(Prayer: Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be pleased topleased to allow this appeal by setting aside the decree and judgment passed in in M.V.O.P.No.1012 of 2014 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - Cum- IV Additional District Judge, Guntur, dated 29thday of November, 2022 and pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2023

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 45 days in filing the M.A.C.M.A. against the decree and judgment M.V.O.P.No.1012 of 2014 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - Cum- IV Additional District Judge, Guntur, dated 29thday of November, 2022, and pass

IA NO: 2 OF 2023

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 grant stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the Judgment and Decree dated 29th day of November, 2022 passed M.V.O.P.No.1012 of 2014 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - Cum- IV Additional District Judge, Guntur, including the execution proceedings , pending disposal of the main M.A.C.M.A., and pass)

1. This appeal is filed by the appellant – Insurance company of the vehicle bearing No.AP16TU0499 challenging the award dated 29.11.2022 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – IV Additional District Judge, Guntur in M.V.O.P.No.1012 of 2014 filed by the respondent No.1/claimant, under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and under rules 455 and 476 of Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicle Rules, seeking compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for the injury sustained by him in an accident that occurred on 21.02.2013 near Petlurivaripalem village, Narasaraopet mandal, Guntur district.

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

3. The claimant is the injured, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 are the owner and insurer of the lorry bearing No.AP16TU0499 respectively (hereinafter referred to as the offending vehicle), the 3rd and 4th respondents are the owner and insurer of the vehicle bearing No.AP21TT1041 (hereinafter referred to as ‗mini lorry‘). On 21.02.2013, at about 09.00 a.m., while the claimant and few others were travelling in the mini lorry, as the driver of the mini lorry was not able to observe that the offending vehicle was unnecessarily parked on the side of the road near Petlurivaripalem village, Narasaraopet to Vinukonda road, Narasaraopet mandal, Guntur district, the driver of the mini lorry hit the offending vehicle resulting in multiple injuries to the claimant who was travelling in the mini lorry as a passenger. The incident was immediately reported to Police who registered a case in Crime No.34 of 2013. Though the claimant was earning Rs.300/- per day as on the date of accident, he restricted his annual income to Rs.40,000/- as it is a petition filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act.

4. The respondent No.2 contested the claim petition by filing a written statement stating that the accident is a collusion between the offending vehicle stationed at the relevant time and the mini lorry; thus, the liability, if any has to be apportioned between the vehicles as per the ratio of their negligence. The 4th respondent – insurer of the mini lorry has filed its written statement contending that the accident was not due to the negligence and fault of the driver of the mini lorry and that the sole fault and negligence lies with the driver of the offending vehicle.

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

                  1) Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Lorries bearing NO.AP16 TU 0499 and AP21 TT 1041?

                  2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation if so to what amount against whom?

                  3) To what relief?

6. During the course of trial, the claimant himself was examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A3. On behalf of the 2nd respondent, its administrative officer was examined as R.W.1 and got marked Exs.B1 to B3. The claim against the 3rd respondent was dismissed.

7. The Tribunal, after considering all the facts and material available before it, awarded Rs.1,80,000/- to the claimant as it is a petition under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act and as the claimant need not establish negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. Challenging the same, the 2nd respondent filed this Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

8. Heard Sri. Gudi Srinivasu, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant and Sri. N. Ramakrishna, learned counsel for the respondent No.4.

9. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/appellant strenuously contended that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the mini lorry and that the same lends support from the FIR and charge sheet filed by the Police against the driver of the mini lorry. He further contended that though the claimant himself putforth that his income is Rs.300/- per day, claim petition under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act is not maintainable and the Tribunal ought not to have awarded a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- as compensation to the claimant. Hence requested to set- aside the impugned award passed by the Tribunal.

10. Perused the entire material available on record. To prove that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, the claimant himself got examined as P.W.1 and narrated the facts that led to the accident. A perusal of the evidence of P.W.1 coupled with the contents of Exs.A1 and A2 (FIR and charge sheet), it is well established that the claimant sustained four injuries i.e. (i) fracture of distal end of ulna on left side, (ii) proximal end of ulna on right side, (iii) grade I open fracture of left patella and (iv) crush injury of right foot, in the motor accident that occurred on 21.02.2013 at about 09.00 a.m. Admittedly, the claimant has filed the claim petition before the Tribunal under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act. For better appreciation of the case, Section 163A of the Act is extracted hereunder:

                  ―163A. Special provisions as to payment of compensation on structured formula basis.—

                  (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force or instrument having the force of law, the owner of the motor vehicle of the authorised insurer shall be liable to pay in the case of death or permanent disablement due to accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle, compensation, as indicated in the Second Schedule, to the legal heirs or the victim, as the case may be. Explanation.—For the purposes of this sub-section, ―permanent disability‖ shall have the same meaning and extent as in the Workmen‘s Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923).

                  (2) In any claim for compensation under sub-section (1), the claimant shall not be required to plead or establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or of any other person.

                  (3) The Central Government may, keeping in view the cost of living by notification in the Official Gazette, from time to time amend the Second Schedule‖

11. It is well settled that under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, the claimant is not required to prove negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle in order to claim compensation. It is sufficient if the claimant proves that the accident occurred and that the injuries or death were caused due to the use of the motor vehicle. In claims under this provision, the question of fault or negligence does not arise, as the section provides for compensation on a no-fault basis. Even otherwise, in a petition under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, the 2nd respondent cannot be permitted to prove the negligence of the driver of the mini lorry. The claimant is admittedly a third party and was only travelling in the mini lorry at the time of accident.

12. A perusal of the affidavit filed by the claimant, it is clear that the claimant reiterated the way the accident occurred on 21.02.2013 and the same was not disputed. He also relied on a wound certificate issued by the doctor who treated the claimant which is marked as Ex.A.3. Admittedly, the wound certificate was not disputed by the respondents. Considering the three grievous injuries and one simple injury sustained by the claimant, which were mentioned hereinabove earlier, the Tribunal awarded Rs.1,75,000/- towards pain and suffering; Rs.5,000/- was awarded towards medical expenses of the claimant. In total, Rs.1,80,000/- was awarded to the claimant for the injuries sustained by him. The amount awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the material placed on record.

13. Since the claim petition is filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, the 2nd respondent/appellant is not required to prove negligence on the part of the driver of the mini lorry. The provision is based on the principle of no-fault liability. Therefore, the 2nd respondent cannot contend that the driver of the mini lorry was also negligent and cannot escape its liability on that ground. Once the claimant is successful in establishing that the accident occurred due to the use of the motor vehicle and that he suffered injuries in the said accident, the claimant is entitled to compensation under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act.

14. In view of the foregoing discussion, the award passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – IV Additional District Judge, Guntur in M.V.O.P.No.1012 of 2014 is on reasonable basis and the same need not be intervened by this Court. Accordingly, this Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.