APHC010085112021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3505] FRIDAY, THE 17th DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 158/2021 Between: 1. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD.,, REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, RJAHMUNDRY. ...APPELLANT AND 1. BODHIPU SATYANARAYANA, S/O. LATE LACHANNA, 47 YRS., R/O- SRIRANGAPATNAM, KORUKONDA MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DIST. 2. KANNABATHULA BAPIRAJU, S/O. SIMHACHALAM, 36 YRS, DRIVER OF LORRY, R/O. D.NO- 1-26, BURUGUPUDI, KORUKONDA MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DIST 3. LALITHA CONSTRUCTIONS, REP. BY CH. LALITHA, W/O. RAMESH, 40 YRS, OWNER OF LORRY, R/O.KATAVARAM, SEETHANAGARAM MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DIST. ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC before the High Courtappellants begs to prefer this memorandum of appeal being 2 aggrieved by the decree and judgment passed in MVOP- 101 OF 2014, dated 29-05-2017, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -cum-V ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE- EAST GODAVARI AT RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM 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 condone the delay of 883 days in filing the appeal against MVOP- 101 OF 2014, dated 29-05-2017 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -Cum- V ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE- EAST GODAVARI AT RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM and to pass IA NO: 2 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 stay of all further proceedings including the execution of decree and award dt. 29-5-2017 in MVOP- 101 OF 014, On the file of MACT-CUM-V ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE ,EAST GODAVARI AT RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM, pending disposal of the above appeal in the interest of justice and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 May be pleased to allow the Petitioner / Respondent / Claimant to receive the additional documents, i.e. (1) Xerox copy of Disability Certificate Dt. 12.03.2020 and pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. SRINIVASA RAO VUTLA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 3 1. VARREY VENTAKATA NAGAVISHNU TEJA 4 The Court made the following judgment: The present appeal is filed by the United India Insurance Company Limited, questioning order dated 29.05.2017, in MVOP No.101 of 2014, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge, East Godavari District at Rajamahendravaram. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they were referred before the Tribunal. 3. The petitioner filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, together with the rules made thereunder, seeking composition of Rs.2,00,000/-, on account of the injuries sustained by him in the accident that occurred on 08.12.2005, in which, the offending lorry bearing Registration No.AP 5 V 177 was involved. 4. The case of the petitioner was that, he boarded auto bearing registration No.AP 5 V 4901. When the auto reached Nookalamma temple, the 1st respondent/driver of the offending lorry, came at high speed in rash and negligent manner and dashed the auto in which the petitioner was travelling. As a result of which, the auto turned up-side down, thereby the petitioner sustained grievous injuries and fracture on his right leg and knee, 5 apart from other injuries. Immediately the petitioner was taken to the Government Hospital, Rajahmundry, and was discharged after six (06) weeks with an advice to take follow up treatment. It was the case of the petitioner that, due to the fracture of right leg, he became permanently disabled and is unable to drive the vehicle. It was further stated that, the petitioner was aged 40 years and he was hale and healthy as on the date of the accident. It was his further case that he was earning Rs.10,000/- per month by working as a driver of a school van in Saraswathi Vidyaniketan School. It was further stated that in view of the injuries sustained by him, he lost earning capacity and the entire family was depending on his earnings. In those circumstances, he approached the Tribunal by filing the above claim petition. 5. The respondent Nos.1 & 2 remained ex-parte before the Tribunal. The 3rd respondent/Insurance Company filed counter affidavit resisting the claim of the petitioner. The 3rd respondent contended that the claim petition was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, inasmuch as the petitioner had failed to array the driver and the owner of the auto in which he was travelling, despite there was head-on collision between the said auto and the offending lorry. It was further contended that the offending 6 lorry was not insured with the 3rd respondent as on the date of the accident and, therefore, the 3rd respondent was not liable to pay any compensation, much less the compensation claimed by the petitioner. It was further stated that the petitioner has to prove the disability by placing necessary documentary evidence. With the above pleadings, the 3rd respondent prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 6. In order to prove the case of the petitioner, he was examined as PW.1 and Dr.R.Parthasaradhi, who treated the petitioner, was examined as PW.2. The petitioner also filed documents which were marked in Exs.A1 to A3 and Ex.X1 was marked through PW.2. On the other hand, the 3rd respondent got marked the policy of insurance as Ex.B1, however, no oral evidence was adduced on its behalf. 7. The Tribunal, having considered the oral and documentary evidence placed before it, by order under challenge, awarded compensation of Rs.87,800/- together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, from the date of petition till the date of realization, by fastening the liability on respondent Nos.2 & 3. Aggrieved by the same, the Insurance Company preferred the present appeal. 7 8. Heard Sri Srinivasarao Vutla, counsel for the appellant and Ms. Varrey Venkata Nagavishnu Teja, counsel appearing for the 1st respondent. As the 2nd respondent remained ex-parte, issuance of notice to 2nd respondent is dispensed with. Despite service of notice, there is no appearance on behalf of the 3rd respondent. 9. Perused the record. 10. The counsel for the appellant would contend that the accident was head-on collision with the auto and the offending lorry and in such circumstances it is incumbent for the petitioner to implead the driver, owner and insurer of the auto as party respondents to the claim petition. In order to substantiate the same, the 3rd respondent neither adduced any oral evidence nor placed any documentary evidence. In such circumstances, the contention of the appellant cannot be countenanced. On the contrary, the petitioner had filed copies of FIR and charge sheet which were marked as Exs.A1 & A3. A perusal of the above documents would show that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending lorry. Further, it is to be noted that, nothing prevented the respondent Nos.1 & 2 to file a complaint against the driver or the owner of the auto, if at all 8 there was any contributory negligence on part of the driver of the auto. Admittedly, no such complaint was filed. 11. For all the aforesaid reasons, this Court does not find force in the contention of the counsel for the appellant and accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of the claimant and against the Insurance Company. 12. Coming to the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioner filed copy of wound certificate, which was marked as Ex.A2. Ex.A2 was issued by Government Medical Officer, Rajahmundry. Further, the petitioner also examined the doctor who issued Ex.A2 as PW.2. A perusal of the evidence of PW.2 would show that the petitioner sustained technically compound fracture of the bicondylar fracture of the right tibia which is grievous in nature. He further deposed that he conducted a surgery to the petitioner on 03.01.2006, i.e., open reduction and internal fixation with T & L candular butters plates and screws. He further deposed that there was an abrasion over the right side of the neck, which is simple in nature. 13. By taking into consideration of the evidence of PW.2 coupled with the wound certificate which was marked as Ex.A2, the Tribunal had awarded just compensation by following the 9 judgments rendered by this Court. Though, the counsel for the appellant strenuously contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was excessive, as already noted supra, the appellant miserably failed before the Tribunal to disprove the evidence of the petitioner by placing any material on record. In such circumstances, the contention of the counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted. 14. Viewed from any angle, there are no merits in the present appeal and accordingly the same 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.17.07.2026 DSB 10 28 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR MACMA No.158 of 2021 Date 17.07.2026 U DSB