CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS 177 of 2024 on 19 December 2018

1. S.Jaya Kumar, S/o.S.Sundar Ftaju, Hindu age about 49 years, residingAt D.No.2-1.26, Pachansipalli village and Post, Chittoor Rural andMandal, Chittoor District,,At D.No.2-1.26, Pachansipalli village and Post, Chittoor Rural andMandal, Chittoor District,,

2. K.Chenchaiah, S/o.late K.Subba Rao, Hindu, aged about 37 years,residing at .D.Nio.26-2-1388, .Rarnaiayam Street, Venktareddynagar,Nellore District.residing at .D.Nio.26-2-1388, .Rarnaiayam Street, Venktareddynagar,Nellore District.

3. Sri Balaji Spun Pipe Industnes, Rep. by its sole proprietorNeliore(Owner), Residinci at D.No.80/1 ,Padarapalli KP, Housing BoardRoad, Nellore.Neliore(Owner), Residinci at D.No.80/1 ,Padarapalli KP, Housing BoardRoad, Nellore.

...Respondents

This appeal coming on for,hearing and upon perusing the grounds ofappeal, the Judgment andDecree-; of the Lower Court andthe materialpapers in the Suit and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Gudi Srinivasa,AdvocateonbehalfoftheAppellant andSriM.S.BanuPrasadRao,Advocate for Respondents.

This Couit Doth ORDER and DECREE that the Decree of the LowerCourt be and herebyss contirmed and this Civil Miscellaneous AppealisDismissed and this Courl: Doth further Order and Decree that there benoorder as to Costs in this Civil yiscellaneous Appeal.

Sd/- U. SRIDEVIASSISTANT REGISTRAR

To

//TF^llE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

1. The Chairperson, Moto^- Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- IX AdditionalDistrict Judge, Chittoor,,District Judge, Chittoor,,

2. Two CD Copies

RAM

HIGH COURT

DATED;07/04/2025

DECREE

MACMA,No.177 of 2024

DISMISSING THE MAGMAWITHOUT COSTS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

MONDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF APRILTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENTTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS

lyiOTOR AC_CIDBNT CIVIL MiSCELLANEIOUS APPEAL NO: 177 OF 2024

Appeal under Section 173 of M.V.Actagainst the Judgment anddecree dated 22-02-2023 in M.V.O.P.No.111 / 2019 on the file of the Courtof the Chairperson, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IX AdditionalDistrict Judge, Chittoor.

Between:

Genera! Insuraince Company Limited, Representedby itsrdBranch Manager, Tirupati, having its office at D.No.19-3-13(M)[3']Floor,Kenigunta Road, Tirupati.

AND

...Appellant

At D No'? Tdfi'’Hindu age about 49 years, residingMandatChifoorSiofMandatChifoorSiof

2. K.Chenchaiah S/o.iate K.Subba Rao, Hindu, aged about 37 yearsSpun Pipe Industries, Rep. by its sole proprietorSpun Pipe Industries, Rep. by its sole proprietorRoSnSb'Housing Board lA NO: 2 OF 2024

...Respondents

Petition under Section 151 GPC praying that in the circumstancesstated in the affidavit filed in support of the petitionthe High Court may bepleased to grant stay of a!! further proceedings pursuant to the decree andjudgment dated the 22”^ day of February 2023 passedM.V.O.P.No.111/2019 on thefile of the Motor Accident ClaimsTribunal- Cum-IX

AdditionalDistrictJudge,Chittoor.includingexecutionproceedingspending disposal of the main M.A.C.M.A.

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI GUD! SRlNiVASU

Counsel for the Responclerits: SRI M.S.BANL) PRASAD RAOThe Court made the following order; THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS

M.A.C.M.A.No.177 of 2024

JUDGMENT;

This appeal is directed against the order of the Chairman,MotorVehicleAccidentClaimsTribunal-cum-lXAdditionalDistrict Judge at Chittoor (hereinafter called as ‘the Tribunal’) inM.V.O.P.No.lll of 2019 dated 22.02.2023.

