K. Mohan Reddy Vs B. Seenaiah and Co. and Another

¶1

I

¶2

APHC010300752006

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

THURSDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI jyiOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAI NO: 68 OF 2nnfi

¶7

Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V Act. against the order passed in O.P No. 26/2002 dated 18-10-2005 on the file of the Principal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nellore.

¶8

Between:

¶9

K. Mohan Reddy, S/o Chinna Reddy, Aged about 26 years, R/o Bommavaram Village, Ananthasagaram Mandal, Nellore District.

¶10

...Appellant/Petitioner

¶11

AND

¶12

B Seenaiah & Co being partnership firm represented by Managing Partner B.Seenaiah, S/o Ramaiah Naidu, aged about years, Owner of Ashok Leyland No. AHO 2556, C/o Road Metal Quarry, Marripadu Village, Sangam Mandal, Nellore District

¶13

The New India Assurance Company Limited Rep. by its Branch Manager, Branch Manager, Nellore.

¶14

...Respondents/Respondent

¶15

2

¶16

M.A.C.M.A.No.68 of 2006

¶17

JUDGMENT:

¶18

This appeal is filed under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award dated 18.10.2005 allowing the claim petition in O.P.No.26 of 2002 on the file of the Principal Motor^{AccidentClaims} Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Nellore against only the 1 St respondent awarding Rs. 1,00,000/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a., and dismissing the claim against the 2'^^ respondent / insurance company.

¶19

The case of the petitioner is briefly as follows:

¶20

On 17.05.2001, when the vehicle bearing No.AHO 2556 belonging to the 1®‘ respondent was spreading hot tar mix^ontheroad, due to the negligent and rash driving of the vehicle by its driver, the hot tar from the tank of the vehicle fell on the petitioner resulting in burns. The petitioner was admitted in Bollineni Super Speciality Hospital, Nellore where he was treated for the burn injuries and right toe was amputated. He was discharged on 27.07.2001 from the hospital. He spent huge money for his treatment. 3. The 1®' respondent remained ex parte. The petition was opposed by the 2"^ respondent by filing counter denying the averments in the petition and further stating that the tar spray motor vehicle bearing No.AHO 2556 was not validly insured with this respondent on the material date of the accident and therefore, this respondent is not liable to pay compensation. Later^{additionalcounter} was filed stating that no crime was registered against^{thedriverofthe} vehicle bearing No.AHO 2556 in respect of the alleged^incidentand therefore it is clear that the claimant did not receive injuries as

¶21

3

¶22

M.A.C.M.A.No.68 of 2006

¶23

mentioned in the petition and the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation.

¶24

The Tribunal framed the following issues:

¶25

i) Whether the accident in question is occurred, if so, was^it due to the fault of the driver of car sprayer motor vehicle bearing registration No.AHO 2556 ?

¶26

ii) Whether the claimant is entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from which of the respondents?

¶27

iii) To what relief?

¶28

On behalf of the claimant, he got examined himself^asPW1. Dandu Srinivasulu is examined as PW2. Dr.K.Rajaramamohan Reddy as PW3, and Exs.AI to A6 were marked.

¶29

EX.A1	Certificate issued by the Sub-Inspector of Police Muthukur P.S., giving the accident particulars.
EX.A2	Bunch of receipts issued by Bollineni Super Speciality Hospital Nellore.
EX.A3	Bunch of medical bills issued by Suresh Medical and Fancy Muthukuru.
EX.A4	Extract of account book of canteen in BoHineni Super Speciality Hospital, Nellore for the period from 19-05-2001 to ^27-07-2001.
EX.A5	Case sheet relating to the petitioner issued by Bollineni Super Speciality Hospital, Nellore.
EX.A6	Dischargesummarydated26.07.2001.

