The High Court · 2025

Smt.R.SavavvaWo.Laxman,45Years,andalsodoinglabourworks,Rl'/o' Borgaon Village, Renjal Mandal, Nizamabad District' ShaikNaveem.S/o.ShaikMahaboob,Major,OwnerofAutobearing-NoTS- i6-uA-i?'40, Filo.-H r.ro a-lsz, subashnagar, Navipet village And Mandai, Nizamabad District. ...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS IA NO:3 OF 2021 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_ple^ased to tn" execution of decree and judgment passed in o.P No.57l2016 dated ogtoll2o2o on the file of chail,person, Motor Accident claims Tribunal (Principal "tuv District Judge) at Nizamabad pending the final disposal of the main appeal Counsel for the Appellant: Sri S. Satyananda Rao Counsel for the Respondent No. 1: Sri V. Raja Shekar Reddy The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA M.A.C.M. a.No. 1 57 0F 2o2r JUDGMENT This appeal is hled by Insurance Company, aggrieved by the Orcier and Decree dated 09.01.2O2O in M.V.O.p.No.S Z of 2016 passed by the chairman, Motor Accidenr crarms -rribuna[_cum Principal Distrrct Judge, Nizamabad (ror short ..the Tribunal,,).

2. For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The case of the petitioner before the tribunal was that on 25.1O.201S at about l:15 p.m., the petitioner was going along with others in an auto rickshaw bearing No.TS 16-UA _3740 from Navipel tor.vards Khudawanpur Village, the driver of the auto clrivcn it in a rash and negligent manner at a high sper:d, ancl wherr it reached near the bus stand Kamtam Village Shivar, another auto bcaring No.TS- 16-UA- l gBT coming from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed, dashed thcir auto in u'hich the petitioner was travelling and as a resurt of which both thc autos turned turtle and sustained injuries. Immediately, she il'as shifted to Governmcnt l{ospital, Nizamabad and from Lhere to Deepa Orthopeclic Hospital, wherein she has incurrred huge medical expenditure She sought compensation of Rs.2,OO,OOO/_ LTD,J MACMA No.157-2021 2 !- \--1 \

4. The respondent No. 1 remained ex-parte ' 5. The respondent No 2/lnsurance Cornpany filed counter' denying the averments of the petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident, age, avocation ancl income of lhe petitioner' It is further contended that there is no rash and negligence on pa-rt of lhe driver of the auto bearing No'TS- 16 UA-374O and that thc accident occurred only due [o the rash and negligence of the driver of auto bearing No.TS- 16-UA-1B87 It is further contended that the petition is bad for non-joindcr of the owner and insurer of auto bearing No. TS- 16-UA- 1887' Thus, they denied their liability and prayed to dismiss the Petition'

6. Based on thc above rival contentions' the Tribunal has framed the following issue s:- " 1 . Whether tlle Detitioner receiued inluies nt the motor accident due to rash and negligent driuing of auto beaing No.TS16IIA374O bg its diuer? Whether the pettttoner is entitted for compensat[on? lf so' to LL)hat ertent and from uhom?

2. To uhat retief ?" 3- To prove their case, the petitioner got examined PWs 1 and 2 and Exs.Al to A6 and Ex'X1 were marked' On behalf of the respondents, RW1 got examined and IIx B1 was marked 3 ETD,J MACMA No.157 2021

8. Basecl on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has granted a cornpensation of Rs. 1,2g,2OO/_. Aggrieved by the same, the present :rppeal is prefcrred by the Insurance Company.

9. I Icard the submissions of Sri S. Satyananda Rao, learnecl counserl for Insurance Company and Sri V. Ra.lashekar, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1.

10. Learned counser for the appelant has submitted that the order of the tribunal is contrary to law and that the tribunar has lailed kr appreciate the facts on record and the evidence adducecl by the insurance company. He further argued that the accident occurrcd only clue to the rash and negligent driving of the auto bcaring No. TS_16_UA 3Z4O by its driver, but the trrbunal failecj to observe the said fact and that the driver of the said auto TS_ 16-UA_ 1887 did not have a valid driving license. The tribunal fa,ed t<r consider the said facts revealed from the charge sheet and has fixed rhe liabiliqr only on this insurance company, u.hich has insured the auto bearing No. TS_16_UA _3240 and the saicl orders of the tribunal are bad in the eve oi. law.

11. Leamed counsel for the respondents on the other hand has submitted that the present petition is rrled under Section 163_4 and that rhe rash and negligence on part of the driver need not be proved. She further submitted that the tribunal has infact au.arded 4 [l D,] MACMA NO,157 2021 \ less amount of compensation and that the aspect of future medical expenses was not considereci by the tribunal Though the insurance company has contended that the driver of the crime vehicle did not possess any driving license, the same is not proved by the insurance company. Therefore, she argued that the insurance company is liable to pay compensation awarded by the tribunal. She therefore, prayed to dismiss the appeal' T2 Based on the above rival submission, this Court frames the following points for consideration:-

1. Whether the pleaded. accident hc's not occurred out of the use oJ' uehicte beaiig No. T5-76 UA 3740 If so, uhether the insurance companA is tiable to pag the compensation?

