The Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. Feno Plast Ltd

APHC010587272012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI 0^ FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSANDAND TWENTYFIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA M.A.C.M.A Nos.157 OF 2012 and 1535 of 2007 MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 157 OF 2012 Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V Act, against the order and Decree dated 2S-12-2005 passed in O.P No. 889 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- IX Additional District Judge-Guntur. Between: National Insurance Company Limited, Represented by its Divisional Manager,'Guntur District. ...Appellant/Respondent No.2 AND 1. Maruti Rama Linga Reddy, S/a. Rama Krishna Reddy, Aged 38 years, Sattenapalli, Guntur District. 2. P Sreenivasa Rao, S/o. Venkateswarlu, D.No. 11-26-20, Ramireddypet, Narasaraopet, Guntur District. Respondent No.2 is dismissed for default vide Court Order dated 05/09/2011. ...Respondents/ Respondents

.r5 r" lA NO: 2 OF 2007(MACMAMP 2071 OF 2007 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 stay all further proceedings of decree and Judgment dated 28.12.2005 passed in OP.No. 889/2001 on the file of the MACT-cum-IX Additional District Judge, Guntur. Counsel for the Appellant: Smt. S A V Ratnam Counsel for the Respondents: - APHC010384702007 MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1535 OF 2007 Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V Act, against the order and Decree dated 18-05-2006 passed in O.P No. 296 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- III Additional District Judge-Guntur. Between: The National Insurance Co Ltd, rep by its Branch Manager The Branch Manager, National Insurance Co Ltd., Arundelpet, Narasaraopet. ...Appellant/Respondent No.2 AND 1. Avula Govardhanamma, W/o.late Anki Reddy, Aged 55 years, R/o.Dodleru, Krosuru Mandal, Guntur District. 2. Avula Ramadevi, W/o.late Narasareddy, Aged 21 years, R/o.Dodleru, Krosuru Mandal, Guntur District. 3. Avula Ankireddy, S/o.late Narasareddy @ Narsareddy, aged 5 years.

3 4. Avula Lakshmi, D/o.late Narasareddy Narsareddy, Aged 9 Months Petitioners 3 and 4 being minors rep by their mother as legal guardian ...Respondent/PetitionerNos.1 to 4 5. Palapati Srinivasa Rao, S/o.Venkateswarlu Zeep Owner R/o.D.No.11- 26-20, 11th Ward, Narasaropet, Guntur District. ...Respondents/ Respondents Respondent No.5 is dismissed vide Court Order dated 09/06/2017. lA NO: 2 OF 2007rMACMAMP 2067 OF 2007 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 stay all further proceedings of the decree & order dated 18.5.2006 passed in OP No.296/04 on the file of III Addl. District Judge cum MACT., Guntur, pending disposal of the main appeal Counsel for the Appellant: Smt. S A V Ratnam Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Thota Ramakoteswara Rao The Court made the following COMMON JUDGMENT:

1 APHC010587272012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3520] It i FRIDAY,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 157/2012 Between: " 1.NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, RELPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER: GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT AND 1.MARUTI RAMA LINGA REDDY, S/0. RAMA KRISHNA REDDY SATTENAPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2.P SREENIVASA RAO, S/0. VENKATESWARLU, D.NO. 11-26-20 RAMIREDDYPET, NARASARAOPET, Counsel for the Appellant: 1.S AVRATNAM MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1535/2007 Between: 1.THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD, REP BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER THE BRANCH MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD., ARUNDELPET, NARASARAOPET. ...APPELLANT AND

I 2 r" 1.AVULA GOVARDHANAMMA 4 ORS, W/O.LATE ANKI REDDY ^ R/O.DODLERU, KROSURU MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2.AVULA RAMADEVI, W/O.LATE NARASAREDDY R/O.DODLERU, KROSURU MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3.AVULA ANKIREDDY, S/O.LATE NARASAREDDY @ NARSAREDDY R/O.DODLERU, KROSURU MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 4.AVULA LAKSHMI, D/O.LATE NARASAREDDY @ NARSAREDDY, AGED 9 MONTHS P2 AND 4 BEING MINORS REP BY THEIR MOTHER AS LEGAL GUARDIAN R/O.DODLERU, KROSURU MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 5.PALAPATI SRINIVASA RAO, S/O.VENKATESWARLU ZEEP OWNER R/O.D.NO.11-26-20, 11TH WARD, NARASAROPET, GUNTUR DISTRICT. Counsel for the Appellant: 1.S AVRATNAM Counsel for the Respondent{S): 1 .THOTA RAMAKOTESWARA RAO The Court made the following:

