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

2026 Supreme(AP) 1077

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
V.Sujatha, J.
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd - Appellant
Versus
Bandaru Venkata Mandadi Venkataiah, S/O. Karri Mandadi - Respondent
Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No: 220 of 2023
Decided On : 06-04-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : N Rama Krishna
For the Respondent: D Kodandarami Reddy

JUDGMENT :

V.Sujatha, J.

1. This Motor Accident Claims Miscellaneous Appeal (for short MACMA) has been preferred by the Appellant/ 3rd respondent i.e., The Oriental Insurance Company Limited represented by its Local Manager Branch Office, opposite to District Court, Kadapa, being aggrieved by the Order/Award and Decree passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short MACT) –cum- VI Additional District Judge, Kadapa, in M.V.O.P.No.406 of 2018 dated 31.10.2022 awarding an amount of Rs7,38,901/- as against the claim of Rs.10,50,000/-. 

For the sake of convenience and to avoid confusion, the parties herein after are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal i.e., Appellant herein as Respondent No.3, Respondent No.1 herein as petitioner-claimant; and Respondents No2 and 3 herein as Respondents No.1 and 2.

2. The Petitioner being injured filed claim petition in M.V.O.P.No.406 of 2018 under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act, r/w. Rule 455 of Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicle Rules, claiming compensation of Rs.10,50,000/- from respondents 1 to 3 jointly and severally for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident, together with interest and for costs of the petition.

3. Brief averments of the claim petition in MVOP No.406 of 2018 are that: the petitioner was doing cow dung and sheep dung business and getting income of Rs.15,000/- per month and the same was contributing to their family and he is the only earning member and the entire family depending upon the income of the injured.

i. On 17.03.2018 at about 12.30 p.m., the petitioner and his wife B.Venkatamma, sister-in-law Jayamma, brother-in-law Chandra Mouli started in a lorry bearing No. AP02 T 3159 from Tirupathi after loading dung (Eruvu) in order to sell the same at Railway Kodur. Said lorry was driven by one N.Ramamurthy. When the said lorry reached near Chimpiri Siddaramireddy Banana Gardens at S.Upparapalli H.Wada, Railway Kodur Mandal, the driver of the lorry drove it rashly, in a negligent manner and with high speed, as a result of which, the right side front tyre of the lorry burst and the lorry piercly, took a turn towards right side. At the same time, one lorry bearing No.TN52 H 6675 was coming from Kodur side and despite its driver took the lorry towards left side in order to avert the direct hitting, but, in that process, the lorry bearing No.TN52 H 6675 hit on the right side of the lorry bearing No.AP02 T 3159, as a result of which, the petitioner and other inmates of the lorry sustained bleeding injuries. The passers-by called108 Ambulance and shifted the injured to SVRR Hospital, Tirupathi.

ii. Basing on the report given by Chandra Mouli, a case in Cr.No.130 of 2018 was registered in Railway Kodur Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 337, 338, 279 of IPC against the driver of lorry bearing No.AP02 T 3159.

iii. Petitioner sustained severe injuries to his right leg, spanning fixation of right lower limb and above knee POP slab immobilization for left lower limb, that the condition of the petitioner is tenderness and swelling over left distal femur and knee joint and he took treatment as an inpatient for 10 days and inserted plates and rods and incurred medical expenses of Rs.2,50,000/- and he was discharged on 27.03.2018. He is still suffering due to accidental fracture injuries. He is not able to do work as previously and he became permanently disable man and lost his bread and butter forever and leading very miserable life. Apart from that, the petitioner advised to have future surgeries to set right the dis-figuration by incurring huge amount.

iv. 1st respondent is the owner of the crime vehicle - lorry bearing No.AP02 T 3159, which was insured with 2nd respondent and the policy was in force as on the date of accident. 3rd respondent is the driver of the crime vehicle. Hence, all the respondents 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner.

4. Respondents No.1 and 3 filed their writ

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top