SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 12281

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
V.SUJATHA
MANJULA NARAYANA – Appellant
Versus
PATHAN SHAHIDA – Respondent
MACMA 93/2023



##PAGE1##

1

2026:APHC:34596 APHC010052422023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3333]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

MONDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 93 OF 2023 Between:

1. MANJULA NARAYANA, S/O.CHENCHANNA HINDU, AGED ABOUT

50 YEARS, OCC.BELDARI COOLIE, R/O.D.NO.82/ 134 KHAAR KHAN KOTTALA, RACHINNAYAPALLI VILLAGE KADAPA MANDAL,

YSR KADAPA DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH.

...APPELLANT AND

1. PATHAN SHAHIDA, W/O.JAFFAR KHAN AGED NOT KNOWN, OWNER OF THE HUNDAI XCENT CAR BEARING NO.AP04-BA-8723 R/O.DOOR NO.14/486-B AKSANAGAR, KAMALAPURAM TOWN AND

MANDAL YSR KADAPA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH

2. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REP.BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, BRANCH OFFICE DWARAKA TOWERS, 7 ROADS, KADAPA CITY YSR KADAPA DISTRICT, ANDHRA

PRADESH

3. MULLA MOHAMMED RAFI, S/O.MABU AGED 44 YEARS, CAR DRIVER R/O.DOOR NO.8/14-3, KUMMARA STREET, KAMALAPURAM VILLAGE AND MANDAL YSR KADAPA DISTRICT,

ANDHRA PRADESH. ...RESPONDENT(S):

Counsel for the Appellant:

1. D KODANDARAMI REDDY

##PAGE2##

2

2026:APHC:34596

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GUDI SRINIVASU

2.

The Court made the following Judgment :

The Appellant/ Claimant filed the present Appeal aggrieved by the order

and decree 23.09.2022 in M.V.O.P.No.38 of 2020 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Kadapa, whereby and whereunder the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.3,44,722/- to the Appellant/ Claimant, as against the claim of 13,50,000/- for the injuries sustained by the Claimant in a motor accident that occurred on

06.05.2019.

2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they

are arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The case of the Petitioner is briefly as follows:

On 06.05.2019 the Claimant went to Anumvaripalli Village, B. Kodur

Mandal to attend a function and after attending the same, himself and one Bathala Venkateshu proceeded to Badvel and after attending their work, when they reached to Payalakuntla Village, situated on Badvel – Porumamilla Road, in the motorcycle driven by the Claimant, the Respondent No.1 car bearing No. AP 04 BA 8723 came from their rear side, driven by the Respondent No.3 in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and hit the motorcycle of the Claimant, as a result of which, the Claimant and pillion rider Venkatesh fell

##PAGE3##

3

2026:APHC:34596 down on the road and sustained bleeding injuries and a Crime No. 97 of 2019

of B. Kodur Police Station registered as against the Respondent No.3.

4. Before the Tribunal, Respondent Nos.1 and 3 remained ex parte.

5. Respondent No.2/ Insurance Company filed Written Statement contending that at the time of accident the driver of the car bearing No. AP 04 BA 8723 drove the same in slow manner with care and caution by observing all traffic rules and regulations, but the Claimant drove his motorcycle by talking with the pillion rider Mr. Battala Venkatesh and failed to observe the traffic rules and thereby came and contact with the said car and fallen down and received injuries. The accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the Claimant only. As there was no rash and negligence on the part of the Respondent No.3 in driving the car of the Respondent No.1, the

Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation.

6. Basing on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for

trial:

“1. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 06.05.2019 at about 1.00 p.m, due to rash and

negligent driving of the car bearing No. AP 04 BA 8723 or not?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation, if so, what amount and from whom?

3. To what relief?”

7. On behalf of the Claimants, P.Ws 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A7 were marked. On behalf of Respondent No.2/Insurance Company, no

##PAGE4##

4

2026:APHC:34596 witness examine, but filed an application under Section 170 of M.V.Act, vide

I.A.No

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top