¶30

M.A.C.M.A.No.68 of 2006

¶31

i

¶32

On behalf of the 2""^ respondent P.G.S.J.D.Prasada Rao, Assistant Administrative Officer, was examined as RW1. No documentary evidence was filed. 7. The fact that the claimant received injuries on 17.05.2001 as hot tar fell on him from a tank of tar spray motor vehicle is not in dispute. According to the claimant, the vehicle involved in the accident bears registration N0.AHO 2556 said to be insured with the 2- respondent under the policy No.844 / 61021 / 51616 valid from 19.02.2001 to 18.02.2002 issued in favour of the 1 respondent i.e., B.Seenaiah & Company. No copy of the policy was filed by the claimant in the evidence. RW1 deposed merely that the police had not registered any crime and charge sheet had not been filed and as such there was no possibility to investigate and that the insurance company had not examined the owner also, though notice had been given to the owner to furnish the details of the accident. He denied the liability of the company to pay compensation. The Tribunal, after considering^the evidence of RW1, observed that mere mentioning of a particular number of the policy by the claimant is of no use and therefore, there IS no liability of the 2"“ respondent to indemnify the respondent. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the petition against the 2'’'^ respondent, while awarding compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/with interest @7.5 % p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realisation with proportionate costs payable to the claimant by the 1 respondent alone. Taking into consideration the extensive burns suffered and amputation of the toe of the petitioner, the Tribunal granted Rs.40,000/- for pain and suffering Rs.50,000/- for disability due to amputation and Rs. 10,000/for medical expenses and attendant charges, a total of Rs. 1,00,000/-.

¶33

5 M.A.C.M.A.No.68 of 2006

¶34

Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded and^also for dismissing the claim petition against the 2"^^ respondent, the claimants preferred the appeal, enclosing a photostat^{copyofapolicy} said to be issued by the 2"^ respondent for the vehicle^AHO2556of the 1 St respondent with the same policy number and for the^same period of validity noted above and also a photostat copy^{ofregistration} certificate of the vehicle bearing No.AHO 2556 with the registered name of the owner as B.Seenaiah & Company.

¶35

nd 9. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that^the2 respondent issued a valid policy of insurance in respect^ofthevehicle bearing No.AHO 2556 with the policy number as stated^aboveand that the copy of the policy could not be filed before^{theTribunalas} it was not available. He further submitted that the claim is covered by the said policy and therefore, the 2 nd respondent is liable to pay compensation.

¶36

The learned counsel representing the 2"^^ respondent^submitted that the vehicle bearing No.AHO 2556 was not insured by the 2 nd respondent and that there is a correction in the vehicle^numberinthe copy of the policy annexed to the appeal, since the^{vehiclenumber} 2526 in the policy copy is corrected as 2556 by altering No.‘2’ as No.‘5’.

¶37

In reply, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted^that the vehicle number noted was not at a single place in the policy, but the same number 2556 was noted in another place in the same document without any correction or overwriting. Further,^hesubmitted that the other particulars, such as the descriptive particulars of the vehicle insured, the owner of the vehicle and the period of policy are

¶38

6

¶39

M.A.C.M.A.No.68 of 2006

¶40

exactly matching and therefore, it is incorrect to contend that the copy of the policy was manipulated to suit the claim of the appellant. He further submitted that a copy of registration certificate in the name of the respondent No.1 for the vehicle bearing No.AHO 2556 was enclosed to the present appeal and therefore, it is clear that the vehicle owned by the respondent No.1 is AHO 2556 and not 2526.

