1 APHC010615242022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] TUESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 495/2022 Between: 1. M/S.THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, REP.BY ITS MANAGER, LVR CLUB COMPLEX, GUNTUR ...APPELLANT AND 1. NALLAGORLA VENKATA SUBBA RAOCLAIMANT BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, S/O SUBBAIAH, HINDU, MALE, AGED 35 YEARS, EMPLOYEE, R/O. 2/4, NAVABHARAT NAGAR, GUNTUR CITY, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2. KANDIMALLA SRIDEVI, R/O. 46-15-15/2, DANAVAIPET, RAJAHMANDRY, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 3. BATHINA KRISHNA, S/O RAMANA, HINDU, AGED 28 YEARS, R/O. 7- 79/1, NANDAMURI NAGAR, GOPALAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Appellant: 1. KRISHNANAND VADAKATTU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. SIVA PRASAD KATAKAMSETTY The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 495/2022 JUDGMENT: 1. This Motor Accident Claims Miscellaneous Appeal (for short MACMA) has been preferred by the 2nd Respondent- M/s. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Rep. by its Manager, LVR Club Complex, Guntur, challenging the Order/Award and Decree passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short MACT) –cum- IV Additional District Judge, Guntur in M.V.O.P.No.1195 of 2016 dated 01.08.2020, wherein the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.4,04,000/- as against the claim of Rs.6,75,000/-. For the sake of convenience and to avoid confusion, the parties herein after are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal i.e., Appellant herein as 2nd respondent, 1st respondent herein as petitioner, and 2nd and 3rd respondents herein as 1st and 3rd respondents. 2. The Petitioner being injured filed claim petition in M.V.O.P.No.1195 of 2016 claiming compensation of Rs.6,75,000/- together with interest and costs for the injuries sustained by him in an accident. 3. Brief averments of the claim petition of claimants in MVOP No.1195 of 2016 are that: On 04.03.2013 at about 4.00 P.M., while the petitioner was coming on his motor cycle bearing No.AP07 5732 on the left side of the road margin near Electrical Sub-Station, Piduguralla, Addanki Narketpalli High Way 3 Piduguralla, Guntur District, the driver of the lorry bearing NO.AP05 TB 1125 (hereinafter referred to offending vehicle) who is the 3rd respondent, while driving the same in a rash and negligent manner, coming from opposite direction, came extreme wrong side and hit the motor cycle, on which, the petitioner was coming. As a result, petitioner sustained severe injuries including (1) Comminuted depressed fracture of left tibia of left leg (2) Comminuted fracture of right thigh bone. Piduguralla Police Station registered the same as a case in Cr.No.50/2013 against the driver of the lorry - 3rd respondent, investigated into and filed charge sheet for the offence punishable under section 338 IPC. i. The petitioner was an Assistant Lineman in Electricity Department, drawing salary is Rs.12,000/- per month, as on the date of accident. ii. Kothapet, Guntur, where he was treated as inpatient from 04.03.2013 to 16.03.2013 and during that period petitioner underwent major operations to his both legs by inserting implants. After discharge, he attended for follow up treatment as an out-patient. The petitioner spent Rs.1,50,000/- for his treatment and he has to spend huge amount for his future treatment. The petitioner was reimbursed the amount spent by him for his treatment by his department, he spent a sum of Rs.20,000/- from his pocket for extra nourishment, attendant charges etc.,. Despite long treatment his left knee and ankle joints, right hip and knee joints are badly restricted and he has been deprived of natural pleasure of walking, sitting, squatting, climbing etc., due to the disability caused in the 4 accident. The petitioner being an Assistant Lineman has to climb electric poles, for which he requires physical fitness. The petitioner lost his earning power in addition to the mental agony and suffering due to the injuries caused in the accident. iii. 1st respondent is the owner, 2nd respondent is the insurer and 3rd respondent is the driver, of the offending vehicle and they are responsible for the negligent act of the driver and they are liable to pay compensation severally and jointly to the petitioner. 4. The respondent No. 2 filed written statement by denying the factum and manner of the accident said to have been occurred on 04.03.2013 at 4.00 PM near Electrical Sub-Station, Piduguralla, Addanki-Narketpalli High Way and also denied the offending lorry was insured with the 2nd respondent as on the date of alleged accident. It further stated that it had no valid permit and further the driver of the offending vehicle had no valid and effective driving license to drive the vehicle. Hence, the first respondent being the owner of the offending vehicle violated the policy conditions. The owner and insurer of motor cycle bearing No.AP07 5732 which was involved in the accident are proper and necessary parties to the claim petition, due to non-joinder of the said parties, the claim petition is liable to be dismissed. The rate of interest to be granted only is @ 5.25% as per the guide lines of Nationalized Banks. The claim of the petitioner is excessive and liable to be dismissed. 5 5. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial. 1) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligence of driver of lorry bearing No.AP05 TB 1125? 2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the accident, if so to what amount and from whom? 3) To what relief? 