Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 10358
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
[3505]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1132/2019
& MACMA NO. 481 of 2019
Between:
1. V SARANYA, W/O. LATE V. MAHENDRA REDDY, AGED 26 YEARS, OCC- HOUSEWIFE, R/O. D.NO.7-56, VENUGOPALAPURAM VILLAGE, TIMMARAJU KANDRIGA POST, PUTTUR MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.
2. V . PREMAVATHI,, D/O. LATE V. MAHENDRA REDDY, AGED 9 YEARS, MINOR, REP. BY HER MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN, V. SARANYA, W/O. LATE V. MAHENDRA REDDY, THE 1ST APPELLANT HEREIN. R/O. D.NO.7-56, VENUGOPALAPURAM VILLAGE, TIMMARAJU KANDRIGA POST, PUTTUR MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.
3. V . SUBRAMANYAM, S/O. LATE V. SADASIVA REDDY, AGED 56 YEARS, OCC- AGRICULTURE, R/O. D.NO.7-56, VENUGOPALAPURAM VILLAGE, TIMMARAJU KANDRIGA POST, PUTTUR MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.
4. V . RAMADEVI, , W/O. V. SUBRAMANYAM, AGED 51 YEARS, HOUSEWIFE, R/O. D.NO.7-56, VENUGOPALAPURAM VILLAGE, TIMMARAJU KANDRIGA POST, PUTTUR MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT
...APPELLANT(S)
AND
1. S VIJAYA, W/O. T. NARAYANA, AGED 54 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.21, BAZAR STREET, MUTHAPUDIPET, AVADI, TAMIL NADU STATE, (REAL OWNER OF THE TATA SUMO BEARING REGISTRATION NO.TN-10-H-8532)
2. M VARADHAN, , S/O. MANICKKAM, AGED MAJOR, R/O.NEW NO.329, SUBRAMANIA SIVA ROAD, CHENGALPATTU, KANCHIPURAM, TAMIL NADU STATE, (REGISTERED OWNER OF THE TATA SUMO BEARING REGISTRATION NO.TN-10-H-8532)
3. I FFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, ISSUING OFFICE AT NEW NO.28, OLD NO.195, NORTH USMAN ROAD, T. NAGAR, CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU STATE.
...RESPONDENT(S)
Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying that the High Court may be pleased to Memorandum of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal before this Hon'ble Court aggrieved the Judgment and Decree dated 16-08-2018 passed in MVOP.No.48 of 2013 before the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - X Addl.District Judge, Tirupathi
IA NO: 1 OF 2019
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 331 days in filing the present appeal before this Hon'ble Court aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 16-08-2018 passed in MVOP.No.48 of 2013 before the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum - X Addl. District Judge, Tirupathi, and pass
Counsel for the Appellant(S):
1. O UDAYA KUMAR
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.2. SRINIVASA RAO KAMARAJUGADDA
MACMA.NO.481 of 2019:
Between:
1. I FFCO-TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, ISSUING OFFICE AT NEW NO.28, OLD NO.195, NORTH USMAN ROAD, T. NAGAR, CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU.
...APPELLANT
AND
1. V SARANYA, W/O. LATE V. MAHENDRA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, HOUSEWIFE. RESIDING AT DOOR.NO.7-56, VENUGOPALAPURAM VILLAGE, TIMRNARAJU KANDRIGA POST, PUTTUR MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.
2. V PREINAVATHI, D/O. OF LATE V. MAHENDRA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 2 YEARS, THE SECOND PETITIONER IS MINOR, REPRESENTED BY HER NEXT FRIEND, MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN, V. SARANYA, THE FIRST PETITIONER. RESIDING AT DOOR.NO.7-56, VENUGOPALAPURAM VILLAGE, TIMRNARAJU KANDRIGA POST, PUTTUR MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.
3. V SUBRAMANYAM, S/O. OF LATE V. SADASIVA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, AGRICULTURE, ARE RESIDING AT DOOR.NO.7-56, VENUGOPALAPURAM VILLAGE, TIMRNARAJU KANDRIGA POST, PUTTUR MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.
4. V RAMADEVI, W/O. OF V. SUBRARNANYAM, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, HOUSEWIFE ALL ARE HINDUS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT DOOR.NO.7-56, VENUGOPALAPURAM VILLAGE, TIMRNARAJU KANDRIGA POST, PUTTUR MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.