5 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA M.A.C.M.A.Nos.157 of 2012 and MAGMA No.1535 of 2007 COMMON JUDGMENT: Introduction:- 1. [i] The National Insurance Company Ltd. / 2"^^ respondent in M.V.O.P.No.889 of 2001 on the of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- IX Additional District Judge, Guntur [for short “MACT], preferred the appeal in MACMA No. 157 of 2012. The 2^ respondent- the National Insurance Company Ltd. in M.V.O.P.No.296 of 2004 on the of the Motor Accident Claims Tribun'al-cum- III Additional District Judge, Guntur [for short ‘‘MACT’], preferred the appeal in MACMA No.1535 of 2007. [iii} Both the cases i.e., M.V.O.P.No.889 of 2001 and 296 of 2004, are arising out of a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 18.05.2001. [iv] One Maruri Ramaligna Reddy, injured in the accident, is the claimant/petitioner in M.V.O.P.No.889 of 2001. [v] Legal representatives of one Avula Narasa Reddy @ Narasareddy, who died in the said accident, are the claimants/petitioners 1 to 4 in M.V.O.P.No.296 of 2004. 2. M.V.O.P.No.889 of 2001 was decreed on 28.12.2005 and M.V.O.P.No.296 of 2004 was decreed on 18.05.2006 by the respective MACTs. Though both the cases are arising out the same accident, different

I applications are filed and they are made out to different Courts/Tribunals and the matters were decided on different dates. 3. Claims, defenses and substantially the contesting parties being the both the appeals are now being decided together advancement of arguments by ail counsels together. Challenge in MACMA No. 1535 of 2007 is against the Order and Decree dated 18.05.2006 was in M.V.O.P.No.296 of 2004 where under compensation of Rs. 1,45,000/- was awarded as against a claim made for Rs.2,00,000/- and the challenge in M.A.C.M.No.157 of 2012 is against the Order and Decree dated 28.12.2005 where under a compensation of Rs.92,650/- was awarded as against a claim made for Rs.2,00,000/-. Details of the accident:- same upon 4. On the fateful day i.e., on 18.05.2001 at about 6.30 p.m., one Avula Narasa Reddy @ Narsarareddy [for short ‘the deceased’] referred in M.V.O.P.No.296 of 2004 and Maruri Rama Linga Reddy [for short ‘the injured] claimant in i\/I.V.O.P.No.889 of 2001, along with some others were travelling in a Jeep bearing No.AP V 6512 [for short ‘the offending vehicle], due to lapse of driver of the vehicle in controlling the same, the vehicle hit a Tree on the outskirts of Yerrabalem village of Krosuru Mandal, Guntur District to Sattenapalli, the deceased-Narasa Reddy died and Maruri Ramalinga Reddy sustained injuries due to the impact of accident. The matter was reported to Police, upon which a case in Crime No.38 of 2001 5.

I 5 was registered in Krosuru Police Station for the offences under Sections 337, 338 and 304-A IPC against the driver of the offending vehicle. 6. Respondent No.1 is the owner of the vehicle and the 2^^ respondent [appellant herein] in both the cases, is the insurer of the offending vehicle, before the learned MACT. Details of the Claim:- In M.V.O.P.No.296 of 2004:- 7. The deceased-Avula Narasa Reddy was aged about 25 years, hale and healthy, sole bread winner for the family, driver by provision, earning Rs.2,500/- salary per month and Rs.50/- per day as batta; claimant No.1 is the mother, claimant No.2 is the wife, claimant No.3 and 4, are the children of the deceased. Hence, they are dependents and legal heirs of the deceased, therefore, entitled for-compensation. In M.V.O.P.No.889 of 2001:- 8. The injured/claimant was running Fertilizers business, hale and healthy, suffered 1) fracture of right scapula 2) fracture of right clavicle and 3) fracture of right ribs and other multiple injuries. He got treatment at Government Hospital, Sattenapalli, thereafter Peoples Trauma Emergency Hospital, Guntur. He was in-patient from 18.05.2001 to 03.06.2001, suffered disability due to the accident and unable to attend any work and he was earning Rs.8000/- per month prior to the accident.

