The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to STAY of all further proceedings of the execution of the Judgement and decree passed in M.V.O P.No.9512012, daled 25.O9.2019, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum Additional District Judge at Nizamabad pendang disposal of the above Appeal. Counsel for the Appellant :SR!. KONDAD! AJAY KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No-1: K DURGA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent No.2: The Court made the following: JUDGMENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTTCE NARSING RAO NA}IDIKONDA M.A.C.M.A.NO.72 0F 2020 JUDGMENT: This appeal has been preferred by ttre appellarrt- Insurance Company being aggrieved by the Award and decree, dated 25-09.2019 in M.V.O.P.No.95 of 2Ol2 passed by the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- Additional District Judge, Nizamabad (for short, the Tribunal'). 2, For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The brief facts of the case are that on 24.Ol.2OlO the claimalt was proceeding on his M&M Xylo Car bearing No.AP-25-AB-2972 frorn Hyderabad towards Nizamabad arld when he reached in front of Gurudwara in ttre outskirts of Ramayampet, Medak District, the driver of tractor bearing No.AP-23-U-4936 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, carne on wrong side and dashed the claimant's Car, as a result of which, the car completely damaged and the claimant also sustained grievous injuries. Immediately after the accident, the claimant was shifted to Government Hospital, Ramayampet and therea,fter, he was shifted to Yashoda 2 NNR,J N'lacnra 72 2020 Hospital, Secunderabad where he was admitted as inpatient on

25.01.2010 and surgery was done and he was discharged from the hospital on 28.01.2010. The claimant incurred an amount of Rs.2,OO,OOO/- towards nursing and hospital charges. It is stated that the claimant is aged about 36 years at the time of accident and he is an agriculturist and used to earn an amount of Rs. 15,OOO/- per month by doing agricultural rvork. Tt is also stated that due to the said accident, the car u,as completely damaged and caused loss to a tune of Rs.5,O0,OOO/- to the claimant. Hence, the claimant claimed compensation of Rs.1O,O0,OO0/- in all under all heads for the injuries suffered by him in the accident.

4. Respondent No:1, who is owner of thr: crime vehicle, remained ex parte before the Tribunal, whereas the respondent No.2-insurance company alone contested the claim petition by filing counter-a-ffidavit denying the material avo rments in the claim petition and also denying the rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the crime vehicle in driving the vehicle. It is further stated that respondent No.2 also denied the age, avocation, income and also denied that the said crime vehicle driven by its driver was having valid and subsisting driving 3 NNR.J Mar'ma 12 2020 licence at the time of accident. He further contended that the accident has occurred not due to the rash and negligent driving of driver of tractor and he is not having valid driving licence to drive the vehicle and hence, respondent No.2-insurarnce company is not liable to pay compensation to the claimant and hence, prayed to dismiss the O.P.

5. Basing on the above pleadings, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues lor consideration: "1. Whether on 24.01.2010 at about 11:45 PM in the outskirts of Ramayampet, tractor No.AP-23-U 4936 was driven in rash and negligent manner by its driver as a result sustained injuries?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? lf so, to what amount and from which respondents? 3- To what relieP"

6. After due enquiry and taking into consideration the oral and documentar5r evidence on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that Ex.A. l-Charge sheet clearly establishes that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of tractor bearing No.AP-23-U-4936 and partly allowed the O.P. in favour of the claimant directing respondent .Nos. 1 and 2 to jointty and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.7,7O,888/- with interest (@7.5o/o per zrnnum. Being aggrieved by awarding of compensation, the appellant- 4 NNR.J Macma 72 2020 Insurance Company filed the present appeal, Though, the appellant-insurzrnce company has raised as many as 13 Grounds in the appeal, it is restricting its claim only in respect of granting of compensation of Rs.5,63,888/- towards damages of the Car and it is not in serious dispul e as to the compensation granted in respect of injuries sustained by Respoiident tio. i -claimant. Respondent llo. 1-claimarrt has not filed any cross appeal.