2. The appellant is the insurer of the Trailer Lorry bearingNo.AP 21 Z 5858 (hereinafter referred to as “crime loriy”). TherespondentNo.listheclaimantbeforetheTribunal.Therespondent Nos.2 and 3 are the driver and owner of theseddcrime lorry.No.AP 21 Z 5858 (hereinafter referred to as “crime loriy”). TherespondentNo.listheclaimantbeforetheTribunal.Therespondent Nos.2 and 3 are the driver and owner of theseddcrime lorry.

3. Forthesakeof convenience,thepartieshereinafterreferred to as they arrayed before the tribunal.referred to as they arrayed before the tribunal.

4. Thecaseof theclaimant,inthepetitionbeforetheTribunal is that:Tribunal is that:

i). On19.12.2018at about 08.30p.m.,while theclaimant proceeding on a motor cycle bearing No.AP[03]AA 5500, when he reached near M.Bandapalli Village,onChittoortoPuthalapattuRoad,PtuthalapattuMandal,thecrimelorrynegligently parkedinthemiddle of the road without any precautions by the 1®^respondent, resulted the claimant dashed on the rear side of the said crime loriy and received injuries allover the body.Then he was shifted to GovernmentHospital atChittoor,in-turn CMC Hospital Vellorefrom there to Elite Hospital at Tirupati and underwentoperation to his right femur and iron nail was inserted,ii). He claimed compensation of Rs. 15,00,000/- againstthedriver, owner, and insurer of the crimelorryrespectively.

5. The respondent No.3/insurer filed written statement andadditional written statements denying the avermentsinthepetition and pleaded that the accident occurred was due to therashandnegligentridingoftheclaimant,butnot1strespondent; that the 1®^ respondent is not having valid drivinglicense to drive the crime lorry; that the crime vehiclewas notinvolvedintheincident;thattheincidentoccurredon20.12.2018duetofallfromthemotorcycle,butnoton19.12.2018, thereby, prayed to dismiss the claim against[this]respondent.additional written statements denying the avermentsinthepetition and pleaded that the accident occurred was due to therashandnegligentridingoftheclaimant,butnot1strespondent; that the 1®^ respondent is not having valid drivinglicense to drive the crime lorry; that the crime vehiclewas notinvolvedintheincident;thattheincidentoccurredon20.12.2018duetofallfromthemotorcycle,butnoton19.12.2018, thereby, prayed to dismiss the claim against[this]respondent.

6. The Tribunal settled the following issues and additional issues for enquiry basing on the material:

‘1. Whethertheaccidentoccurredduetorashandnegligent driving of l^t respondent who was the driverof trailer lorry bearing No.AP 21 X 5858 belongs to[the]2*1^ respondent?negligent driving of l^t respondent who was the driverof trailer lorry bearing No.AP 21 X 5858 belongs to[the]2*1^ respondent?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation[if]so how much and from whom? andso how much and from whom? and3.To what relief?”

Issues

7. During enquiry, on behalf of the claimant, P.Ws.l to4were examined, Exs.A.l to A. 12 and X.l to X.4 were exhibited.On behalf of the3*^^ respondent,its official was[examined]asR.W.l and Ex.B.l policy was marked.were examined, Exs.A.l to A. 12 and X.l to X.4 were exhibited.On behalf of the3*^^ respondent,its official was[examined]asR.W.l and Ex.B.l policy was marked.

8.

8. Onthematerial,theTribunal,havingcometotheconclusion that the accident occurred due to the negligence[of]the1st respondent by parking the crime lorry in the[middle][ of]the road without any precautions, held that claimant[is][ entitled]for the compensation of Rs. 15,00,000/-, with interest at 6% perannum fromthe dateof petitiontill thedateof realizationagainst the respondent Nos.l to 3, for the injuries sustained bythe claimant in the accident.conclusion that the accident occurred due to the negligence[of]the1st respondent by parking the crime lorry in the[middle][ of]the road without any precautions, held that claimant[is][ entitled]for the compensation of Rs. 15,00,000/-, with interest at 6% perannum fromthe dateof petitiontill thedateof realizationagainst the respondent Nos.l to 3, for the injuries sustained bythe claimant in the accident.