I 6 Defenses of 1^^ respondent/Owner of the offending vehide:- Claimants are put to strict proof of all the allegations and the allegations made are in correct. &. [i] nd Offending vehicle was injured with the 2 respondent/ appellant - Insurance Company, there was valid Policy and the driver of the offending vehicle viz., was having valid driving licence, there was no negligence on the part of the driver. Hence, the 1®* respondent owner is not liable. In any event the 2"^ respondent, being the insured, is liable to pay compensation. [iii] The claimants are put to strict proof of age, occupation and income of both, the injured and the deceased, in respective cases. The compensation claimed is excessive. Defences of 2"^^ respondent/insurance Companv:- [iv] The claimants are put to strict proof of all the allegations, [ii] The Offending vehicle was not insured with the 2"*^ respondent, [iii] The accident was due to mechanical defect. Hence, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation, [ivj There was no valid and effective driving ticence to the offending vehicle. Therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation. 10. [i]

I 7 11. Issues framed by the learned MACT in both the cases are as follows: In M.V.O.P.No.296 of 2004: (i) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Jeep bearing No.AP V 6512? Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation and if so, to what amount and against whom? (ii) (Hi) To what relief? M.V.O.P.No.889 of 2001: (i) Whether the aceident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Jeep bearing registration No.AP V 6512? (ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation and if so, to what amount and against whom? (Hi) To what relief? 12. Evidence before the learned MACT: m In M.V.O.P.No.296 of 2004: Description Remarks Oral evidence For the claimants:- P.W.I: Avula Rama Devi P.W.2: M. Manthru Naik Wife of the deceased/2”^ claimant Civil Surgeon/Superintendent Community Health Centre at Sattenapalli. Assistant of For the respondent/s:- R.W.1: P. Srinisvasa Rao R.W.2: B.Ch.Meeraiah Owner of the offending vehicle. Working as Assistant in 2 respondent Company rid Documentary evidence Ex.AI; Certified copy of F.I.R. Ex.A2: Certified copy of statement of the Avula NarasaReddy [Deceased] Certified copy inquest report. On behalf of the petitioner(s). EX.A3:

I 8 Ex.A4: Certified copy of Post- mortem report. Ex.Bt: Receipt for Rs.40,000/- passed by PW.1. Ex.B2: Certified copy of Insurance Policy On behalf of Respondents Ex.B3; Certified copy of Acknowledgement Ex.B4: Certified copy of the registered notice. Ex.B5: Certified copy of M.V.I. Report. [ii] IVI.V.O.P.No.889 of 2001: Description Remarks For the Claimants:- Oral evidence P.W.1; Maruri Rama Ling Reddy Injured/claimant P.W.2: Dr. S. Hanumantha Rao Medical Officer in Peoples Trauma Hospital, Kothapet, Guntur. PW.3: A.Srinivasu Orthopedic Surgeon in Peoples Trauma Emergency Hospital. For the Respondent/s:- R.W.1; M.Veeraiah Senior Assistant in Respondent 2nd Company. Documentary evidence Ex.At: Certified copy ofF.I.R., Ex.A2: Ex.A2: Certified copy of wound certificate, dated 18.05.2001 Ex.A3: Medical Bills for Rs.16,650/- Ex.A4: VAT Tax Registration Certificate. Ex.A5: Certificate of Registration. Ex.A6: Income-Tax Assessment for the On behalf of the petitioner(s). year 2004-2005. Ex.A7: Income-Tax Assessment for the year 2002-2003. Ex.XI: Case Sheet maintained by Peoples Trauma and Emergency Hospital. Ex.X2: X-ray Ex.BI: Copy of Certified copy of MVI Report. Ex.B2: Copy of Policy dated 10.04.2001. Ex.BS: Endorsement letter. On behalf Respondents of