7. Learned counsel for the appelltrnt-lnsurzrnce Company contended that t1le Ti-ibunal ought not tc have awarded an amount of Rs.5,63,888/- towards d;rmages of the Car by fixing the liability against appellant-Insurance Company u,ithout verifying any document and surveyor rr:port and only basing on the evidence of P.W.2 and Exs.A.9 to A 19, which are planted documents. Learned Standing Counsel further submitted that the interest awarded by the Tribunal @7.5o/o per annum is highly excessive and hence, he prays this Court to allow the appeal. a. On the other hand, learned counsel lbr respondent No. 1-claimant contended ttrat the Tribunal after considering the oral and documentar5r evidence on record, rightly awarded 5 NNR,J M?lma 12 2O2O compensation to respondent No. l-claimant and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned award and hence, he prays to dismiss the appeal.

9. Heard Sri Kondadi Ajay Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for appellalt-Insurarce Company and Sri K.Durga Prasad, learned counsel for respondent No.l-claimant. Perused the material on record. 1(). On 05.05.2020 this Court ordered notice to the respondents in the appeal. Notice sent to respondent No. 1- clairnant was served and Sri K. Durga Prasad, learned counsel entered appearance on behalf of respondent No.1-claimant. However, in spite of service of notice, there is no representation on behalf of respondent No.2, ou,ner of the tractor. Even before Tribunal also, there was no representation on behalf of respondent No.2 and he remained ex parte. Since the insurance company is only contesting the appeal on the aspect of quantum compensation, as such notice to respondent No.2, owner of the tractor is dispensed with.

11. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant ald learned counsel for respondent No. I , the following point has been framed for determination: 6 NNR,J Milcma 72 2020 " Wlether respon-den! No.l-claimant b entitled. to claim damages caused to the vehicle Le, M&M Xglo Cor bearing No.AP-2S AB-2972 in tle aeident ocanrted on 24.0I 2O1O ?" t2. POINT: There is no dispute regarding the subject accident and involvement of two vehicles i.e.. tractor-cum- trailer bearing No.AP-23-U-4936 and M&M Xylc, Car bearing No.AP-25-AR -2972. It is also not in dispute that a complaint u'as registered against the driver of said tractor and trailer Admittecl ly, no complalnt is registered again st the driver of M&M Xylo Car bearing No.AP-25-AB-2972. It is also not in dispute that besides the injuries sustained by res;pondent No.1 claimant, the M&M Xylo Car bearing No.AP-25 AB 2972 also said to have been damaged in the accident.

13. l'he contention of learned counsel for the appellant- Insurance Company is that except examining P.W.2 and marking Exs.A.9 to A.19 i.e., cash receipt, invoir:e, estimation, fina-l bill et(, no surveyor report was filed by respondent No.1- claimant to show that the vehicle was damag,t:d due to the accident. I:tut, the Tribunal basing on the evirience of P.W.2 and Exs.A.9 to 19, awarded an amount ol Rs.5,63,888/- towards damages said to have been incurred by respondent No- I claima nt. Whereas the contention o[ r_he respondent 7 NN&] M^cm^ 72 2O2o No.l-claimant is that the said car was kept in the garage for about two yea-rs two months, for which the bills raised by the garage owner was more than Rs.5,OO,OOO/- and due to paucig of funds, respondent No.l could not get back the said vehicle from the garage.

14. As seen from the record, the actual bills produced by respondent No.1-claimant are more than Ex.A. l7-Estimation bill, which reveals that the repairs effected to the vehicle was Rs.7,65,60O/-. But the final bill produced before the Tribunal i.e., Ex.A. 18-bi1l, dated 30.04.2011 is for an amount of Rs.4,27,418, Ex.A. 19-bil1, dated 18.O3.20 11 for an amount of Rs.1,00,590 and Ex.A. 12-Garage bill, dated 13.08.2011 for an amount of Rs.34,880, in total an amount oi Rs.5,66,888/- was granted towards damages ol the vehicle. The record further reveals that respondent No.l-claimant produced certain bills, which do not pertain to the said accident. But, on perusal of the said bills, it appears that they related to the subject accident. There is no much delay from the date of the accident till the date of llling of tl.e said bills and invoices. The Tribunal having believed the version of P.W.2, the works Manager in Variety Auto Motive Private Limited, Hyderabad, who deposed 8 NNR.J Macma 72 2020 as to the factum of effecting repairs to the said vehicle and also believed issuance of Ex.A. 17 final bill for an amount of Rs.5,63,888/-, which is in respect of the vehicle i.e., Mahindra Xylo bearing No.AP-25-AB-2972 it came to the conclusion that the said vehicle belongs to P.W.l, who is the registered owner as per Ex.A.4 and the sarne was handed over to P.W. 1. Further, the Tribunal having accepted the evidence of P.V'/.l and taking into consideration the oral and documentar5z evidence on record, the Tribunal awarded a.n amount of Rs.5,63,888/- tn.rrarz{c A^^^^- ^a +k^ .,6ki^la

