Boddula Babu Rao Vs Kappala Israil

BODDULA BABU RAO, S/O. BASAVAYYA, AGE 60 YEARS, MALE, HINDU, COOLIE, RIO. H.NO.2-18, HARIJANA PETA, TIPPARRU VILLAGE, PERAVALI MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT

¶11

...APPELLANT

¶12

AND

¶13

KAPPALA ISRAIL, S/O. BENJAMIN, AGED 58 YEARS, MALE, HINDU, DRIVER OF AUTO BEARING NO.AP 37 TA 9304, RIO. H.NO.1-10, NADUPALLI VILLAGE, PERAVALI MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT,

¶14

PUTTALA RATNA KUMARI, W/O. ABBULU, AGED 34 YEARS, FEMALE, HINDU, OWNER OF AUTO BEARING NO.AP 37 TA 9304, R/O. H.NO.4-188, KRISHNA NAGAR, KHANDAVALLI VILLAGE, PERAVALI MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT,

¶15

THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, DO, INNISPETA, RAJAHMUNDRY

¶16

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶17

Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying that the High court may be pleased to aggrieved by the inadequate compensation of Order passed in M.V.O.P.No.87 of 2014, dated 30.07.2016, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-DC Additional District Judge, West Godavari at Kowur, the above named appellants beg to prefer the present memorandum of motor accidents Civil Miscellaneous appeal

¶18

2

¶19

VS,J MACMA.No.16 of 2022

¶20

IA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶21

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 pleased to condone the delay of 1864 days in resubmitting the MACMA (SR) No 40713 of 2016 on the file of this Honble Court int he interest of justice and pass

¶22

IA NO: 2 OF 2022

¶23

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 pleased to dispense with the filing of the certified copy of judgement in MVOP No 87 of 2014 on the file of the court of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunalcum-IX Additional District Judge, West Godavari at Kovvur dt 30.7.2016 in the interest of justice and pass

¶24

Counsel for the Appellant:

¶25

1.MANGENA SREE RAMA RAO

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶27

1.N RAMA KRISHNA

¶28

¶29

The Court made the following:

¶30

3

¶31

VS,J MACMA.No.16 of 2022

¶32

JUDGMENT:

¶33

The appellants/claimants filed the present appeal challenging the award passed in M.V.O.P.No.87 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IX Additional District Judge, West Godavari, Kovvur whereby and whereunder, the Tribunal dismissed the petition as against the claim of Rs.6,00,000/-, on account of the death of Rajesh.

¶34

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.

¶35

The case of the petitioners is briefly as follows:

¶36

On 02.05.2014, when the deceased Rajesh proceeding on motorcycle driven by his friend Ramesh bearing to go to Nidadavolu, when they reached near petrol bunk between Kalvacherla – Munipalli, by the side of Nidadavolu – Narasapur road, one auto bearing No.AP 37 TA 9304 driven by 1^st respondent came in rash and negligent manner at high speed in the opposite direction on the wrong side of road and hit the motorcycle of deceased, as a result the deceased and his friend fell down and sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to death on the spot. Prior to the date of accident, the deceased used to work as painter

¶37

4

¶38

VS,J MACMA.No.16 of 2022

¶39

and earning monthly income of Rs.6,000/-. Therefore, the petitioners sought compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- from the respondents.

¶40

Before the Tribunal, Respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained ex parte .

¶41

Respondent No.3 filed written statement wherein it denied each and every allegation of the petition and specifically contended that the accident occurred by reason of rash and negligent riding of motorcycle by the friend of deceased and that auto not involved in the accident and implicated the same for compensation. Therefore they prayed the court to dismiss the petition with costs.

¶42

Basing on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial:

¶43

“1. Whether the accident occurred due to the rash or negligent driving of auto AP 37 TA 9304 by 1^st respondent? or

¶44

2. Whether the accident occurred due to sole negligence of the rider of motor cycle by name Chigurupati Ramesh due to hit the motor cycle to road side tree?

¶45

3. Whether petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, the quantum and by whom payable?

¶46

4. To what relief?”

¶47

On behalf of the claimants, the 1^st petitioner examined himself as PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A5. Apart from him, one eye witness to occurrence of accident was examined as PW2. On behalf of 3^rd

¶48

5

¶49

VS,J MACMA.No.16 of 2022

¶50

respondent, policy copy issued by it to 2^nd respondent was marked as Ex.B1 by consent.

¶51

After hearing both parties and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition against respondent Nos.1 to 3.

¶52

Aggrieved by the said award, the appellants/claimants preferred

¶53

this appeal contending that the Tribunal failed to consider that the accident reported by Motor vehicle Inspector, Kovvuru and other documents which clearly show that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the auto and Ex.A5 charge sheet. Therefore, prayed to allow the appeal.

¶54

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein has supported the impugned award and prayed to dismiss the appeal.

¶55

Now the point for consideration is:

¶56

Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference?

¶57

6

¶58

VS,J MACMA.No.16 of 2022

¶59

POINT:

¶60

To prove that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle by the respondent No.1, the claimants relied upon the evidence of PW2-eye witness and documentary evidence Exs.A1 to A5. The Tribunal through the oral evidence of PW2 coupled with documentary evidence i.e., Exs.A1 to A5 rightly established that the auto of 2^nd respondent was implicated for purpose of getting compensation by petitioners. Auto of 2^nd respondent is not the vehicle caused the accident. Therefore, petitioners failed to prove the fact that the accident occurred by reason of rash and negligent driving of auto bearing No.AP 37 TA 9304. The learned counsel for the respondent relied upon the Judgment reported in 2010 (6) ALT 643 wherein under similar circumstances this Hon’ble Court has held as under:

¶61

“I am of the opinion that the Tractor and Trailer was planted

¶62

as if it was involved in the said accident in collusion with the police. Further, I am also of the opinion that the charge-sheet was filed by the Sub Inspector of Police concerned of Indrakaran Police Station, contrary to the records, in collusion with the owner of the said Tractor with an intention to illegally help the claimants for obtaining compensation.”

¶63

7

¶64

VS,J MACMA.No.16 of 2022

¶65

Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly held that the facts of the case clearly probabilize that the auto of 2^nd respondent was implicated by the petitioners for the purpose of obtaining compensation. Hence, the petitioners failed to prove that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle (auto bearing No. AP 37 TA 9304).

¶66

So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal has rightly held that as the petitioners failed to prove the involvement of the auto of 2^nd respondent in causing the death of their son, therefore, they are not entitled for compensation from respondents. Thus, no interference is required with the said finding of the Tribunal.

¶67

In view of the above reasons, this Court finds no error in the said finding of the Tribunal, warranting interference with the impugned award.

¶68

In the result, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶69

Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated.

¶70

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶71

___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶72

Date: 09.02.2026 PBS

Boddula Babu Rao v. Kappala Israil

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Boddula Babu Rao v. Kappala Israil

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Lakshmi Tractors Vs Sri B Rajasekhar

Sri Lakshmi Tractors, Vs Sri. Budithi Rajasekhar

K Vaanisree Vs Naraparedy Mourya IAS

Tata Aig General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Nagaboyina Ratna Kumari

Syed Magbul alias Sd. Mabul Vs Aluru Lalithamma

Nimmakayala Ganga Bhavani Vs Mussadi Bhaskar