I 9 Findings of the learned MACT:- A. On Negligence: M.V.O.P.No.296 of 2004:- As per the F.I.R. and the statement of the deceased-A.Narasa Reddy and other record, the accident occurred due to fault of Jeep driver, if the Jeep driver was vigilant in verifying the steering system of the vehicle before they start, the accident would not have occurred. Therefore, the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. 13. M.V.O.P.No.889 of 2001:- 14. The driver of the Jeep himself gave the report, the certified copy of the FIR and other documents would show the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. Therefore, the negligence is believed. B. On Liabilitv:- M.V.O.P.No.296 of 2004:- The 1®* respondent contended that the claimants received Rs.40,000/- towards full and final settlement and hence, not entitled for any compensation. Receiving of compensation from the employer does not debar claiming compensation particularly when there are minor children. 15. [i] s—, ^

10 r With regard to violation of the conditions of the Policy as to want of driving licence, even if there is violation, the Insurance Company shall pay and recover. In M.V.O.P.No.889 of 2001 A letter was addressed to the respondent-owner of the crime 16. [i] vehicle to produce driving license, but the owner of the crime vehicle viz. the respondent before the learned MACT did not respond. But during the cross-examination, it is admitted by RW.1 that [iil there is no proof to show that the driver of the offending vehicle is not having driving license, even the letter is returned un-served and original of the same was filed before the Court of learned Principal District Judge in O.P.NO.77.7 of 2001. The respondent-insurance Company is also liable but it can [iii] recover on payment. Arguments in the Appeals:- For the appellant/lnsurance Companv:- The injured-claimant appears to be the passenger, although it 17. [i] is not clear whether he boarded from the beginning or in the middle of the journey.

I 11 [ii] At one stage M.V.O.P.No.296 of 2004 was a cleaner, but at another stage it is referred that he was a driver, joined recently, caused the accident. it is referred that the deceased in {iii] The evidence of owner of the vehicle shows that the claim of the legal representatives of the deceased- Narasa Reddy is settled for an amount of Rs.40,000/-. Further, there is some admission as to absence of driving license to the driver, who drove the offending vehicle at relevant time. Therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable. 18. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimant argued that mere issuing notice to produce the driving licence is not sufficient. Company failed to prove the absence of the driving licence. The Insurance 19. During the course of arguments learned counsel for the appellant- insurance Company submitted that the Insurance Company is confining its stand to the liability, particularly on the ground of absence of driving licence. 20. The claimant neither chooses to file an appeal nor any cross objections. 21. In the instance cases, the claim petition vide M.V.O.P.No.889 of 2001 pertains to the year 2001 and the same was disposed in the year 2005 and the appeal preferred pertains to the year 2012 vide MACMA No. 157 of Likewise, the claim in M.V.O.P.No.296 of 2004 is of the.year 2004, 2012.

I 12 disposed of in the year 2006 and the appeal preferred in the year 2007 vide MAGMA No. 1535 of 2007. The accident took place in the year 2001. Much water is flown. Steps should have been taken by the claimants to file the appeal, if they are not satisfied. 22. Claimants are represented by advocates. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, particularly in the context of the violations alleged and the other conduct of the claims, this Court finds that in these cases it is reasonable to confine to the liability aspect with reference to the violation alleged. 23. Heard both sides. 24. Perused the record carefully and thoughtful consideration given to the arguments advanced by the both sides. 25. Now, the points that arise for determination in these appeals are - 1) Whether the appellant-insurance Company, who is arrayed as 2"^ respondent in both the cases, is not liable to pay compensation, jointly or severally? 2) Whether the Order and Decree datedi8.05.2006 in M.V.O.P.No.296 of 2004 passed by the learned MACT is sustainable in law and on facts? 3) What is the result of the Appeal in MACMA No. 1535 of 2007? 4) Whether the Order and Decree dated 28.12.2005 in M. V.O.P.No.889 of 2001 is sustainable in law and on facts?

