1 MACMA NO. 502 OF 2022 VS,J. APHC010539032022 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: 502/2022 Between: 1. D APPANNA, S/O ABRAHAM, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER OF THE VAN AP 30 V 7410, R/O PEDDA PURLI VILLAGE, REGIDI AMADALAVALASA MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT AND 1. I JYOTHIDEVI, W/O JANARDHANA RAO, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, HINDU OWNER OF THE VAN AP 30 V 7410, R/O. DOOR.NO. 3-87, THANA STREET, RAJAM VILLAGE 86MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, SRIKAKULAM. 3. KOMARI PARADESI NAIDU, S/O KANNAM NAIDU, DRIVER OF LORRY AP 31 TB 2288, R/O P.S.PETA, CHODAVARAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 4. M/S VELLANKI TRANSPORT, REP. V.PADMALATHA, OWNER OF LORRY AP 31 TB 2288, R/O N.E.LAYOUT, SEETHAMMADARA, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 MACMA NO. 502 OF 2022 VS,J. Counsel for the Appellant: 1. A RAVI SHANKAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. RAMA MOHAN RAO KOTHA 2. NIMMAGADDA REVATHI 3. The Court made the following: 3 MACMA NO. 502 OF 2022 VS,J. THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 502/2022 J U D G M E N T: 1. This Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (for short MACMA) has been preferred by the appellant/claimant seeking enhancement of compensation amount being aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 13.07.2022 in M.V.O.P.No.122 of 2017 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short MACT) –cum- I Additional District Judge, Srikakulam, awarding Rs.50,000/- towards compensation as against the claim of Rs.5,00,000/-. For the sake of convenience and to avoid confusion, the parties hereinafter are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tibunal i.e., appellant herein as Petitioner and Respondents herein as Respondents. 2. The claim petitioner being the injured (hereinafter referred to as injured), filed claim petition under sections 163-A and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rule 455 of the A.P Motor Vehicles Rules, 1898, claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- together with interest at 12% p.a., from the date of accident, till the date of realization and for costs. 3. The brief averments of the claim petition filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal are that - he was the driver of the Van bearing No.AP 30 V 7410. 4 MACMA NO. 502 OF 2022 VS,J. Respondent No.1 is the owner of the said van. Respondent No.2 is the insurer of the van. i. On 25.12.2015, petitioner was on duty and he was taking the load of granuals from Hyderabad to Visakhapatnam. At 2.30 p.m., when the van reached Ramavaram on NH-16, he intended to overtake another Truck bearing No.AP 31 TB 2288. However, when he was about to overtake the said truck, he noticed another vehicle coming opposite to their van and thus, suddenly he turned the van towards the above truck and dashed to it. In the said accident, the front part of the van crushed into cabin side and Petitioner sustained fracture of his right leg and he received multiple injuries. He was shifted to Government Hospital, Prattipadu for treatment. Later, he was referred to Government General Hospital, Kakinada. ii. On the complaint from respondent No.3 - truck driver, the Station House Officer, Jaggayyapeta Police Station registered a case in Crime No.188/2015 under sections 338 and 337 of I.P.C. The Investigation Officer investigated into the case and filed charge sheet against the petitioner. iii. Petitioner was aged 36 years, hale and healthy and in the accident, his right leg was amputated and he could not attend to any work. He pleaded that, he was earning not less than Rs.3,300/- per month. He suffered pain and agony 5 MACMA NO. 502 OF 2022 VS,J. and because of his permanent disability, his family suffered pecuniary loss and he had incurred Rs.1,00,000/- for the treatment and hence, the petition. 4. Respondents No. 1 and 3 remained ex parte. 5. Respondent No.2 filed written statement alleging that the petitioner received one injury and selected fake proper treatment and for the said reason, his leg was amputated. The accident occurred not only due to the negligence of the petitioner but also the negligence of the truck driver and consequently, the claim is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, a false case was registered against the petitioner on the complaint by the driver of the truck, bearing No.AP 31 TB 2288, that the claim is excessive, hence, prayed to dismissed the petition. 