9. Itis against the said award;thepresentappeal waspreferred by the appellant/insurer of the crime lorry.presentappeal waspreferred by the appellant/insurer of the crime lorry.10.HeardSriGudiSrinivasu,learnedcounselfortheappellant/insurer and Sri K.Purnachandra Sai, learned counselrepresentingSri M.S.Bhanu Prasad, learnedcounselfortherespondent No. 1/claimant.appellant/insurer and Sri K.Purnachandra Sai, learned counselrepresentingSri M.S.Bhanu Prasad, learnedcounselfortherespondent No. 1/claimant.

11. Now, the point that arise for determination is “whetherthe order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside, if so, to whatextent?”the order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside, if so, to whatextent?”

12. POINT:

It is not in dispute that the claimant sustained injuries[in]the accident, and that the policy marked as Ex.B.l, issued inrespect of the crime lorry, was in force on the dateof theincident. It is also undisputed that no appeal was preferred bythe claimant, the driver, or the owner of the crime lorly againstthe findings of the Tribunal.

13. It is the main contention of the learnedcounsel for theappellant thattheincident occurred duetotherashandnegligent riding of the claimant, but notrespondent and thatappellant thattheincident occurred duetotherashandnegligent riding of the claimant, but notrespondent and that thecrimelorryneverinvolvedintheaccident,sinceon20.12.2018theincidentoccurredasperEx.A.7dischargesummary.

14. To prove the negligence on the part of the l^t respondent,the claimant himself examined as P.W. 1 coupled with[Exs.A.][ 1]and Ex.A.2F.l.R. and Charge Sheet, respectively.ItisthecategoricaltestimonyofP.W.lthatthel^trespondentnegligently parked the crime lorry in the middle of the roadwithout any precautions, resulted the incident. Furthermore , onperusal of Exs.A. 1 and A.2 F.l.R. and Charge Sheet respectively,the investigating agency, after thorough investigation,[came]tothe conclusion that the accident occurred due to the negligenceof the 1st respondent only in parking the crime lorry.the claimant himself examined as P.W. 1 coupled with[Exs.A.][ 1]and Ex.A.2F.l.R. and Charge Sheet, respectively.ItisthecategoricaltestimonyofP.W.lthatthel^trespondentnegligently parked the crime lorry in the middle of the roadwithout any precautions, resulted the incident. Furthermore , onperusal of Exs.A. 1 and A.2 F.l.R. and Charge Sheet respectively,the investigating agency, after thorough investigation,[came]tothe conclusion that the accident occurred due to the negligenceof the 1st respondent only in parking the crime lorry.

15. More so, the l^t respondent/driver of the crime lorry[is][ the]best witness to speak about the manner of the incident anddeny the case of the claimant, but he did not choose to enterinto witness box before the Tribunal. Even the owner of thecrime vehicle remained exparte beforethe Tribunal.AsperEx.A. 3woundcertificate.whichisaprimarydocumentbest witness to speak about the manner of the incident anddeny the case of the claimant, but he did not choose to enterinto witness box before the Tribunal. Even the owner of thecrime vehicle remained exparte beforethe Tribunal.AsperEx.A. 3woundcertificate.whichisaprimarydocument immediately after the incident, it is categorical that the injuredperson/claimant was firstly treated on 19.12.2018 atabout10.00 p.m. by the Doctor in Government Hospital at Chittoor,thereby,thecontentionoftheappellant/insurerthattheaccident occurred on 20.12.2018as per Ex.A.7 has no legs tostand. Furthermore, except self-serving testimony of R.W.l, whoISofficialof insurance company,nosubstantial pieceofevidenceplacedbeforetheTribunaltoprovethesaidcontention.

16. Itisalso contentionof thelearnedcounselfortheappellant/insurer that the Tribunal erredmicalculating thecompensationentitledbytheclaimant andawardexcesscompensation.appellant/insurer that the Tribunal erredmicalculating thecompensationentitledbytheclaimant andawardexcesscompensation.

17. Percontra.learnedcounselforthe1strespondent / claimantsubmitsthattheTribunalafterappreciating the material on record in right perspective awardedthe compensation entitled by the claimant, which requires nointerference of this Court.respondent / claimantsubmitsthattheTribunalafterappreciating the material on record in right perspective awardedthe compensation entitled by the claimant, which requires nointerference of this Court.

