Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
K.Sandeep vs Bora Ananda Reddy Amp 5 Ors on 19 June, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
WEDNESDAY ,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JUNE
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A V RAVINDRA BABU
MACMANo. 2920 of 2017
Between:
K. Sandeep, S/o K.S.A.Naidu Owner of hired RTC Bus Bearing No.AP
35 U 8989 rep by its GPA holder KSN Naidu, S/o China Satyam Aged
58 Years R/o Plot No.724, K.A.P. Layout, VUDA Colony, Cantonment,
Vizianagaram.
...Appellant/2"'' Respondent
AND
1. Bora Ananda Reddy, S/o. Ramu, Aged about 40 Years, Being
Mentally unsound rep. by his wife Bora Varahalakshmi @ Anantha
Lakshmi W/o. Bora Ananda Reddy, Aged about 35 Years, R/o
Kummari Veedi,Alipuram,Visakhapatnam.
( Amended the name of wife guardian of the Respondent. No.las
bora Varahalakshmi on the Place of Bora Varalakshmi as per Court
Order Dated 17.04.2023 in IA.No.1/2023).
2. Chokkapu Chinnam Naidu, S/o Pentayya Driver of hired RTC Bus
Bearaing No.AP 35 U 8989 R/o Budathanapalli [V], Gantyada [M],
Viziangaram District.
3. National Insurance Company Limited, rep by its Divisional Manager
O/o Visakhapatnam.
4. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, rep by its Depot
Manger O/o. Vizianagaram
5. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, rep by its
Regional Manager O/o Vizianagaram.
6. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation rep by its
Managing Director O/o Vizianagaram.
...Respondents/Respondents 1, 3to 6)
Appeal filed under 173 of Motor Vehicle against the judgment and
decree dated 29.10.20174 passed in M.O.P No.385/2010 on the file of the
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal ( Special Judge for Trial of cases under
SCs & STs (POA) Act cum Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram.
This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of
appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers
in the Suit and upon hearing the arguments of Sri G Sai Narayana Rao for the
Appellant and of Dr. Ma Majji Suri babu, for the Respondent No.land of Sri V.
Veerabhadrachary, for the Respondent 3 and Sri Vinod Kumar Tarlada,
Advocate for Respondent Nos. 4 to 6.
This Court doth Order and decree as follows:
1. That the Appeal be and hereby is allowed.
2. That the appellant/respondent No.2 in MVOP No. 385 of 2010 on the
file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special Judge for Trial of
Cases Under S.C's and ST's (POA) Act-cum-Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram, is exonerated from complying the terms
of the award, dated 29.10.2024.
3. The respondent No.3/Insurance company is directed to deposit the rest
of the amount i.e., Rs. 4,73,820/- with interest @ 7% per annum from
the date of petition till the date of deposit, within a period of one month
from the date of this judgment.
4. That the Claimant has already withdrawn a sum of Rs. 2,40,000/- which
was deposited by the appellant vide orders of this Court, dated
03.07.2015 in I.A. No. 3 of 2015 (MACMA MP No. 2731 of 2015), now,
the claimant is entitled only Rs. 2,33,830/- with accrued interest.
5. That the appellant is permitted withdraw the amount deposited by him
with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of his deposit to the credit
of M.V.O.P No. 385 of 2010, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (Special Judge for Trial of Cases Under S.C's and ST's (POA)
Act-cum-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram, on filing
separate application before the Tribunal.
6. That there be no order as to costs in this Motor Accident Civil
Miscellaneous Appeal.
SD/-B PRASADA RAO
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
SECTION OFFICER
To,
1.
The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal ( Special Judge
for Trial of cases under SCs & STs (POA) Act cum Additional
District Judge, Vizianagaram.