6. On behalf of claim petitioner, Petitioner himself got examined as P.W.1, the Doctor who treated the petitioner by name Dr. K.Rama Prasad got examined as P.W.2 and one Jaladi Hari Babu, Executive Engineer, got examined as P.W.3 and also got marked Ex.A.1- certified copy of First Information Report in Cr.No.50 of 2013 of Piduguralla police station, Ex.A.2 – certified copy of charge sheet, Ex.A.3 – certified copy of wound certificate, Ex.A.4 - certified copy of salary certificate, Ex.A.5 – certificate of the petitioner issued by P.W.3 with regard to his leave, Ex.A.6 – credit cash sanction letter and Ex.X.1 – case sheet of petitioner. On behalf of Respondent No.2 insurance company, its employee by name SK. Mastan Vali, examined as R.W.1 and got marked Ex.B.1 – cheque, Ex.B.2 – cheque return memo, Ex.B.3 – true copy of policy, Ex.B.4 – office copy of letter, Ex.B.5 – postal acknowledgment, Ex.B.6 – office copy of letter, Ex.B.7 – Postal acknowledgment, and Ex.B.8 – cancelled policy. 6 7. Upon hearing both counsel, upon perusing the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition by awarding compensation of Rs.4,04,000/- together with proportionate costs and interest at 7.5% p.a, from the date of petition till the date of deposit, making Respondents No.1 to 3 jointly and severally liable to pay compensation amount, directing 2nd respondent to deposit the compensation amount on its behalf and on behalf of respondents No.1 and 3, within a period of one (01) month from the date of award and to recover the same from respondents No.1 and 3 under pay and recover policy. 8. Being aggrieved by the said order and decree, the appellant/2nd respondent i.e., the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, represented by its Manager, LVR Club Complex, Guntur, has preferred the present appeal on the ground that the Tribunal failed to follow the fundamental principle that in the case of dishonor of a cheque issued by the owner of the vehicle towards premium and the insurance company cancelled the policy of the said insured vehicle, intimating about the dishonor of cheque issued for renewal of policy, the appellant company is not liable to pay any compensation and the Tribunal erred in fixing liability on the insurance company under pay and recovery policy. Hence, prayed to allow the appeal, with costs, by setting aside the Order and Decree passed in MVOP No.1195 of 2016 dated 01.08.2022 by the Chairman, MACT –cum- IV Additional District Judge, Guntur. 7 9. On perusal of the award passed by the Tribunal, it can be observed that the claimant who is injured himself got examined as P.W.1 and stated about the manner of accident in his chief examination. Hence, relying upon the evidence of P.W.1 coupled with Ex.A.1 – certified copy of F.I.R and Ex.A.2 – certified copy of charge sheet, in Cr.No.50 of 2013 of Piduguralla police station, which shows that after due investigation, it was established that the accident had occurred due to the negligence of Respondent No.3, resulting the injuries to the petitioner, the Tribunal safely concluded that the accident had occurred due to the negligence of Respondent No.3. 10. On perusal of the Award, it can also be observed that the Tribunal by relying upon the evidence of R.W.1 who categorically deposed that Ex.B.3 - policy was issued after receipt of Ex.B.1 - cheque issued by one P.Jatadarudu who is not the owner of the offending vehicle and Ex.B.1 – policy was not cancelled as on the date of accident i.e., on 04.03.2013 but it was cancelled only on 08.03.2013, the Tribunal held that 3rd respondent was responsible for the accident, as the offending vehicle was insured with 2nd respondent insurance company vide Ex.B.3 – insurance policy, hence, Respondents 1 to 3 are jointly and severally made liable to pay compensation amount. 11. Coming to the quantum of compensation, basing on the evidence of P.W.3 – Jaladi Hari Babu, Executive Engineer, Electricity Department who deposed that the Petitioner worked as contract Junior Lineman in his department 8 and marked Ex.A.4 – salary certificate of petitioner got marked, which shows that the net salary of the petitioner was Rs.8,208/-. P.W.3 also deposed that the petitioner was on medical leave for a period of 40 days from 03.03.2013 to 11.04.2013 and on earned leave on medical grounds from 12.04.2013 to 30.06.2013 for 80 days and also availed extraordinary leave from 01.07.2013 to 18.09.2013 for 80 days on medical grounds. Totally, the petitioner was on leave on medical grounds for 200 days. Through P.W.3, Ex.A.5 – leave certificate relating to the leave of the petitioner was also got marked. As the gross salary of the petitioner as on the date of accident was Rs.13,374/-, the Tribunal rightly awarded Rs.89,000/- for the loss of leave period of 200 days. 12. As per evidence of P.W.2 – Dr. K.Rama Prasad, Petitioner was admitted in Lalitha Super Specialty Hospital, Guntur on 04.03.2013 with the following injuries – 1) Compound fracture digital and femur right side, 2) tibia fracture left knee upper end of tibia and he operated with open reduction internal fixation of right knee and open reduction internal fixation of left knee, both injuries are grievous in nature and P.W.1 required further surgery for removal of implants. P.W.2 further deposed that petitioner is having some restricted movements of right leg to the extent of 90 to 100 degrees and there would not be any further movement beyond that extent and the total extent of knee joint movement was 150 degrees, as P.W.1 working as Lineman in electricity department, it is difficult for him to climb electrical poles because of above 9 restricted movements, he cannot sit and squat, permanent disability is at 20% to the entire body, but, not issued any disability certificate. Therefore, the tribunal awarded Rs.3,00,000/- for pain and suffering, trauma due to injuries, disability and loss of amenities; Rs.15,000/- towards transportation, nourishing food and miscellaneous expenditure, in total Rs.4,04,000/- along with interest at 7.5% per annum which is neither illegal nor excessive in the opinion of this court. There is no reason to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal. Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 13. In the result, 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 10.03.2026. 10 293 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 495/2022 DATED 10.03.2026 KS