18. As per the testimony of P.W.4 eoupled with Exs.A.ll,[X.l]to X.4, it is categorically proved before the Tribunal that by thedate of incident the claimant get monthly income of Rs. 17,707/-asElectricianini M/s.Sree Sannidhi Foods Private Limited,Petapalli Village. Furthermore,asper the recitals of Exs.A.5,A.7, A.9, A. 10 and A. 12 coupled with testimony of P.W.l by thedate of incident the claimant was aged about 49 years, which isnot in dispute.to X.4, it is categorically proved before the Tribunal that by thedate of incident the claimant get monthly income of Rs. 17,707/-asElectricianini M/s.Sree Sannidhi Foods Private Limited,Petapalli Village. Furthermore,asper the recitals of Exs.A.5,A.7, A.9, A. 10 and A. 12 coupled with testimony of P.W.l by thedate of incident the claimant was aged about 49 years, which isnot in dispute.

19. It is categorical from the testimony ofP.W.3thaton23.12.2018, the claimant underwentsurgery for the fracturessustainedintheincidentinElite Hospitalat Tirupati. Thetestimony of P.Ws.land3 coupledwithExs.A.8toA. 10categoricallyshowthattheclaimantspentaconsiderableamount towards medical expenses. Furthermore,asperthetestimony of P.W.2 coupled with Ex. 12 disability certificate,[the]claimant sustained 55% of permanent disability.23.12.2018, the claimant underwentsurgery for the fracturessustainedintheincidentinElite Hospitalat Tirupati. Thetestimony of P.Ws.land3 coupledwithExs.A.8toA. 10categoricallyshowthattheclaimantspentaconsiderableamount towards medical expenses. Furthermore,asperthetestimony of P.W.2 coupled with Ex. 12 disability certificate,[the]claimant sustained 55% of permanent disability.

20. By considering the nature of injuries, disability sustainedby the claimant, surgery undergone by him through P.W.3,[the]Tribunal by following the renewed pronouncement of Hon’bleby the claimant, surgery undergone by him through P.W.3,[the]Tribunal by following the renewed pronouncement of Hon’ble SupremeCourtinSarlaVermaV.DelhiTransportCorporation^ andapplying the suitable multiplierto the age ofthe claimant, rightly calculatedthe compensationentitled bythe claimant andawarded a sum of Rs. 15,19,260/- towardsloss of income dueto permanent disability, Rs.60,000/- towardspainandsufferingRs. 10,000/towardsnervousshock,Rs. 1,36,360/-towardsmedicalexpensesandRs. 17,707/-towardsactuallossofimcome.eventheclaimantentitledcompensation of Rs. 17,43,327/- since he restricted thesame toa sum of Rs. 15,00,000/-,the Tribunal awarded the sameasclaimedbyhim,whichrequiresnointerferenceintheconsidered opinion of this Court.

21. In view of the above discussion,this Courtis of theconsidered opinion thatno valid grounds urged by the appellantto meddle with the findingsarrived by the Tribunalinallaspects, as there is no need to disturb thewell-articulated orderpassed by the Tribunal, theappeal preferred by the appellant isliable for dismissal. Thus, the point is answered accordingly,this Courtis of theconsidered opinion thatno valid grounds urged by the appellantto meddle with the findingsarrived by the Tribunalinallaspects, as there is no need to disturb thewell-articulated orderpassed by the Tribunal, theappeal preferred by the appellant isliable for dismissal. Thus, the point is answered accordingly,

22. In the result, M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed. There shall benoorder as to costs.order as to costs.

Interim orders granted earlier ifany, stand vacated.Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, stand closed.

To,

Sd/- U. SRIDEVIASSISTANT REGISTRAR/

//TF^UE COPY//SECTION OFFICER

1. The Chairperson, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- IX AdditionalDistrict Judge, Chittoor,2. One CC ot Sri Gudi Srinivasu, Advocate [OPUC]3. One CC to Sri M.S.Banu Prasad Rao, Advocate [OPUC]

4. Two CD CopiesRAM

HIGH COURT

DATED:O7/04/2O25

JUDGRflENT+ DECREiEWIACMA.No.177 of 2024

DISMISSING THE MACMAWITHOUT COSTS