CIVIL APPEAL 998 of 2017 on 21 December 2016

JUDGMENT:

Challenging the award and decree dated 21.12.2016 passedin M.V.O.P.No.428of 2014 on thefileof the Chairman,MotorVehicleAccidentsClaimsTribunal-cum-IAdditionalDistrictJudge, Guntur(for short “the Tribunal”), the present appealispreferred by the 2nd respondent in the O.P.i.e., theNewIndiaAssurance Co., Ltd.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafterbe referred to as arrayed in O.P.

3. The facts of the case are that on19.11.2013at about8.00 pm.., while the petitioner was proceeding on his bicycle onextremelefttotheroadmarginfrom VadlamudiCrossRoadCentre to Vadlamudi village, when he reached, at that time, thedriver of Tractor-Trailer, drove it in a rash and negligent[manner]without blowing horn, lost control over the samecame m wrongside and hit the bicycle of petitioner with high velocity of speedfrom opposite direction.As a result, the petitioner[fell] on the roadand front wheel of trailer ran over from the left leg of the petitionerand also received multiple injuries all over the body.Immediatelythe injured was shifted to Government General Hospital, Guntur,wherein he underwent amputation surgery of his left leg aboveknee joint. A case in Crime No.218 of 2013 was registered[on][ the]file of Chebrolu police station for the offence under Section 337 ofIPC against the driver of Tractor-Trailer bearing Nos.AP[16V]1501

and AAK1057.The said accident was occurred only due to rashand negligent driving of the driver of the Tractor-Trailer.

The petitioner was aged about 38 years and he was hale andhealthy at the time of accident and he used to earn Rs.300/- perday as Mason.Due to the said accident the petitioner lost hisfuture earning and earning capacity. Hence, the claim petition.

4. The 1st respondent remained ex parte.

5. Therespondent filed written statement denying alltheavermentsmadeinthepetitionandcontendedthattheaccidentoccurred only due to negligence of the petitioner as he ride his bicyclerashly and negligently at the time of accident and there is no negligenceon the part of driver-cum-owner of Tractor-Trailer bearing Nos.AP 16V150186 AAK 1057.It is further submitted that there is no documentaryproof of age, occupation and income of the petitioner.The driver-cum-owneri.e..1st respondent didnot possessvalid andeffectivedrivinglicence at the time of alleged accident and the drivinglicenceof1strespondent was expired on 8.4.2010.it is further submitted that theclaim of the petitioner is highly excessive and that the petitioner did notapproach the Dt respondent at any point of time for the claimamountand the petitioner exaggerated the gravity of injuries for wrongful gain.Therefore, prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

6. Basingontheabovepleadings,theTribunalframedthefollowing issues for enquiry:1) WhethertheaccidentwasoccurredduetotherashandnegligentdrivingofthedriverofTractor-TrailerbearingN0S.API6 V150185 AAK 1057 and causedinjuriestothepetitioner Shaik Mastanvali?following issues for enquiry:1) WhethertheaccidentwasoccurredduetotherashandnegligentdrivingofthedriverofTractor-TrailerbearingN0S.API6 V150185 AAK 1057 and causedinjuriestothepetitioner Shaik Mastanvali?

2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, andif so,from whom and at what rate?3)To what relief?from whom and at what rate?3)To what relief?

to A37.During enquiry, PWs.l and 2 were examined and Exs.Aland Ex.XI were marked on behalf of the claimant/petitioner[and][ RWs.l]and 2 were examined and Exs.Blto B3, Exs.X2 and X3[were][ marked]onbehalf of the respondents.

8. Vide the impugned order, the Tribunal, on appreciation[of][ the]oraldocumentaryevidenceonrecord,awardedcompensationofRs.12,00,000/- to the claimant against the respondents together withinterest @ 6% per annum from the date of petitiontillthedateofrealisation.Aggrievedbythesame,thepresentappealhasbeenpreferred by the 2"“ respondent-insurance Company.

