APHC010390292019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3505] MONDAY, THE 29th DAY OF JUNE 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1194/2019 Between: 1. SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD, REP. BY ITS MANAGER-LEGAL, E-8, EPIP, RIICO, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, SITAPURA, JAIPUR-302022, RAJASTHAN STATE (INSURER OF THE AUTO BEARING NO.AP02- TB-0263 VIDE POLICY NO.417010/31/15/001426, VALID FROM 28.1.2015 TO 27.1.2016) ...APPELLANT AND 1. BOMMAIAHGARI LAKSHMIKANTH, SON OF VEERAPPA NAIDU, AGED 25 YEARS, HINDU, WORKING AS SOFT WARE ENGINEER, RIO D.NO.7/183, PRAKASH ROAD, ANANTAPURAMU CITY. 2. EEDIGA THATHAIAH, , SON OF NAILAPPA, AGED 44 YEARS, HINDU. RIO KAMMURU VILLAGE, KUDERU MANDAL, ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT. (DRIVER OF AUTO BEARING NO.AP02-TB0263). 3. ANKEVALLU SREENIVASULU, , SON OF A.RAMANJINEYULU, MAJOR, HINDU, RESIDING AT D.NO.1-252, ANANTHASAGAR COLONY, 2 ANANTAPURAMU RURAL, ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT. (OWNER OF AUTO BEARING NO.AP02-TB-0263) ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC before the High Courtpleased to allbw this appeal by setting aside the judgment and decree passed in O.P.No.9 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum- I Addl. District Judge, Anantapuramu, Dt.05th day of July, 2019, and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2019 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 111 days in filing the M.A.C.M.A. against the Judgment and Decree passed in O.P.No.9 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - I Addl. District Judge, Anantapuramu, Dt.05th day of July, 2019, and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2019 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 operation of the decree and Judgment in 0.P.No. 9 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - I Addl. District Judge, Anantapuramu, Dt.05th day of July, 2019, pending disposal of the main M.A.C.M.A., and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2021 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 vacate the interim stay granted in IA. 2/2020 in MACMA 1194/2019 dated 4- 03-2020 and permitted the petitioner to withdraw the deposited amount and to pass 3 Counsel for the Appellant: 1. GUDI SRINIVASU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. INENI VENKATA PRASAD 4 The Court made the following judgment: Aggrieved by order dated 05.07.2019 in MVOP No.9 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Anantapuramu, the present appeal is preferred by Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, questioning the quantum of compensation. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they were referred before the Tribunal. 3. The petitioner filed petition under Sections 140 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the rules made thereunder, claiming compensation of Rs.12,00,000/- on account of injuries sustained by him while he was travelling in auto bearing registration No.AP02-TB0-0263. 4. The case of the petitioner is that, on 22.09.2015, he was travelling in the offending auto, when it reached Rachanapalli Village, the 1st respondent/driver of the auto, drove the vehicle in rash and negligent manner at high speed and lost control over it, resulting in the auto turning turtle. Consequently, the petitioner sustained fracture injuries to his left thigh and left knee. Immediately he was taken to Government General Hospital, 5 Anantapuramu, and thereafter shifted to YSR Hospital, Anantapuramu, where he underwent surgery during which steel rods were implanted. 5. It is the further case of the petitioner that, on account of the injuries, he suffered permanent disability, which was assessed at 35%. It was further case of the petitioner that, he spent more than Rs.1,00,000/- towards medical treatment, attendant charges, transportation and extra nourishment etc and further contended that he requires future medical treatment also. It was further stated that, the petitioner was hale and healthy as on the date of the accident, aged about 25 years, and was working as Software Engineer earning Rs.30,000/- per month. It was further stated that, his entire family was depending on his earnings. In view of the accident, he became permanently disabled and was unable to attend his day to day activities as he was before and is not in a position to stand and walk for prolonged period. 6. A case in Cr.No.174 of 2015 under Section 337 IPC was registered on the Anantapuramu Rural Police Station against the 1st respondent/driver of the Auto. In those circumstances, the 6 petitioner filed claim petitioner before the Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.12,00,000/-. 7. The respondent Nos.1 & 2 remained ex-parte before the Tribunal. The 3rd respondent-Insurance Company filed a counter affidavit stating that, the accident occurred due to overcrowding in the auto, as the driver had permitted more number of passengers than capacity. It was also disputed the alleged permanent disability of 35% and contended that there was violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, as the driver of the offending auto did not possess valid driving license. It was further contended that, the 3rd respondent-Insurance Company was not liable to pay any compensation and that the compensation claimed by the petitioner was excessive. 