The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. Kondadi Ajay Kumar Counsel for the Respondents: None Appeared The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAI ATHI RAO M.A. C.M. A.N O.l0 0F 2022 IUDGMENT: Heard N'lr. Kondadi Ajay Kumar, leanr ',1 counscl for appellant-insu rance corllpany. None appears c r behalf of the respond en t/ cla i man t

2. The present appeal has been filecl by the ap6 :llant-lnsrrrance Companv chalk'nging the award passed bv the i lLairman, Motor Accidents Clairns Tribunal-cum-VIII Additiorr rl District and Sessions Judge, N'leclak (for short, 'Tribunal') in \ t V.O.P.No.29 of 2015, dated 28.07.2021, seeking to set-aside tli, award passed against the insr-rrance c()mpany and though liabi it.r, is not finally challenged, but the main grouncl of challenge r.r'ir the quantum of compensation

3. The Tribunal after due enquiry has partly ,r I':wed the above MVOP filed bv the respondent No.1/claim.r::, and awarded compensation of Ii.s.4,64,973f - against a claim of I s.8,00,000/-.

4. The bricf factual matrix of the present ap 136l is as under

4.1. On 08.10.2012 at about 1400 hours, the .,:;pondent No.2/ claimant and his friend were proceeding orr l reir motorcycle 2 bearing registration No.AP-10-AS-9174 ftom Sangareddy towards Parigi. When they reached near Pulimamidi viliage after curve road, one auto bearing registration No.AP-28-TE-1320 (hereinaftcr referred to as'crime vehicle'), came from opposite direction in rash anc{ negligent manner and hit their motorcycle. Due to which, the claimant received fracture injuries and the motorcvcle was aiso clamaged. The claimant w'as shifted to Sri Laxmi Venkateswara Hospital, later to Udai Clinic and also to Balaji Hospital, Sangaredcly for better treatment, n'here he was admitted ats inpatient, surgery was conducted by fixing nails to his right leg as the injured sustained bone fracture'

4.2. -[he I'olice, Nawabpet P.S., registered a case in Crinre No.116 of 2072 under Sections 337 and 338 of IPC against the driver of the crime vehicle and filed charge sheet and investigatkrr-t was taken up

5. The Tribunal, on due consideration of oral evidence and material placed on record, came to conclusion that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the Auto and an,arclecl compensation of Rs.4,64,973/- with interest @ 7'591' pcr I I I I I I 3 annum from the date of petition till the date of r.l I rcsit of amount Aggrieverl thcreby, the appellant/insurance fi :d the present Appeal seeking to set aside the said award arrr I though feeble attempt lvas nradc questioning the liabilitr,, thc rr.rin ground of challenge is to the qllantum of compensation e ranted by the Tribunal though effort was made to challenge tlrr, tiability on their

6. Learned counsel for appcllant-insurancc, onrpany, while reiterating the averments m.rde in the counter-alf cla'it before the Tribunal, has mainlv contended that the Tribunal has erroneously taken 14 rnonths periocl for assessing the loss oI i r,:ome bv taking Rs.6,000/- per month towards his earnings, witl out there being any evidence produced on record. He further co riended that the Tribunal has erroneously awarded an amoul r of Rs.tt4,000/_ towarcls loss of future earnings and Rs.150,000., torvards future treatment, Rs.50;000/- towards pain anf suffr r ing, Rs.50,0001. torvards extra nourishment and medicine, Rs l t),000/ towards transport charges and Rs.10,000/- towards darna;g ,of clothing and article and, pray,ed to set aside the award passecl -, ,, the Tril_runal. 4

7. Though notice was served on respondent No.1/claimant, none has appeared on his behalf. Therefore, this Court proceeds to dispose of the Appeal basecl on the material available on record

8. This Court, upon perusal of the record, holds that there is no contra cvidence produced by the appellant-insurance cornpanv to dispute the trccident occurred due to lash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle and it is evident from Exs.P1 to P4, which are Certified Copies of FI& scene of offence panchanama, injury certificate and charge sheet respectively, the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the'crime vehicle, as such, the Tribunal was justified in arriving at the conclusion that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle

9. Insofar as the income of the claimant is concerned, the claimant has not filed any document in proof of his income, as on the date of the accident before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, taking into consideration, the age, avocatiory date of accident, and oral evidence of claimant, had assessed the monthly income of the claimant as Rs.6,000/- notionally as he was working as Driver of 5 DCM Van. The Hon'ble Apex Court and the varirus High Courts in catena of judgments held that income of the c e,ceased/injured cannot be assessed r,r,ith arithmetic precision ir the absence of evidence and the Tribunal has to assess basing u1 on the facts and circumstances. In the present case, the claimant sl ited that he was working as DCM Van driver and earning Rs.15 t 00/- per month and due to accident, he is not in a position to ,, alk and clo any work and he lost past and future income and i:; still undergoing treatment