6. Respondent No.4 filed the counter (written statement), contending that there was no rash or negligence on the part of respondent No.3 - driver of the truck bearing No.AP 31 TB 2288 and the petitioner himself drove the van rashly and negligently and dashed against the truck on its rear side, the truck was insured and the insurance policy was in force and hence, respondent No.4 is not liable to pay any compensation. 7. Basing on the above pleadings the following issues were framed for inquiry/trial by the tribunal. 6 MACMA NO. 502 OF 2022 VS,J. 1) Whether the petitioner (driver of crime vehicle Van bearing No.AP 30 V 7410) is entitled to compensation as prayed for? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents? 2) To what relief? 8. During trial, petitioner himself got examined as P.W.1, Dr.S.Ramesh Chandra Kumar, Orthopedics, got examined as P.W.2 through Advocate Commissioner and got marked Ex.A.1 – Attested copy of First Information Report in Crime No. 188/2015 of Jaggampeta Police Station, Ex.A.2 - Attested copy of Motor Vehicle Inspector's report, Ex.A.3 - Attested copy of wound certificate issued by Government General Hospital, Kakinada, Ex.A.4 - Disability certificate issued by P.W.2, Ex.A.5 - Disability certificate issued by medical board, RIMS Hospital, Srikakulam. Ex.A.6 -Three photos with injuries; Ex.A.7 - Case sheet of Government Hospital, Kakinada, Ex.A.8 - Copy of Case Diary Part-I attested by Station House Officer, Jaggampeta; and Ex.Χ.1 - X-Ray. On behalf of Respondents, none were examined and no documents marked. 9. Upon hearing the learned Counsel for Petitioner as well as Respondents, upon perusing the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal partly allowed the claim application of petitioner by awarding Rs.50,000/- under Section 140(4) of M.V Act under “no fault liability”, with proportionate costs 7 MACMA NO. 502 OF 2022 VS,J. and interest at 9% p.a from the date of petition, till the date of realization, directing Respondents No.1 and 2 to deposit the said amount within one (01) month from the date of Order. 10. Being aggrieved by the said Order and Decree, the petitioner has preferred the present appeal on the ground that the Tribunal failed to take note that since annual income of the appellant is below Rs.40,000/- the Tribunal is empowered to treat the petition as one filed under section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act and the right leg of the petitioner was fractured and subsequently amputated, he is suffering from 55% disability, hence, ought to have awarded the compensation as prayed. 11. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant as well as the respondents. 12. Now the point for determination is – whether the order/award passed by the Tribunal needs any interference? 13. POINT: The present appeal has been preferred by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation amount, being aggrieved by the award passed by the Chaimrman, MACT –cum- I Additional District Judge, Srikakulam, in M.V.O.P.No.122 of 2017 dated 13.07.2022, wherein the Tribunal has awarded 8 MACMA NO. 502 OF 2022 VS,J. an amount of Rs.50,000/- under section 140(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act under “no fault liability” as against the claim of Rs.5,00,000/-. 14. On perusal of the Award, it can be observed that it is the case of the claimant that during the course of his employment, he met with an accident and in the said accident his right leg was amputated. In support of his case, a disability certificate was also filed vide Ex.A.4 and Ex.A.5 issued by P.W.2. Relying on the evidence of P.W.1 coupled with Ex.A.1 – attested copy of F.I.R in Crime No.188 of 2015 of Jaggampeta Police Station, and Ex.A.4 and Ex.A.5 – disability certificates, the Tribunal held that the accident had occurred due to the petitioner‟s self negligence during the course of his employment, therefore, the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 163-A and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act is not maintainable, which in the opinion of this Court is well reasoned and needs no interference. 15. However, the Tribunal relying on “Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Sarada G 1 ” and “United Insurance Company Limited Vs. C.Ramulu2” awarded Rs.50,000/- under sub-section (4) of Section 140 under „no fault liability‟ which is needs no interference. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 1 2010 ACJ 977 2 2014 ACJ 493 9 MACMA NO. 502 OF 2022 VS,J. 16. Accordingly, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA KS Dated 23.02.2026. 10 MACMA NO. 502 OF 2022 VS,J. 225 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 502/2022 DATED 23.02.2026 KS