1 13 5) What is the result of the appeal in MACMA No. 157 of 2012? Point No.1 26. Initial contention of the Insurance Company is that there was mechanical failure and there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle and that the Insurance Company is not liable. To extent, it is also the case of the 1^* respondent-owner of the vehicle that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. Motor Vehicle Inspector Report, an official document discloses that the accident is not due to mechanical defect. Even if it were to be due to problem in the movement of steering, as rightly observed by the learned MACT, at relevant time the driver should have taken proper care as to the condition of the vehicle. Negligence in handling the vehicle at any stage, beyond actual driving time shown to be the cause for the accident, the driver and owner of the vehicle cannot claim that they are not liable for the tort of negligence. Therefore, the ground of absence of negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle cannot be acceptable. The second ground pressed into service is that there was entrustment of the vehicle to the driver, who is not having driving licence. The evidence relied is that a letter was addressed to the 1^* respondent to produce driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle. It is there on record that it was not served. Ex.B4 in M.V.O.P.No.296 of 2004 referred by RW.2 indicates that it is referred unserved even as per the chief-examination. some some 27.

I 14 r 28. Even as per the evidence of RW.1, One Jaffar Baji appears to be regular driver. It was projected as if Narasa Reddy Narasarareddy, drove the vehicle in the capacity of cleaner. The document undisputed by the respondent is Ex.A2. As per Ex.A2-statement of the deceased, he was working as driver for one week, for the offending vehicle. So the theory of he being the cleaner, gets washed away. The next aspect is whether he was having driving licence? He died due to the accident. The burden to prove that there is no driving licence, lies with the Insurance Company, who denies. Probably, Insurance Company would rely on the evidence of owner of the vehicle. But when owner of the crime vehicle examined as RW.1, it was not elicited Insurance Company has sent a notice for production of driving licence and the same was not responded by the respondent No.1- Onwer of the Jeep. Examination of RW.1 and his cross-examination done on 27.03.2006 in M.V.O.P.No.296 of 2004 and the evidence of RW.2, official of the Insurance Company on 11.05.2006, in M.V.O.P.No.296 of 2004 does not reflect the same. He admits that notice sent for production of driving license was returned unserved. 29. In all casual manner, the defenses were taken formally but no evidence is adduced. Endorsement/letter -Ex.B3 relied on, is the certified copy of notice, which is dated 18.12.2001. During the cross-examination of RW.1- the owner of the vehicle, there is no whisper about the notice sent and non-response of the owner. The other efforts to produce the driving ■ r-

I 15 licence like requiring particulars from RTA etc., were absent. Therefore, the theory of either absence of driving license or mechanical failure, found not proved, at least with probability theory. It is relevant to note that the owner of the offending vehicle against whom the pay and recovery was ordered under the impugned judgments did not choose to file any appeal. 30. 31. In view of the aforesaid discussion and in the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the humble view that appellant- Insurance Company failed to prove the defenses taken, hence, this Court finds-that the liability imposed by the learned respective MACTs and the impugned judgments does not warrant any interference, answered against the appellant-insurance Company. Point No.1 framed is Point No.2 and 3:- 32. In view of the above stated reasons and the conclusions drawn under Point No.1, the impugned Order and Decree dated 18.05.2006 in ' M.V.O.P.No.296 of 2004 passed by the learned MACT are found I sustainable in law and on facts and this Court concludes that there are no grounds to interference. Point No.2 is answered accordingly. 33. In view of findings in Point Nos.1 and 2, Point No.3 is answered concluding that the MACMA No. 1535 of 2007 is liable to be dismissed.

16 Points No.4 and 5:- For the aforestated reasons and discussions made and the 34. conclusions drawn under Point No.1, the impugned Order and Decree dated 28.12.2005 in M.V.O.P.No.889 of 2001 passed by the learned MACT is found sustainable in law and on facts and this Court concludes that there are no grounds to interfere. In view of the findings in Point Nos.1 & 4, Point No.5 is answered concluding that the MAGMA No. 157 of 2012 is liable to be dismissed. 35.- In the result, both the appeals in MAGMA No.1535 of 2007 and MAGMA No.157 of 2012 are dismissed. The balance compensation amount, if any due, shall be deposited before the learned MACT within a period of Six (06) weeks. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed. Sd/- K SRINIVASA RAJU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER '> 1. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- IX Additional District Judge-Guntur, Guntur District (with records if any) 2. One CO to Smt. S A V Ratnam, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri. Thota Ramakoteswara Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 4. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh Amaravathi 5. Two CO Copies To at Stu sree