10. The claimant/injured, except examined hirr r elf as P.!V.i, did not examine anlz 616". rn,itness or piace any mater i t[ in proof of his lncome Hovvever, considering the age, avocatiorL, date of accident of the claimant, in the considered opinion of t - s; Court, as the injured was stated to be working as DCM dril,,r., Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the claimant Rs.6,000/- per month. 1L. The other contention raised by the learr e,d counsel for appellant with regard to quanfum of comper sation towards fracture injuries. A perusal of Ex.P3-injury cr rtificate, Ex.p5- 6 discharge summary, Ex.P8 - X-ray film, would show that claimant sustained fracture of femur of right leg and surgery was done to the claimant due to non-union of right femur and the same was evident from the evic.lence of P.W.2-Dr. S:Haii Kumar Goud and P.W.3-Dr.Vikas. Frorn the above documentary evidence, in my considered opinion, as the claimant sustained fracture injury to right femur and he unclerwent surgerv bv putting ipisilaterial auto logus iliac crest bone grafting and retnoval of implants to right femur and also alreadv undergone two surgeries, and require one surgery, the claimant being driver c4nnot work for substantial period and as such, the Tribunal is justified in taking the loss of earnings for 14 months and awarded Rs.84,000/- which is just and reasonable. The contcntion of the learned counsel for lnsurance company that the Tribunal has grossly erred in taking loss of earnings for 14 months without any evidence to that effect is hereby rejected. As regards the other contention in respect of the other heads of compensation, slnce no evidence has been produced by the insurance comPany, the findings of the Tribunal are iustified ancl r,irlid, the interference of the iindings of the 7 Tribunal is unn'arranted by this Court 72 As thc Aprpellant-insurance company farlc-r to substantiate thcir case for interfcrence of thc award b'n' thi: Court and the Tribunal has rightlv awarded the compensatiotr ir r,-1 the Appeal is clcvoicl of merits and accordingly dismissecl 13 There shall be no order as to costs. Penclir;; miscellaueous applications if any shall stand closed C.N'. A Si IEENIVASA REDDY "-'ad's,,,-ANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// l\\ \ ---./ to'', The Motor Vehicle Accident Claims. Tribunal-cun^-vll s""t.ion.-L,oge at Medak (with records if any) '^' 2 one CC tc wlr KonoaliRjay x'm'r' Advocate [OPUC 3. Two CD Copies iE".'on, oFFtcER Additional District & Katn'.a w t t 1 J rl \r-E 2 0 tiB 2u6 > HlGH COURT DATED:0711112025 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.IO of 2022 I i i DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS o\ a IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO M.A.C.M A.No: 10 OF 2022 Between: M/s IFFICO-TOKIO General lnsurance Co. Ltd, Regd. Office IFFICO Sadan' Cl Drstrict, Center Saket, New Delhi -1'10 017. Rep. by its Branch M9naggl, |0.2' ?"d Floor, prR Complex, opp. RR Motors, 1"r Phase, KPHB City, Kukatpally' Hyderabad' ...AppellanuRespondent No'2 AND 1 Md Jameel, Sio Md Khaja, Aged 28 years, Occ DCM Driver, R/O H No 5-6- '14, Magdoomnagar, Nalsibgadda, Sangareddy. ...RespondenUPetitioner. 2. Cilakali Srinivas, S/o. Not Known, Occ Driver-cum-Owner of auto beanng No' AP-2}-TE 1320, R/O H No l-55, Pulmamidi Village of Navabpet Mandal' Ranga Reddy Diskict' ...Respondents/Respondent No.l AppealunderSectionlT3ofMotorVehiclesActaggrievedbytheJudgment aatea za-ol -zo2.l passed in MVOP-No.29 of 2015 on the file of the court of the Motor Vehicle Accident claims Tribunal-cum-vlll Additional Drstrict & sessions Judge at Medak. The appeal coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum.of grounds fited'in tne nppeit, the Judgmen[ and Decree of the High Court and the iecord rn the case and upon hearing the arguments of Mr' Kondadi Ajay Kumar' Advocate for the Appellant and none appeared for the Respondents' That this Couft doth Order and Decree as follows: 1 . That the MACMA be and hereby is dismissed; and 2. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal' //TRUE COPY// SD/- EENIVAS A RED ANT RE AR CTION OFFICER To,

1. The Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- il Additional District & Sessions Judge at Medak

2. Two CD CoPies Kam/sa % HIGH COURT DATED:0711112025 / DECREE MACMA.No.10 of 2022 DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT CI] STS \1 0h