5. S RNT S VIJAYA, W/O. OF T. NARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, RESIDENT OF DOOR. NO.21, BAZAAR STREET, MUTHAPUDI PET, AVADI, TAMIL NADU, (REAL OWNER OF THE TATA SUMO BEARING REGISTRATION TN-10-H-8532)
6. M VARADHAN, SON OF MANICKKAM, AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER BUT HE IS MAJOR, RESIDENT OF NEW NO.329, SUBRAMANIA SIVA ROAD, CHENGALPATTU, KANCHIPURAM, TAMIL NADU (REGISTERED OWNER OF THE TATA SUMO BEARING REGISTRATION NO.TN-10-H-8532)
...RESPONDENT(S)
Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying that the High Court may be pleased to begs to present this Memorandum Of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal before the Hon'ble High Court Of Judicature Of Andhra Pradesh Against the Orders dated 16.08.2018 made in M.V.O.P.No. 48 Of 2013 On the File Of the Hon'ble Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals_Cum_X th Additional District Judge at Tirupathi.
IA NO: 1 OF 2019
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased To condone the delay of 67 days in filing of the appeal against the Decree and Judgment dated 16.08.2018 passed in MVOP .48/2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-X Additional District Judge, Tirupathi and pass
IA NO: 2 OF 2019
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all the further proceedings in Decree and Order dated 16.08.2018 passed in MVOP .48/2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-X Additional District Judge, Tirupathi and pass
Counsel for the Appellant:
1. SRINIVASA RAO KAMARAJUGADDA
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. O UDAYA KUMAR
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR
THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
________________
T.C.D.SEKHAR, J
12.03.2026
CMK/SSA
The Court made the following:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR
MACMA Nos.1132 OF 2019 & 481 of 2019
COMMON JUDGMENT :-
1. MACMA.No.1132 of 2019 and MACMA No.481 of 2019, as both these appeals arising out of order dated 16.08.2018 in M.V.O.P.No.48 of 2013 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-X Additional District Judge, Tirupathi, filed by the claimants and the Insurance company respectively, they are being disposed by this common Order.
2. MACMA No.1132 of 2019 was filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation and MACMA No.481 of 2019 was filed by the Insurance Company questioning the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The parties have referred to as they were referred before the Tribunal. The petitioners filed claim petition under section 166(1)(c) of Motor Vehicles Act r/w rules 455 and 475 claiming compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- on account of death of the 1st petitioner’s husband and father of the petitioner No.2 and son of the 3 & 4 petitoners, in the accident that was occurred on 05.12.2010, in which, TATA Sumo bearing Registration No.TN-10-H-8532 was involved.
3. It is the case of the petitioners that on 05.12.2010, the deceased was going from Gollakandriga to Venugopalapuram on Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.TN- 20-BC-0238 as pillion rider, the driver of the offending TATA Sumo came in opposite direction at high speed driven in rash and negligent manner without taking due care and caution and dashed the Motor Cycle. As a result of which, the deceased V.Mahendra Reddy who is the rider of the Motor Cycle fell down and sustained fatal injuries along with other pillion riders. All the three persons died on the spot. A case was registered against the respondent Nos.1 & 2 and the same was later investigated into and Charge Sheet was filed in C.C.No.31 of 2011 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Magistrate, Puttur. It is further case of the petitioners that the deceased was aged about 22 years as on the date of the accident and he was working in Mill, earning Rs.300/- per day, the entire income of the deceased was being contributed to the family and in view of the sudden death, the petitioners lost their livelihood. Therefore, they approached the Tribunal by filing the present claim petition seeking to pay compensation on account of the death of the deceased, as against the respondents were responsible for the accident.
4. The respondent Nos. 1 & 2 remained exparte. The3rd respondent/appellant filed counter-affidavit stating that there was contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the Motor Cycle in as much as he was driving the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner. It was further contended that the driver of offending TATA Sumo had no valid driving license as on the date of accident. Therefore, the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 alone are liable to pay compensation and the 3rd respondent/appellant Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation as alleged, in view of the fact that the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 have violated the terms of the Insurance policy. It was further contended that the petitioners have not filed any documentary proof in relation to the age and occupation of the deceased. The 3rd respondent further contends that the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary party in as much as the insurer of the Motor Cycle was not arrayed as party as respondent. With the above pleadings, the 3rd respondent prayed to dismiss the claim petition as against him.
5. In order to prove the case of the petitioners, the 4th petitioner got examined as PW-1 and they have also examined PW.2 & PW.3 and marked Exs.A1 to A6. On the other hand, the 3rd respondent/appellant marked copy of the insurance policy as Ex.B1 and authorization letter as Ex.X1.
6. Considering the oral and documentary evidence put forth before the Tribunal, by the impugned order, which awarded compensation of Rs.7,20,000/- under various conventional heads.
