained bleeding injuries, which was proved by the claimant by examining himself as P.W.1, who categorically deposed that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending car bearing No.AP 10 AK 7070. In support of his case, P.W.1 got marked Exs.A.1 to A.4. Considering the material available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of both the drivers and attributed 50% contributory negligence on the part of both the vehicles. However, on perusal of Ex.A.3 charge sheet, it is an admitted fact that charge sheet has been filed against the driver of the Indica VS car bearing No.AP 10 AK 7070 alone as he drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed Ertiga car bearing No.TS 10 EA 9887, resulting injuries to the claimant. In such a case, this Court is of the opinion that the Tribunal relying on Ex.A.3 Charge sheet and the evidence of P.W.1, who is the injured eyewitness to the accident, ought to have held that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Indica VS car bearing No.AP 10 AK 7070, and ought to have fixed the entire liability on the driver of Indiaca VS car bearing No.AP 10 AK 7070, but not on the driver of Ertiga car bearing No.TS 10 EA 9887, who is no way responsible for the said accident. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal that there was contributory 8 MACMA NO. 570 OF 2023 VS,J. negligence on the part of the drivers of both the vehicles i.e. the Indica VS car AP 10 AK 7070 and Ertiga Car bearing No.TS 10 EA 9887 is set aside. In view of the said discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1, who is the driver of Indica VS car bearing No.AP 10 AK 7070. 13. With regard to the quantum, apart from the evidence of P.W.1 injured, he also got examined P.W.2 Doctor who deposed that he had seen the claim petitioner at Jayabharath hospital on 05.04.2018, who sustained the following injuries: 1. A curved lacerated wound over back of right arm. Extending medially and laterally. All the flexor muscles found cut completely. Ulnar nerve found cut at ulnar grove. 2. Multiple abrasions all over the body, face and forehead. Tenderness over 4th and 5th ribs of left chest. 3. A defused swelling, deformity on left thigh. Tenderness over femur. X- rays of left thigh AP lateral view shows commenited fractures of femur. X-ray left chest shows fracture of 4th and 5th ribs on left side of chest. P.W.2 also deposed that he conducted two operations on the claim petitioner and Ex.A.4 medical bills issued by the hospital. During cross- 9 MACMA NO. 570 OF 2023 VS,J. examination, he stated that the treatment was not given under any health scheme. He further deposed that the petitioner came for follow up treatment for 6 months. Relying on the said evidence of P.W.2 Doctor, the Tribunal held that the claimant lost his earnings for a period of 5 months. 14. As per the evidence of P.W.1, he was doing real estate business and earning Rs.10,000/- per month. In the absence of any evidence to that extent, the Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased notionally at Rs.6,000/- per month. Therefore, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.30,000/- (Rs.6,000 X 5) towards loss of earning for 5 months. 15. Apart from the same, the Tribunal awarded Rs.1,16,934/- towards medical expenses relying on Ex.A.4 medical bills, Rs.1,20,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.5,000/- towards attendant charges, Rs.5,000/- extra nourishment and food, and Rs.5,000/- towards transportation charges. In all, the Tribunal awarded Rs.2,81,934/- and rounded off to Rs.2,82,000/- as compensation to the claimant for the injuries sustained by him. 16. Accordingly, the Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in favour of the appellant enhancing the compensation to Rs.2,82,000/- from Rs.1,41,000/- directing respondent No.2 to deposit the compensation amount within one month from the date of order and on such deposit, the 10 MACMA NO. 570 OF 2023 VS,J. appellant is entitled to withdraw the entire compensation amount. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA KS Dated 23.02.2026. 11 MACMA NO. 570 OF 2023 VS,J. 272 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 570/2023 DATED 23.02.2026 KS