Date of reserved for Judgment : 27.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 07.05.2026 Date of uploading : 07.05.2026 APHC010550792012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3520]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

THURSDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 2193/2012 Between:

1. I CICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,, REP. BY ITS MANAGER, ICICI BANK TOWERS, 4TH FLOOR, EAST WING WALL STREET PLAZA, 1-11-256, STREET NO.1, BEGUMPET, HYDERABAD. ...APPELLANT AND

1. K AKARA JAYAKRISHNA SWAMY, S/O. SURI BABU STUDENT KARAPA, KARAPA MANDAL, KAKINADA ( BEING MINOR REP. BY HIS FATHER AND GUARDIAN KAKARA SURIBABU )

2. V AJJI PRASAD, S/O. CHALLAIAH DRIVER OF TRIPPER INDRAPALEM, KAKINADA RURAL MANDAL, 3. M /S SRI ENGINEERING CONTRACTORS, REP. BY B.NAGESWARA RAO, D.NO. 54-18-43, NEAR ITI MIDHILA NAGAR, VIJAYAWADA.

...RESPONDENT(S):

Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC before the High Court IA NO: 1 OF 2009(MACMAMP 1598 OF 2009 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 610 days occurred in filing the appeal against the decree and judgment in MVOp No. 523/2004 dt. 30.03.2007, on the file of learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Addl.

District Judge, Kakinada and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2009(MACMAMP 1762 OF 2009 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 Counsel for the Appellant:

1. GUDI SRINIVASU Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. OBULDASS M The Court made the following:

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA M.A.C.M.A.No.2193 of 2012

JUDGMENT

Introductory:

The respondent No.3 before the Court of the III Additional District Judge-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kakinada (for short “the learned MACT”), in M.V.O.P.No.523 of 2004 filed the present appeal, questioning the liability imposed and quantum of compensation awarded under the decree and order dated 30.03.2007.

2. The 1^st respondent herein is the claimant/petitioner, (being minor represented by his father and next friend) before the learned MACT. The 2^nd respondent is the driver of the Tipper lorry bearing No. AP 16 V 3043 [hereinafter referred as „the offending vehicle‟] and the 3^rd respondent herein is the owner of the offending vehicle.

3. For the sake of convenience, parties will be herein after referred as the claimant/petitioner and the respondents as and how they are arrayed before the learned MACT.

Case of the claimant/petitioner:-

4. [i] On the fateful day i.e., on 05.04.2004, the petitioner/injured (minor) while returning from the house of his grandfather situated at Ramakanchinagar and proceeding to Karapa village, met with an accident near Durgamma temple, where the offending vehicle, owned by the 2^nd respondent, driven by the 1^st respondent came from behind and hit him. Thereby, the petitioner sustained multiple injuries and he was shifted to Government General Hospital, Kakinada, undergone treatment for a period of (3) month, undergone surgery to his left thigh and skin grafting was done.

Six months bed rest was advised.

[ii] A case in Crime No. 31 of 2004 under Section 338 of IPC was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle.

[iii] The petitioner incurred heavy expenditure for the treatment.

The 1^st respondent being driver, the 2^nd respondent being owner of the offending vehicle and as the 3^rd respondent, with which the offending vehicle was insured, all the respondents are liable to pay the compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-.

Case of the 2^nd respondent/Owner:-

5. Negligence of the petitioner is the cause for the accident and the respondents are not liable.

Case of the 3^rd respondent/Insurance Company:-

6. Contention of the 3^rd respondent is that the petitioner is not entitled for any compensation.