APHC010286662008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3311]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

Thursday, the eighteenth day of December Two Thousand and twenty five Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.4757 of 2008 Between:

Annapu Reddy Bandhavi & 3 others ...Appellants and Pudota Subba Rao and others ...Respondents Counsel for the appellants:

1. Kommareddy Diwakar Reddy Counsel for the respondents:

1. Smt. S.A.V.Ratnam The Court made the following:

APHC010156422009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3311]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

Thursday, the Eighteenth day of December Two Thousand and Twenty Five Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.3696 of 2009 Between:

National Insurance Co. Ltd., Guntur. ...Appellant and Annapu Reddy Bandhavi and others ...Respondents Counsel for the appellant:

1. Smt. S. A. V. Ratnam Counsel for the respondents: 1. Kommareddy Diwakar Reddy The Court made the following:

COMMON JUDGMENT

M.A.C.M.A.No.4757 of 2008 is filed under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short, ‘the M.V. Act’) by the claimants against the award and the decree, dated 16.06.2008 in M.V.O.P.No.897 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge), Guntur. This appeal is filed by the claimants.

2. M.A.C.M.A.No.3696 of 2009 is filed against the same award and the decree by the insurance company / respondent No.2 before the Tribunal.

3. Since both the appeals arise out of the same award and decree, a common judgment is passed. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred as before the Tribunal.

4. The case of the claimants, is briefly, as follows:-

The petitioner No.1 is the wife, the petitioners Nos.2 and 3 are the minor children and the petitioner No.4 is the widowed mother of Annapu Reddy Srinivasa Reddy (in short ‘deceased’). On the intervening night of 9/10-5-2007 at about 1-00 a.m, when the deceased was proceeding on a motor cycle bearing No.AP 7X 5260 along with his cousin (brother) Annapureddy Ramakrishnareddy as pillion rider, near Navodaya weigh bridge belonging to the respondent No.3, the deceased noticed one vehicle coming from the opposite direction at high speed. While trying to avoid the vehicle coming in the opposite direction, the deceased hit a stationed lorry bearing No.ADC 4149 of the respondent No.1 insured by the respondent No.2, on its back side. The lorry was parked by its driver without switching on parking lights or taking any other precautionary measure. The respondent No.3 allowed parking a number of lorries near the weigh bridge, completely closing the road. Thus, the accident occurred due to the negligence of the respondents No.1 and 3. The claimants sought compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- against the respondents Nos.1 to 3. The deceased was aged about 35 years and was earning Rs.1,50,000/- p.a., by personally cultivating the lands to an extent of Ac.10.50 cents and also doing commission business in paddy, pulses etc.

5. The respondent No.1 remained ex parte.

6. The respondent No.2 filed a written statement denying the allegations and further contending that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased himself and that the claimants are not entitled to any compensation.

7. The respondent No.3 filed separate written statement denying the allegations and further contending that this respondent is not the owner of the Navodaya Weigh bridge and that the stationed lorry of the respondent No.1 is no way concerned with weigh bridge. He further stated that between Sultanabad and Angalakuduru, there are number of mills and weigh bridges and that the deceased had habit of consuming alcohol and was driving the vehicle with two to three pillion riders and therefore, he alone is responsible for the accident.

8. On behalf of the petitioners, P.Ws. 1 / Claimants Nos.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A10 were marked and on