8. In order to prove the case of the petitioner, PWs.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked on his behalf. Copies of C1 and X1 were marked through witnesses. On the other hand, no oral evidence was adduced by the 3rd respondent, however copy of the insurance policy was marked as Ex.B1. Considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal by order under challenge awarded an amount of Rs.11,99,000/- 7 towards compensation under various heads. Questioning the same, the present appeal is preferred. 9. Heard Sri Gudi Srinivasu, counsel appearing for the appellant, Sri Ineni Venkata Prasad, counsel appearing for the 1st respondent/claimant. The 2nd respondent refused the notice, therefore it is deemed service. Since the 3rd respondent remained ex-parte before the Tribunal, this Court proceeded with the matter as the appeal is of the year 2019. 10. Perused the material available on record. 11. The counsel for the appellant would submit that the accident was occurred due to the negligence of the 1st respondent/driver of the auto, inasmuch as the 1st respondent allowed more number of passengers than the capacity. In order to substantiate the same, except making an averment in the counter affidavit, nothing was placed on record to prove the said contention. On the other hand, the petitioner has filed copies of FIR and charges sheet which were marked in Exs.A1 to A3. A perusal of the said document show that the accident was occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the offending auto. In such circumstances, it can be held that the accident was 8 occurred due to the negligence of the 1st respondent/auto driver. As already noted supra though it was stated that the auto was overloaded with passengers, the same was not proved by the insurance company, hence this point is answered in favour of the claimant and against the appellant. 12. Coming to the quantum of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is concerned, in order to prove the case of the petitioner, he has filed copies of wound certificate, disability certificate which were marked in Exs.A2 and A4. Apart from the same, the petitioner also filed copy of the discharge summery issued by YSR Hospital which was marked in Ex.X1. A perusal of the disability certificate, it was mentioned that, in view of the injuries received by him, the petitioner suffered with the disability of 35%. The said certificate was issued by Dr.A.Jagannath who was examined as PW.3. A perusal of the evidence of PW.3 would show that, he along with other members of the Medical Board examined the petitioner and issued disability certificate dated 22.09.2015 assessing the disability of the petitioner as 35% which is permanent in nature due to post traumatic squeal of right limb fractureshoft femur (compound) open type due to RTA. He further deposed that all the wounds healed and fracture femur shoft 9 united with nail insitu. Due to the injuries, the petitioner’s left knee joint movements were restricted and the petitioner has got difficulty in long standing, walking, sitting, squatting, cross legging, brisk walking, climbing stairs and running etc. PW.3 further deposed that, the implants are to be removed in future. Apart from the same, the petitioner also examined Manager of Wipro Company as PW.2, who categorically deposed that the petitioner joined in the company as Software Engineer-trainee on 27.06.2011 and was getting salary of Rs.23,000/- per month. During the cross-examination, PW.2 stated that the petitioner without completing the period of four years as trainee left the job. Having considered the evidence of PW.2, the Tribunal did not believe the case of the petitioner that he was drawing an amount of Rs.23,000/- as salary. However, in view of the fact that the petitioner was working as Software Engineer, the Tribunal fixed his monthly income at Rs.15,000/- and accordingly computed the compensation that is entitled to be received by the petitioner. 13. Further, in support of his case, the petitioner has also filed salary certificate issued by Wipro which was marked as Ex.A5. After threadbare enquiry, the Tribunal had awarded an amount of Rs.11,99,000/- as compensation to the petitioner. Though the 10 counsel for the appellant had contended that the compensation awarded was excessive, as already noted supra, the appellant/Insurance Company miserably failed to place anything on record to disprove the evidence of the petitioner. In view of the above discussion the order under challenge does not require any interference by this Court. Accordingly, the present appeal 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.29.06.2026 DSB 11 83 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR MACMA No.1194 of 2019 Date 29.06.2026 U DSB