HIGH COURT DATED:26/09/2025 COMMON JUDGMENT + DECREE MACMA Nos. 1535 OF 2007 and 157 OF 2012 7 2 8 OCT 2025 j'S .J^viurrent Seciio^W DISMISSING THE MACMA’S WITHOUT COSTS

APHC010587272012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI r FRIDAY,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 157 OF 2012 Between: National Insurance Company Limited, Represented by its Divisional Manager, Guntur District. ...Appellant/Respondent No.2 AND 1. Maruti Rama Linga Reddy, S/o. Rama Krishna Reddy, Aged 38 years, Sattenapalli, Guntur District. 2. P Sreenivasa Rao, S/o. Venkateswarlu, D.No. 11-26-20, Ramireddypet, Narasaraopet, Guntur District. Respondent No.2 is dismissed for default vide Court Order dated 05/09/2011. ...Respondents/ Respondents Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V Act, against the order and Decree dated 28-12-2005 passed in O.P No. 889 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- IX Additional District Judge-Guntur. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the judgment and Decree of the Trial Court and material papers in

/ the Suit and upon hearing arguments of Smt. S A V Ratnam, Advocate for the Appellant and none appearing for Respondents. This Court doth Order and decree as follows: 1. That the appeal in MAGMA No. 157 of 2012 be and hereby is dismissed: That the balance compensation amount, if any due, be and is hereby directed to be deposited before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal within a period of Six (06) weeks; There be no order as to costs in this appeal. 2. 3. Sd/- K SRINIVASA RAJU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- IX Additional District Judge-Guntur, Guntur District. Two CD copies 2. Stu sree

f- HIGH COURT DATED:26/09/2025 DECREE MACMA Nos. 1535 OF 2007 5=5 m( 2 8 OCT 2825 .^\Current Section/ir ^sPA-rC^ DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS

APHC010384702007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI top:? ■> •IS liR 'p> FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMD TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1535 OF 2007 Between: The National Insurance Co Ltd, rep by its Branch Manager The Branch Manager, National Insurance Co Ltd., Arundelpet, Narasaraopet. ...Appellant/Respondent No.2 AND 1. Avula Govardhanamma, W/o.late Anki Reddy, Aged 55 R/o.Dodleru, Krosuru Mandal, Guntur District. 2. Avula Ramadevi, W/o.late Narasareddy, Aged 21 years, R/o.Dodleru Krosuru Mandal, Guntur District. 3. Avula Ankireddy, S/o.late Narasareddy @ Narsareddy, aged 5 years, years 4. Avula Lakshmi, D/o.late Narasareddy @ Narsareddy, Aged 9 Months Petitioners 3 and 4 being minors rep by their mother as legal guardian ...Respondent/PetitionerNos.1 to 4 5. Palapati Srinivasa Rao, S/o.Venkateswarlu Zeep Owner R/o.D.No.11- 26-20, 11th Ward, Narasaropet, Guntur District. ...Respondents/ Respondents

Respondent No.5 is dismissed vide Court Order dated 09/06/2017. Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V Act, against the order and Decree dated 18-05-2006 passed in O.P No. 296 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- III Additional District Judge-Guntur. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the judgment and Decree of the Trial Court and material papers in the Suit and upon hearing arguments of Smt. S A V Ratnam, Advocate for the Appellant and Sri Thota Ramakoteswara Rao, Counsel for the Respondents. This Court doth Order and decree as follows: 1. That the appeal in MAGMA No. 1535 of 2007 be and hereby is dismissed: That the balance compensation amount, if any due, be and is hereby directed to be deposited before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal within a period of Six (06) weeks; There be no order as to costs in this appeal. 2. 3. Sd/- K SRINIVASA RAJU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- IX Additional District Judge-Guntur, Guntur District. Two CD copies 2. Stu sree

HIGH COURT DATED:26/09/2025 DECREE MACMA NO. 1535 OF 2007 m( 2 8 0CI 2025 urrent Section/-^ DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS