APHC010238142005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3311]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

Thursday, the eleventh day of December two thousand and twenty five Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi M.A.C.M.A.No: 3500 of 2005 Between:

Ponna Nagabhadram . . . A p p e l l a n t and Kolli Krishna Rao and others ...Respondents Counsel for the appellant:

N.Siva Reddy Counsel for the respondents:

1.Kalpana Ekbote

2.Penumaka Venkata Rao

3. A.Krishnam Raju The Court made the following:

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 against the award and the decree dated 06.08.2002 in M.V.O.P.No.127 of 1998 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Kakinada.

02. The appellant is the claimant and the respondents Nos.1 to 6 are the respondents Nos.1 to 6 before the Tribunal.

03. The case of the appellant / claimant, is briefly, as follows :

On 14.08.1997, the claimant and his friend were going on a van bearing No.A.I.V. 5035 to go to Biccavole. When the van reached Jodinadula Centre of Biccavole village, a lorry bearing No.A.D.M. 6293 coming in the opposite direction with high speed driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the van. As a result, the van turned turtle and fell in the canal. The claimant suffered injuries. He was admitted in Government General Hospital, Kakinada. He was treated as inpatient for two months. The claim petition was initially filed against the respondents Nos.1 to 3. The respondent No.1 is the driver, the respondent No.2 is the owner and the respondent No.3 is the insurer of the lorry. Later, the respondents Nos.4 to 6 were impleaded. The respondent No.4 is the driver, the respondent No.5 is the owner, the respondent No.6 is the insurer of the van. The claimant was doing business and earning Rs.3,000/- per month. But, due to the accident, he suffered loss. Hence, he claimed compensation of Rs.75,000/- with interest and costs.

04. The respondents Nos.1 and 2 remained ex parte.

05. The respondent No.3 filed counter denying the averments and also the liability.

06. The respondent No.4 died and the claim petition was dismissed as abated.

07. The respondent No.5 filed separate counter denying the averments in the petition and further stated that the driver of the van was not at fault and that the van was insured with the respondent No.6.

08. The respondent No.6 filed a counter denying the averments in the petition and further stating that the accident was caused due to the driver of the lorry alone.

09. On behalf of the claimant, he got himself examined as P.W.1 and Ex.A1, copy of F.I.R., dated 15.08.1997 and Ex.A2, copy of wound certificate dated 15.08.1997 were marked

10. On behalf of the respondent No.3, its Senior Assistant was examined as R.W.1 and R.W.2 employee of R.3 company was examined and office copy of the notice got issued by the respondent No.3 to the respondent No.2 was filed as Ex.B.1 and the copy of policy issued by the respondent No.6 to the respondent No.5 was marked as Ex.B.2.

11. After considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal held that the insured received injuries in the accident caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry i.e., the respondent No.1. Therefore, the claim against the respondents Nos.4 to 6 was dismissed. Insofar as the liability against the respondent No.3 is concerned, since no evidence was placed that the respondent No.3 insured the lorry, the claim was dismissed against the respondent No.3 as well.

12. The Tribunal calculated amount of compensation payable to the claimant at Rs.16,000/- and awarded interest @ 9% from the date of petition till the date of realisation and directed the amount of compensation together with costs and interest payable by the respondents Nos.1 and 2 with joint and several liability to the claimant. Out of Rs.16,000/-, Rs.12,500/- was granted for grievous injury; Rs.1500/- for pain and suffering;