APHC011417522016 2025:APHC:2410 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3367]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NOs: 72, 70 & 71 OF 2025 Between in M.A.C.M.A.No.72 of 2025:

S.akther Jan and Others ...APPELLANT(S)

AND B Balaraju Anantapur Dist And 2 Others and ...RESPONDENT(S)

Others Between in M.A.C.M.A.No.70 of 2025:

S Naseem and Others ...APPELLANT(S)

AND B Balaraju Anantapur Dist And 2 Others and ...RESPONDENT(S)

Others Between in M.A.C.M.A.(SR) No.71 of 2025:

S.Saheena and Others ...APPELLANT(S)

AND B Balaraju Anantapur Dist And 2 Others and ...RESPONDENT(S)

Others Counsel for the Appellant(S):

SURESH KUMAR REDDY KALAVA Counsel for the Respondent(S):

SRAVAN KUMAR MANNAVA The Court made the following:

COMMON JUDGMENT:

These appeals are directed against the orders of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- Principal District Judge at Chittoor (hereinafter called as ‘the Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.Nos.131, 132 and 133 of 2013 dated

07.04.2016.

2. Since these appeals arise out of same accident and as the material facts are common, the same are being disposed of by this common judgment.

3. M.A.C.M.A.(SR) No.27680 of 2016 is preferred by the claimants, who are wife and children of one S.Nayab Makdum (hereinafter called as “deceased No.1”), before the Tribunal for enhancement of compensation. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 are the owner, insurer and driver of the Indigo Car bearing No.AP

02 TR/TY 0847 (hereinafter referred as “crime car”).

4. M.A.C.M.A.(SR) No.27686 of 2016 is preferred by the claimants, who are wife and children of one S.Pyarejan @ S.Ameen (hereinafter called as “deceased No.2”), before the Tribunal for enhancement of compensation.

5. M.A.C.M.A.(SR) No.27690 of 2016 is preferred by the claimants, who are wife and children of one M.Suleman Khan (hereinafter called as “deceased No.3”), before the Tribunal for enhancement of compensation.

6. The case of the claimants, in the petitions before the Tribunal is that:

i). On 10.02.2013 at about 05.50 p.m., while the deceased Nos.1 to 3 proceeding in an Auto bearing No.AP 03 TA 4257, when they reached near Kantayvaripalle situated on Madanapalle-Kadiri main road, the driver of the said crime car (car bearing No.AP 02 TR/TY 0847) driven the same in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed the said auto in opposite direction, resulted death of the deceased Nos.1 to 3.

ii). Being dependents, the claimants in all the petitions, claimed compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-, Rs.7,50,000/- and Rs.7,00,000/- respectively against the owner, insurer and driver of the said crime car.

7. The respondent No.2/insurer filed written statement and additional written statement denying the averments in the petition and pleaded that the accident occurred was due to negligent driving of the auto, but not driver of the crime car (car bearing No.AP 02 TR/TY 0847); that the petition is bad for non- joinder of driver and owner of the said auto; that the driver of the crime car is not having valid driving license to drive the same and that the compensation claimed by the claimants is excessive, thereby, prayed to dismiss the petition.

8. The respondent No.3/driver filed written statement denying the averments in the petition and pleaded that he is holding valid driving license to drive the crime car; that there is no negligence on his part in causing the incident and that he is not a necessary party to the proceedings, thereby, prayed to dismiss the petition.

9. The Tribunal settled the following issues for enquiry basing on the material:

“1.Whether the accident in question occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of car bearing No.AP 02 TR/TY 0847 or the auto rickshaw bearing No.AP 03 TA 4257?

2.Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?

3.Whether the petitioners are entitled for any compensation, if so,