APHC010676312022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] MONDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 541/2022 Between: 1. FUTURE GENERALLI INDIAINSURANCE COMPANY LTD, REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, D.NO.7-1-21A, APDL ESTATES, FIRST FLOOR, OPP. COUNTRY CLUB, BEGUMPET, HYDERABAD - 500 016. ...APPELLANT AND 1. Y PRATAP, S/O. SUBBARAMAIAH, HINDU, AGED, 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT PUDIPATLA, TIRUPATI RURAL MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT - 517 505. 2. D SRINIVASA RAO, S/O. SUBBA RAO, CAR OWNER, D.NO.49-438/2, CHINTAL BABU NAGAR, RANGAREDDY DISTRICT - 500 054. 3. K SUDHARSAN REDDY, S/O. HANUMANTH REDDY, CAR DRIVER, D.NO. 2-64, YETHAM, KODAIR, MEHBOOB NAGAR, TELANGANA - 509 102. ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be pleased tomay be pleated to set-aside the Order and Decree passed in M.V.O.P. No. 123 of 2016, dated 06.05.2022 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - X Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Tirupati, Chittoor District, and may be pleased to pass such IA NO: 1 OF 2022 2 VS,J MAMCMA No.541 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 grant interim stay all further proceedings including execution of the Award in MVOP.No. 123 of 2016, dated 06-05-2022 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - X Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirupati, Chittoor District, in the interest of justice and be pleased to pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. NAGUMANTRI NAGESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. The Court made the following: 3 VS,J MAMCMA No.541 of 2022 JUDGMENT: The appeal is preferred by the appellant/insurance company challenging the order and decree dated 06.05.2022 passed in M.V.O.P.No.123 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-X Additional District Judge, Tirupati, wherein the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.4,27,967/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Twenty Seven Thousand Nine Hundred and Sixty Seven only) to the petitioner/claimant, as against the claim of Rs.5,00,000/-, for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicel accident that occurred on 22.10.2015. 02. For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 03. The case of the claimants, in brief, is as follows: On 22.10.2015 at 9.30 a.m., the 3rd respondent, while driving the car bearing No.AP-28-CF-9959, in a rash and negligent manner on the wrong side of the road, dashed against the motorcycle on which the petitioner and his son were proceeding near Syndicate Bank, Mukkavaripalle Cross, Obulavaripalle Mandal, on Koduru–Rajampeta Main road. Due to which, the petitioner sustained grievous injures and his son died on the spot. The petitioner was initially treated at Railway Kodur and thereafter shifted to Narayanadri Hospital, Tirupati for better treatment. A case in Crime No.87 of 2015 under Sections 337 and 304-A IPC was registered by Obulavaripalle Police Station. 4 VS,J MAMCMA No.541 of 2022 04. It is the contention of the petitioner that he was aged about 35 years at the time of accident, working as a coolie and earning Rs.500/- per day and also earning Rs.1,00,000/- per annum through agriculture. Due to the injuries sustained in the accident, he suffered permanent disability and loss of earning capacity. Hence, he claimed compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- from the respondents. 05. Before the Tribunal, the 1st and 3rd respondents were set ex parte. 06. The 2nd respondent–Insurance Company filed its counter denying the claim petition. It was contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the rider of the motorcycle. It was further contended that the policy relied upon by the petitioner is fabricated and that no valid insurance policy was in force as on the date of the accident. According to the 2nd respondent, no policy was issued in favour of the 1st respondent in respect of the offending vehicle, and that the petitioner and the 1st respondent colluded with each other and created false and fabricated documents. It is also stated that the Insurance Company has initiated steps for criminal prosecution against the petitioner, the 1st respondent, and others concerned. The 2nd respondent further contended that no charge sheet has been filed by the police so far, that the petitioner has not suffered any permanent or functional disability, and that the compensation claimed is untenable. It was also contended that the owner and insurer of the motorcycle were not impleaded as parties, and therefore, the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary 5 VS,J MAMCMA No.541 of 2022 parties. On these grounds, the 2nd respondent prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 07. Basing on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: “1. Whether the accident is caused due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.3 while driving the Car bearing No.AP 28 CF 9959? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, from whom? 3. To what relief? 08. On behalf of the petitioner, P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A10 were marked. On behalf of the 2nd respondent/insurance company, R.W.1 was examined and Exs.B1 and B2 were marked. 09. After hearing both parties and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition with the following terms: “In the result, the petition is allowed partly by awarding compensation amount of Rs.4,27,967-00 (Rupees Four Lakhs, Twenty seven Thousand Nine Hundred and Sixty Seven only) with proportionate costs to the petitioner and with interest payable at 6 percent per annum. The respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the said compensation with future interest at 6% p.a., and costs as above within one month from the date of this award. On such deposit, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the entire compensation amount of Rs.4,27,967 along with accrued interest thereon and costs.” “ 6 VS,J MAMCMA No.541 of 2022 10. Aggrieved by the said award, the Insurance Company preferred this appeal contending that the policy marked as Ex.B1 was valid only from 29.09.2014 to 28.09.2015 and was not in force on the date of the accident i.e., 22.10.2015. It is further contended that Ex.A10 is a fabricated policy, allegedly valid from 29.09.2014 to 28.09.2015, created to cover the date of accident with the same policy number, and that the Tribunal erred in fastening liability on the Insurance Company. 11. Heard Mr. N.Nageswararao, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the petitioner. 12. Now the point for consideration is: Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference? POINT: 13. On a careful perusal of the material available on record, it is evident that though the 2nd respondent–Insurance Company has taken a specific plea that the policy relied upon by the claimant is fabricated one and that no policy was in force as on the date of the accident, it has failed to adduce any cogent and convincing evidence to substantiate the said contention. Except marking Ex.B1, no independent evidence was produced to establish that Ex.A10 policy is false or fabricated. In the absence of any such proof, the plea of the Insurance Company cannot be accepted. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly 7 VS,J MAMCMA No.541 of 2022 fastened the liability on the Insurance Company, and the said finding warrants no interference. 14. With regard to the quantum of compensation, though the petitioner claimed that he was earning Rs.500/- per day as a coolie and Rs.1,00,000/- per annum from agriculture, no documentary evidence was produced in support of the same. The Tribunal, considering that coolie work would not be available throughout the month, rightly assessed the monthly income at Rs.6,000/- (Rs.72,000/- per annum), which is just and proper. Based on the evidence of P.W.2, the doctor who treated the petitioner, which corroborates the version of P.W.1 with respect to the injuries sustained, and as no contradiction material was brought out in the cross-examination by the counsel for the Insurance Company to discredit their evidence, the Tribunal rightly assessed the permanent disability at 15%. Applying the multiplier of „16‟ applicable to the age of the petitioner (35 years), as per the principle laid down in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation1, the loss of earning capacity was correctly calculated at Rs.1,72,800/- (Rs.72,000 × 15% × 16). However, the Tribunal has erred in calculation and taken it as Rs.1,72,000/-. In addition, the Tribunal awarded Rs.2,10,967/- towards medical expenses as evidence by Exs.A4 and A6/medical bills, Rs.20,000/- towards attendant and transport expenses and Rs.25,000/- towards pain and suffering, in total the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.4,28,767/-, which is just and proper and cannot 12009 ACJ 1298 8 VS,J MAMCMA No.541 of 2022 be said to be excessive or on higher side. This Court finds no error in the order of the Tribunal granting the said compensation to the petitioner. Accordingly, the point is answered. 15. Viewed from any angle, this Court does not find any grounds to interfere with the award impugned in the appeal. 16. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V. SUJATHA Date: 02.03.2026 KGR