APHC010358822012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3365]

AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

FRIDAY ,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE DR V R K KRUPA SAGAR MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO:

3266/2012 Between:

United India Insurance Co Ltd ...APPELLANT AND Boya Veeranjaneyulu Anr and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Appellant:

1. YAGNA NARAYANA CHEBRALU Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. INENI VENKATA PRASAD The Court made the following:

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR

JUDGMENT:

The insurance company preferred this Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 questioning the correctness of the award dated 21.10.2008 of the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge (F.T.C.), Anantapur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Claims Tribunal’) in O.P.No.417 of 2006.

2. Heard arguments of Sri Yagna Narayana Chebralu, the learned counsel for appellant-Insurance Company and Sri Ineni Venkata Prasad, the learned counsel for respondent No.1/claimant.

3. The following facts are required to be noticed:

Sri Boya Veeranjaneyulu is a hamali by profession. On

23.05.2005 five hamalies including Sri B.Veeranjaneyulu were travelling in a lorry bearing registration No.AAQ-337 and at about 6:00 P.M. near Kamalapadu bus stop on Uravakonda-Guntakal road of Anantapur the driver of the lorry lost control of it and as a consequence the lorry turned turtle and father of Sri B.Veeranjaneyulu died on the spot and Sri B.Veeranjaneyulu suffered grievous injury, namely, loss of six lower teeth and eight upper teeth and also suffered simple injuries over his body. As against the driver of the offending lorry, Crime No.25 of 2005 was registered at Vajrakarur Police Station. After due investigation, the investigation officer filed a charge sheet before competent Court alleging that the driver of the offending lorry drove the vehicle rashly or negligently at the material point of time and caused the accident. Sri N.Veeresh is stated to be the owner of the offending lorry. United India Insurance Company Limited is stated to be the insurer of the said vehicle. Sri B.Veeranjaneyulu laid a claim for compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act making the owner and the insurer as parties and the case was registered as O.P.No.417 of 2006 before the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-IV Additional District Judge (F.T.C.), Anantapur. The owner of the vehicle did not choose to appear and contest. The insurance company denied the narration of accident and raised various questions and sought dismissal of the claim.

4. The learned Claims Tribunal framed the following issues for trial:

1) Whether the accident occurred on 23.05.2005 at about 6:00 P.M. due to rash and negligent driving of lorry bearing No.AAQ-337 by its driver and turned turtle and caused injuries to the petitioner?

2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation?

If so, to what amount and from which respondent?

3) To what relief?

5. There was evidence of PWs.1 to 3 and Exs.A.1 to A.5 and Ex.X.1 and there was also the evidence of RWs.1 and 2 and Exs.B.1 to B.4.

6. After considering the relevant evidence brought on record and the respective contentions raised on both sides, the learned Claims Tribunal held that the accident was out of rash or negligent driving of driver of the offending lorry. It considered the medical evidence and the income and age of the claimant and granted a total compensation of Rs.76,000/- under the following heads:

7. Before the Claims Tribunal the insurance company contended that the driver of the offending vehicle