2. Three CD copies.
Trt
vna
HIGH COURT
DATED: 19/06/2024
DECREE
S 2 5 m 2024 ^
Current SectioH
^N>,^Patc
ALLOWING THE MACMA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
TUESDAY .THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A V RAVINDRA BABU
Appeal filed under 173 of Motor Vehicle against the judgment and
decree dated 29.10.20174 passed in M.O.P No.385/2010 on the file of the
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal ( Special Judge for Trial of cases under
SCs & STs (POA) Act cum Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram.
Between:
K. Sandeep, S/o K.S.A. Naidu Owner of hired RTC Bus Bearing No.AP
35 U 8989 rep by its GPA holder KSN Naidu, S/o.China
' Satyam Aged
58 Years R/o Plot No.724, K.A.P. Layout, VUDA Colony, Cantonment
Vizianagaram.
...Appellant/2"'' Respondent
AND
1. Bora Ananda Reddy, S/o. Ramu, Aged about 40 Years, Being Mentally
unsound rep. by his wife Bora Varahalakshmi @ Anantha Lakshmi W/o.
Bora Ananda Reddy, Aged about 35 Years, R/o Kummari
Veedi.Alipuram.Visakhapatnam.
(Amended the name of wife/guardian of the Respondent. No.1 as
bora Varahalakshmi on the Place of Bora Varalakshmi as per Court
Order Dated 17.04.2023 in IA.No.1/2023).
2. Chokkapu Chinnam Naidu, S/o.Pentayya Driver of hired RTC Bus
Bearaing No.AP 35 U 8989 R/o.Budathanapalli [V], Gantyada [M],
Viziangaram District.
3. National Insurance Company Limited, rep by its Divisional Manager O/o
Visakhapatnam.
4. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation rep by its Depot
Manger O/o. Vizianagaram
5. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, rep by its Regional
Manager O/o Vizianagaram.
6. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, rep by its Managing
Director O/o Vizianagaram.
...Respondents/Respondents 1, 3to 6)
LA. NO: 2 OF 2017(MACMAMP Nin-
4369 OF 2017)
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed i
in support of the petition, the High Court may be
pleased to stay the execution of the Judgment and decree in M.O.P. No.
385 of 2010 dated 29.10.2014 to the extent of the petitioner's personai
liability of Rs. 4,73,830/- pending disposal of the above- appeal.
Counsel for the Appellant(s):SRI. G SAI NARAYANA RAO
Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI VEERABHADRACHARY V
Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Dr MAJJI SURI BABU
Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 4 to 6: SRI VINOD KUMAR TARLADA
The Court made the following: JUDGMENT
APHC010825232017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3364]
TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A V RAVINDRA BABU
jVLOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO:
Between:
1.K.SANDEEP, S/O.K.S.A.NAIDU, OWNER OF HIRED RTC
BUS BEARING NO.AP 35 U 8989 REP BY
" ITS GPA
HOLDER KSN NAIDU, S/0.CHINA SATYAM AGED 58
YEARS R/O.PLOT N0.724, K.A.P.LAYOUT, VUDA COLONY,
CONTONMENT, VIZIANAGARAM.
...APPELLANT
AND
1.BORA ANANDA REDDY, S/0. RAMU AGED ABOUT 40
YEARS, BEING MENTALLY UNSOUND REP. BY HIS WIFE
BORA VARAHALAKSHMI ANANTHA LAKSHMI W/0. BORA
ANANDA REDDY,AGED ABOUD 35 YEARS,R/0. KUMMARI
VEEDI,ALIPURAM,VISAKHAPATNAM.
AMENDED THE NAME OF WIFE/GUARDIAN OF
' THE
RESPONDENT N0.1 AS BORA VARAHALAKSHMI IN THE
PLACE OF BORA VARALAKSHMI AS PER COURT ORDER
DATED 17.04.2023 IN lA.NO. 1/2023.
2.CHOKKAPU CHINNAM NAIDU, S/O.PENTAYYA DRIVER OF
HIRED RTC BUS BEARAING NO.AP 35 U 8989
R/O.BUDATHANAPALLI [V], GANTYADA [M], VIZIANGARAM
DISTRICT.
3. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REP BY ITS
DIVISIONAL MANAGER 0/O.VISAKHAPATNAM.
4.AP STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION , REP BY
ITS DEPOT MANGER 0/O.VIZIANAGARAM
5.AP STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION REP BY
ITS REGIONAL MANAGER 0/O.VIZIANAGARAM.
6.AP STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION . REP BY
ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR 0/0.HYDERABAD.
...RESPONDENT(S):
The Court made the following:
judgment--
Challenge in this M.A.C.M.A. is to the award, dated
29.10.2014, in M.V.O.P.No.385 of 2010, on the file of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (Special Judge for Trial of Cases under
S.C.'s
and S.T.'s (P.o.A.) Act - cum - Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram (Tribunal' for short), whereunder the
Tribunal dealing with claim for compensation made by the claimant
for a sum of Rs.20,00,000/-,
with regard to the injuries received by
the petitioner/claimant, i
in a motor vehicle accident, which was
occurred on 09.07.2009 at 07.30 p.m. awarded a sum of
Rs. 12,23,830/-
as compensation and directed the Insurance
Company/respondent No.3 to deposit Rs.7,50,000/- and that the
remaining amount of Rs.4,73,830/- is to be deposited by the
respondent No.2 who is the present appellant and who ISi no other
than the owner of the offending vehicle.
2.
The parties to this M.A.C.M.A. will hereinafter be referred to
as described before the learned Tribunal for the sake of
convenience.
3.
The case of the claimant before the Tribunal, in brief.
according to the averments set out in the Motor Vehicie accident
claim, is that:
(i) On 09.07.2009, at 07.30 p.m., when the petitioner came
from Vizianagaram towards Visakhapatnam on his motorcycle and
when he reached near Modavalasa Road one A.P.S.R.T.C. hired
bus bearing No. AP 35 U 8989 ('offending vehicie' for short), driven
by the respondent No.1 in
a rash and negligent manner, dashed
against the petitioner. Petitioner received severe injuries and fell
unconscious. He was shifted
to Government Hospital
Vizianagaram. Later from
there to Seven Hills Hospital
Visakhapatnam. He received fractures of ribs and head injury. He
underwent operations and
spent an amount of Rs.3,50,000/-
towards operations charges. He also spent an amount of
Rs.1,00,000/- in addition to amount paid by the Eco Railway. After
discharge from Seven Hills Hospital, the petitioner/claimant was
sent to Railway Hospital, Visakhapatnam. Two persons always
attended the petitioner. The petitioner/claimant became permanentiy
disabied and mentaliy unsound, due to the injuries sustained in the
accident. The Head, Legs and Ribs cannot be cured in near future,
His entire life became marred and the petitioner is unable to move
or walk or stand. He is still bed-ridden.
(ii)
The petitioner/claimant is being represented by his wife,
who is guardian and next friend
as he is unsound. Entire family
members of the petitioner are dependent on the earnings of the
petitioner only. They became destitute and suffered lot of financial
problems and unable to meet the medical expenses even. Due to
permanent disablement, the petitioner was compulsorily retired from
the services
on medical grounds and the petitioner became
senseless and living dead. The petitioner also lost his two eyes inthe
accident. Hence, the claim of Rs.20,00,000/
4. (i) Respondent Nos.1 and 2, who are the driver and owner
of the offending vehicle, remained exparte.
(ii)
Respondent No.3/lnsurance Company and respondent
Nos.4 to 6, who are A.P.S.R.T.C. officials contested the matter.
(iii) The contention of the respondent No.3/lnsurance
Company in brief is that the petitioner has to prove the manner of
the accident and nature of the injuries and expenditure incurred.