15. The other ground raised by learned counsel for appellant-lnsurance is that respondent No.1-claimant has not examined surveyor to assess damages of the vehicle. For which, learned counsel for respondent No.l-claimant contended that the question ol' examining surveyor in the present case does not arise for the reason that respondent No.l-claimant being third party to the insurance policy, respondent No. I-claimant has not filed surveyor report and the evidence of P.W.2 would suffice to come to a conclusion that damages u,ere caused to the vehicle i,e., Mahindra Xylo bearing No.AP-25-AB-2972 and it was got it repaired before P.W.2. -\ . 9 NNR.J Macma 11 2020

16. In view of aforesaid reasons and also considering the entire material placed on record, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the findings given by the Tribuna-l and consequently, the appeal filed by the appellarrt falis to the ground. Hence, this point is answered accordingly in favour of respondent No.1-claimant and against the appellant.

17. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed confirming Award and decree, dated 25.09.2019 in M.V.O.P.No.95 of 2Ol2 passed by the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Nizamabad. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand clo sed. //TRUE COPY// SD/. MOHD.ISMAIL EPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To District Judge at Nizamabad' 1 The Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-c ,. il;;;;-3n1. ror.ronol AJAY KUMAR Advocate toPUCl i. il; cc i" sii. K DURGA PRASAD Advocate [oPUC] 4. Two CD CoPies GE w - tv!ACT-cum-Additional HIGH COURT NNRJ DATED:04/0412t)25 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.72 of 2020 S"TATE L {)i 'ffi -! .1 o () $t1 \1 i f\E c DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS. G,{'^ 8€ IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD [ 3443 ] FRIDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 72 OF 2020 Between: The Reliance General lnsurance Co.Ltd.,, Rep. by its Manager, 6-4-8, 1st Floor, Vijetha Sanjeevani Appts Opp- Gandhi Hospital, Musheerabad, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh500 020, through its Branch at Nizamabad ...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT NO.3 AND

1. Jampani Praveen Kumar, S/o. Late Arlaiah, Aged 36 years, Occ: Agriculture @ Business, Rr/o.H.No.1-'l-1 156, Rakasipet, Bodhan, Dist. Nizamabad. .... RespondenUPetitioner

2. B.Yadagiri, S/o. Balamallaiah, Aged Major, Occ- Business cum Owner of the tractor bearing No.AP23U4936, Rt/o.Ga.julapally, Doulthabad, Medak District. Appeal filed under 173 of M.V.ACT, aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree passed in M.V.O.P.No.95l2O12, dated 25.O9.2019, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- MACT-cum-Additional District Judge at Nizamabad. ...RESPONDENT This appeat coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the case and upon hearing the arguments of SRl. KONDADI AJAY KUMAR, Advocate for the Appellants and K DURGA PRASAD Appeared for the Respondent No.1 and none Appeared for Respondent No.2. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: '1 . That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is dismissed confirming Award and Decree, dated 25-09.2019 in M.V.O.P.No.95 of 2012 passed by Chairman, Motcr Accidents Claims Tribuna l-Cu m-Additio nal District Judge, Nizamabad.

2. That there be no order as to costs in the appeal. lfirue Copyll SD/. MOHD.ISMAIL D:,PUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To

1. The Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- MACT-cum-Additional District Judge at Nizamabad.

2. fwo CD Copies. GE \cL HIGH COURT NNRJ DATED:04/0 4l:2025 DECREE MACMA.No.T?. of 2020 DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS, ,{ao?@ #*