¶41

The learned counsel for the 2'"'^ respondent submitted and showed that the 2^^ respondent issued a policy with the same number for the same period in favour of the same insured in respect of the same type of vehicle, but for a vehicle bearing No.2526 and that taking advantage of these similarities, the copy of the policy annexed to the appeal must have been prepared. He further submitted that since the 2"^^ respondent had not issued any policy^ofinsurance in respect of the vehicle bearing No.AHO 2556 which according^tothe petitioner was involved in the accident, the 2"^^ respondent^cannotbe made liable. He further submitted that even Ex.A1, a certificate issued by the Sub-Inspector of police narrating about the accident and the medical treatment provided to the claimant refers to the vehicle bearing No.AHO 2556 only and not 2526. Therefore, he vehemently contended that the policy issued in respect of the vehicle bearing No.2526 cannot be misused to fasten liability on the 2""^ respondent for the accident caused by any other vehicle, be it AHO 2556 or any other number. He further submitted that the Tribunal noted in the order that RW1 stated in his evidence that a notice had been given^tothe owner to produce the particulars and details of the accident, but nothing was done.

¶42

7 M.A.C.IVI.A.No.68 of 2006

¶43

f

¶44

Though, now it has been argued that the policy with^thenumber 31 / 610701 / 10236 shown to this Court had been issued by the 2 nd respondent, since it was not pleaded, nor was it produced^beforethe Tribunal, there was no opportunity to examine the issue in detail by the Tribunal. Under the circumstances discussed above,^thisCourtis of the view that fresh evidence is required with regard to the policy issued by the respondent No.2. In this regard, apart from the documentary evidence, oral evidence is also required.

¶45

That apart, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted^that the Tribunal awarded interest at lower rate of @7.5% p.a., though the respondent No.2 filed written statement to restrict^{therateofinterest} to only @9% p.a., in the event the Tribunal awards compensation. He further submitted that the Tribunal granted only Rs. 10,000/- towards medical expenses by totally ignoring the medical expenses^ofmore than Rs.65,000/- proved through Ex.A2 and Ex.A3 without rejecting evidence there-under.

¶46

Though, the dismissal of the claim against the insurance company is the main grievance of the appellant, it is also the grievance for awarding amount lower than the amount of compensation and the rate of interest claimed, the matter requires fresh adjudication both in respect of quantum of compensation^andthe liability of the insurance company / respondent No.2.^{Therefore,the} matter requires remand to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication^both in respect of quantity of amount of compensation regarding^themedical expenses only and the rate of interest and also the liability of the respondent No.2 by allowing the parties to lead both oral and documentary evidence and pass award afresh. The rest^oftheamount

¶47

8 M.A.C.M.A.No.68 of 2006

¶48

A

¶49

relating to the compensation under the other heads doesn’t require interference.

¶50

Accordingly, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed and the award and decree dated 18.10.2005 in O.P.No.26 of 2002 on the file of the Principal Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cumPrincipal District Judge, Nellore, are set aside and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication both in respect of quantity of amount of compensation regarding the medical expenses only and the rate of interest and also the liability of the respondent No.2 by allowing the parties to lead both oral and documentary evidence and pass award afresh. The rest of the award relating to the compensation under the other heads remains intact. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶51

The Tribunal shall dispose of the matter within (03) three months from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. Both parties, in person or through counsel shall appear before the Tribunal on 22.07.2025. 18. The Registry shall forthwith send the record back to the Tribunal.

¶52

Interim orders granted earlier, if any, shall stand^vacated.

¶53

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand^closed.

¶54

Sd/- K J RAJA BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶55

//TRUE COPY//

¶56

To,

¶57

The Registrar(Judicial), High Court of Andhra Pradesh^atAmaravathi 2. The Principal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nellore,^SPSRNellore District (with records) (BY SPEED POST)

¶58

The Branch Manager, New India Assurance Company Limited, Branch Manager, Nellore.

¶59

K. Mohan Reddy, S/o Chinna Reddy, Aged about 26 years, R/o Bommavaram Village, Ananthasagaram Mandal, Nellore District. (BY

¶60

SPEED POST)

¶61

B Seenaiah & Co being partnership firm represented by Managing Partner B.Seenaiah, S/o Ramaiah Naidu, aged about years.^Ownerof Ashok Leyland No. AHO 2556, C/o Road Metal Quarry, Marripadu Village, Sangam Mandal, Nellore District(BY SPEED POST)

¶62