A.P.S.R.T.C. alone is liable to pay the compensation,
(iv) The contentions of the respondent No.3 further
according to the additional counter is that the employer of the
petitioner provided necessary food and the expenses regarding the
treatment. The wife of the petitioner cannot represent the petitioner
and that compensation claimed is excessive.
(V)
Respondent Nos.4 to 6 got filed a counter denying the
cause set out by the petitioner and contended in substance that the
claimant has to prove the nature of the injuries and entitlement of
compensation.
5.
Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal settled the
following issue for trial:
(1) Whether the accident was occurred due to the rash and
negligent driving of the vehicle motor hired A.P.S.R.T.C. bus
bearing No. AP 35 U 8989, by its driver?
(2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If
so, from which of the respondents?
(3) To what relief?
6. Further the Tribunal on the date of judgment settled the
following additional issue for trial:
"Whether the petitioner being mentally unsound, can be
represented by his wife and pursue the case without obtaining
orders from the competent Court?"
7.
During the course of trial, before the Tribunal, on behalf of the
petitioner, PWs.1 to 6 were examined, Exs.M to A14 and Exs.XI to
X15 were marked. On behalf of the respondent No.3/Insurance
Company, no witnesses were examined and Ex.B1 is marked by
consent. Respondent Nos.4 to 6/ A.P.S.R.T.C. did not let in any
evidence.
8.
The Tribunal on hearing both sides and on considering the
oral as well as documentary evidence, gave a finding that the wife of
the petitioner being the guardian can represent her husband, who
was mentally unsound. The Tribunal further found that the petitioner
proved the nature of the injuries received and it is 100% disability.
With regard to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the
offending vehicle, the Tribunal made positive findings, but with a
finding that there was contributory negligence of 20% on the part of
the petitioner. The Tribunal further arrived at the compensation as
Rs. 17,00,460/-, by looking into Ex.X7-pay slip and deducted certain
amounts received by the claimant towards compulsory retirement
gratuity and towards service gratuity and arrived at compensation as
Rs. 15,29,787/- and considering the 20% of the contributory
negligence, the Tribunal deducted Rs.3,05,957/- out of
Rs. 15,29,787/- and arrived at the net compensation payable as
Rs. 12,23,830/-. The Tribunal considered the fact that offending
vehicle was covered with Ex.BI-policy of insurance and made a
finding that according to Ex.BI, the liability of the Insurance
Company is only to a tune of Rs.7,50,000/- as such, directed the
respondent No.3 to pay Rs.7,50,000/- and further the owner of the
offending vehicle i.e., present appellant to pay rest of the amount.
9.
Insofar as the finding of the Tribunal that there was rash and
negligent act on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle, which
caused the accident, there is no cross appeal. Further with regard to
the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, there is no
cross appeal filed by the claimant. Even there- iIS no cross appeal on
the part of the insurance
company so as to disown its responsibility.
Hence, the simple question that falls for consideration is:
"Whether the award, dated 29.10.2014. in M.V.O.P.No.385 of
2010, on the file of the. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special
Judge for Trial of Cases under S.C. s and S.T.'s (P.o.A.) Act - cum
- Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram, in fixing the
responsibility to a tune of Rs.4,73,830/- on the part of the appellant
i.e., the owner of the offending vehicle is sustainable under law and
facts and whether there are any grounds to interfere with the
same?
10.
Sri G.Sai Narayana Rao, learned counsel for the appellant
would contend that the Tribunal misinterpreted Ex.BI-insruance
policy. He invited the attention of the Court that the limit of the
compensation to a tune of Rs.7,50,000/- mentioned is only relating
the third party property damage but it is not relating to injuries or
death. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is
also that he is not disputing the quantum of compensation and it is
for the Court to decide with regard to the contentions canvassed by
the learned counsel for the appellant.
11.