9. Heard the arguments of Sri G. Hara Gopal, learned[Counsel]fortheInsuranceCompanyappearingfortheappellantandMs.Nasara.mmaDanadrapatilearnedcounselappearingfortherespondents/claimants.

10. Learned Counsel for the appellant argued that the[decree][ and]judgment passed by the tribunal is contrary to the[evidence,][ law][ and]probabilities of the case and the tribunal failed toseethat the driver ofthe vehicle involved in the accident which insured[with][ the][ appellant]He further submits that thewasnot having any valid driving licence,tribunal failed to see that the owner of the vehicle[remained][ ex][ parte]and he is owner cum driver and hence no further evidence[is][ required][ to]this matter to prove on the question of driving licence[from][ the][ side][ of]appellant. He also submits that the tribunal failedtosee that thereisnorebuttal evidence against the evidenceof RWs.land2andthedocuments marked Ex.Blto Ex.B4 and Ex.X2 and Ex.X3,[hence]itisdeemed that there is no valid driving licence to the[driver][ at][ the][ time][ of]accident and failed to grant at least 'pay and recovery’[and][ also][ failed][ to]follow the guidelines of the Hon’ble Supreme Court,fixedincaseof

Nanjappa to safeguard the interest of the Insurance[company][ whenever]pay and recovery is ordered.He further submits that[the][ tribunal][ failed]toseethat under Section 149 of the M.V Act, Insurance company denytheliability and when oncethereis noliability Insurancecompanyshould be exonerated totally, even without resorting principles of ‘payand recovery’.Hence he requests this Court to set aside the award[of]the tribunal.

11. Learned counsel for the respondents mainly argued[that][ the]tribunal on proper appreciation of evidence awarded[compensation][ and]there is no illegality in the order of the tribunal[and][ hence][ prayed]todismiss the appeal.

12. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of[the case][ and]submissions made by both the learned counsels and on verifying theentire material on recordi.e., the evidences recorded and relying onthe documents,it reveal that no need to interfere in the award passedby the tribunal. Hence,I am of the opinion that the tribunal has rightlyawarded Rs. 12,00,000/-as compensation together withinterest(®6% p.a. from the date of petitiontill the date of realisation, which wasbased ona proper appreciationof the evidence. Assuch,the samewarrants no interference from this Court.

13. Accordingly,theM.A.C.M.A.is dismissedconfirmingtheorder dated 21.12.2016 passed in M.V.O.P.No.428 of[2014][ on][ the]fileof the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims[Tribunal-]cum-1 Additional District Judge, Guntur.order dated 21.12.2016 passed in M.V.O.P.No.428 of[2014][ on][ the]fileof the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims[Tribunal-]cum-1 Additional District Judge, Guntur.

Miscellaneous Petitions pending,if any, shall standclosed.Noorder as to costs.

SD/-K.SRINIVASA R^UASSISTANT REGI^^R

//TRUE COPY//

S.N OFFICER

To,1.TheChairmanMotorVehicleAccidentClaimsTribunal-cum-l Additional District Court, Guntur, (with Records).

2. One CC toSri Nasaramma Danadrapati, Advocate [OPUC]

3. One CC to Sri G. Hara Gopal, Advocate [OPUC]

4. The Section Officer, V.R Section, High Court of[Andhra][ Pradesh][ at]

Amaravati.

5. Three CD copies.

TrtSsbsree

(XXX)IntheJudgment,dated08.04.2022passedinM.A.C.M.A.No.998of 2017inParaNos.8 and12the amountof((Rs.6,00,000/-“is deleted and inserted “Rs.12,00,000/-“[as][ per the]orders of this Court, dated 31.12.2024 made in I.A.No.1of 2024inM.A.C.M.A.No.998 of 2017.

SD/-K SRINIVASA RAJUASSISTANT REGISTRAR

HIGH COURT

• DATED:08/04/202231/12/2024

AMENDED JUDGMENTl\/IACMA.No.998 of 2017

2 3 JAN 2C:3Co,^ * Cuifetil SeclUm

DISMISSING THE M.A.C.M.A. WITHOUT COSTS