On 10.05.2024, this Court sought for clarification regarding
the provision of law mentioned in Ex.Bt. Today, the learned counsel
for the appellant, learned counsel for the claimant and the learned
counsel for the respondent No.3/lnsurance Company submits that
the provision of law mentioned in Ex.Bt is not at all traceable and it
must have been a mistake. However, today, the learned counsel for
the Insurance Company fairly submits that there is no dispute that
the limit of Rs.7,50,000/- mentioned in the Ex.Bt is only relating to
property damage of the third party and it is not relating to the
compensation regarding injuries or death.
12.
In the light of the above, this Court has further looked into
EX.B1. EX.B1 is very clear that the limit of Rs.7,50.000/- mentioned
IS only relating third party property damage, but it is not relating to
the compensation regarding injuries or death.
13.
So, it is quite clear while interpreting the contents of Ex.BI
the Tribunal erred in arriving at a conclusion that the Insurance
Company is liable to
pay Rs.7,50,000/- only and erroneously
ordered to pay the rest of the compensation by the owner of the
offending vehicle.
14.
Having regard to the above and considering the scope of the
appeal, this Court is of the considered view that the Tribunal erred in
fixing up the responsibility against the owner of the offending
vehicle. Having regard to the above, this Court is of the considered
view that the entire responsibility of paying compensation is to be
fixed against the Insurance Company only.
15.
The learned counsel for the respondent No.3/Insurance
Company submits that had there been a direction in the award to
the respondent No.3 to pay the entire compensation, it would have
complied the order and this Court may consider not to grant any
interest with regard to the rest of the amount payable by the
respondent No.3.
16.
It is fact that the with regard to the compensation that was
awarded by the Tribunal, the Tribunal directed that the claimant ISi
entitled to interest @ 7% per annum from the date of petition till the
date of award. The Tribunal did not fix up the liability against the
respondent No.3/Insurance Company with regard to the rest of the
amount erroneously. For the fault of the Tribunal, now claimant
cannot be deprived of the interest @ 7% per annum on the rest of
the amount payable by the respondent No.3/lnsurance Company.
17.
In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed, but under the
circumstances without costs. The appellant/respondent No.2 in
M.V.O.P.No.385 of 2010, onI the file of the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (Special Judge for Trial of Cases under S.C.'s and S.T.'s
(P.o.A.) Act - cum
Additional District and Sessions Judge
Vizianagaram. is exonerated from complying the terms of the award,
dated 29.10.2024. The
respondent No.3/lnsurance Company i IS
directed to deposit the rest of the amount i.e„ Rs.4.73,830/- with
interest @ 7% per annum from the datej Of petition till the date of
deposit, within a period of
one month from the date of this judgment.
As the claimant has already withdrawn a sum of Rs.2,40,000/-which
was deposited by the appellant vide orders
I of this Court, dated
03.07.2015 in I.A.No.3 of 2015 (M.A.C. M.A.M.P.No.2731 of 2015)
now, the claimant is entitled only Rs.2,33,830/- with accrued
interest. Consequently, the appellant is permitted withdraw the
amount deposited by him with interest @ 7% per annum from the
date of his deposit to the credit of M.V.O. P.No.385 of 2010, on the
file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special
i Judge for Trial of
Cases under S.C.'s and S.T.'s (P.o.A.) Act - cum - Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram , on filing separate
application before the Tribunal.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if
any.
shall stand closed.
SD/-B PRASADA RAO
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
SECTION OFFICER
To,
1. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal ( Special Judge for
Trial of cases under SCs & STs (POA) Act cum Additional District
Judge, Vizianagaram. (with records if any)
2. One CC to Sri G Sai Narayana Rao Advocate [OPUC]
3. One CC to Sri V. Veerabhadra Chary, Advocate [OPUC]
4. One CC to Sri Vinod Kumar Tarlada, Advocate
5. One CC to Sri Dr Majji Suri Babu, Advocate [OPUC]
6. The Section Officer, V.R Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh.
7. Three CD copies.
Trt
vna
HIGH COURT
DATED: 19/06/2024
JUDGMENT+DECREE
ALLOWING THE MACMA