2. Whether the Order and Decree passec) bg the Tribunal need ang interference?

3. To uhat relief l3 Point No.1:- a) The contention of the appcllant's counsel is that the accident occurred duo to the rash and negligence of drivers of both the autos bearing Nos. TS- 16-UA- 1887 and 'f S- 16-UA-3740 ' fixing Iiability on their insurance company alone is not proper and lhat the said fact is borne olt by crime record' It is pertinent to mention in this regard that the petition is b) filed under Section 163-4. The rash and negligence need not be proved by the petitioner and the said issue does not fal1 lor 5 ETD,] MACMA No.157 2021 consideration in this case. The only factor that has to be ascertained is, rvhether the accident occurred out ol the use of the vehicle bcaring No. TS-16-UA_3740 as alleged by the petitioner. c) The contents of the charge sheet reveal that the petitioner by name R. Sayarnma is listed as LW11/injured and eye witness, u,as travelling b1, rhc auto bearing No.TS- 16-UA_374O from Navipet to Khudar.ranpur and on the way, it was hit by the auto bearing No. TS-16-UA 1887, turned turtle and the it is elicited that the petltlone r has sustained injuries accident occurrecl out of the use bearing No.TS- l6_UA- 37 40 and the petitioner sustained lnJurres in the said accident Hence, the insurer of the said vehicle is liable to pay compensation as a result of which it of auto Thus, Point No. I is answered accordingly

14. POINT No.2: a) The case of the petitioner is that she sustainecl injuries in the accident, whilc she was travelling in an auto bearing No. TS_ I6-UA 3740 and that she incurred medical expenses for treatment of her inj uries. b) A perusal of the charge sheet reveals that she is listed as LW i I / the in jured rvitness. Ex.A3 is the Injury Certificate which reveals tl-rat she sustained one grievous injury i..e, fracture patella, k;ft grievrius dcep lacerated wound on the dorsal left hand. Ex.A4 is 6 EID,] MACN4A No.157 2021 the discharge summary issued by Deepa Hospital showing that the petitioner was admitted on 26.10.20 15 and a surgery was performed on 29.1O-2015 and she was discharged on 02. i 1 2015' Dx.A5 is the hnal bill issued by Deepa Hospital to a tune of Rs.26,900/-. Few other medical bills are filed under Ex A6 Lo the extent of Rs.1O,300/-. It is asserted by the petitioner that she used to do labour c) rvork, agriculture and used to earn Rs. I 5,OOO/ - per month' No proof can be expected in this regard. On a reasonable hypothesis, the tribunai has assessed the monthly income of the petitioner as Rs.4,0OO/ - which appears to be justified. d) The Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs'35,O00/- for thc injuries sustained by her and has also awarded the total amount of Rs.37,2O0/- lor bi1ls hled bY her. e) F-urther it has awarded Rs. 15,0O0/ towards pain and suffering, it has also considered anci awarded Rs 15,0OO/- towards loss o[ amenities, Rs.10,000/- towards transportation and extra nourishment. v l) Cor-rsidering the lerrgth of treatment, thc tribunal has awarded Rs.16,0OO/- towards loss of earnings for four months. 7 ETD,J MACMA No.157 2021 g) 'lherefore, it is opined that the tribunar has taken into consideration all the factors and has awarded a just compensation of Rs 1,28,2()0/- to the petitioner. Hence, there is no need to inlcrlcrc u,ith thc orders perssed by the tribunal. . 15. Point No .3: Poin t No.2 is ansrvered accordingly. In view ol the tindings arrived at point Nos. r and 2, there is no need to intcrlere n,ith the order and decree passcd bv the Tribunal and therefore, the same is upheld. Point No.3 is ansu.ered accordingly.

16. Point No.4 In thc result, the appeal is dismissed upholding the Order and Decree clatecl O9.01 .2O2O in M.V.O.p.No.S 7 of 2076 passed by thc Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal_cum principal District Judge, Nizamabad. No costs. Miscellancous petitions, pending if any, in this appeal, shall stand closed SD/- N.SRIHARI DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII t SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal (Principal District Judge) at Nizamabad 2. One CC to Sri S. Satyananda Rao, Advocate IOPUCI 3. One CC to Sri Vonjari Raja Shekar Reddy, Advocate [OpUC] 4. Two CD Copies \ vrrPSL J. -q _,, r..it, HIGH COURT DATED: 18t07t2025 JUDGMENT+Pg6pgE MACMA.No.l|t of 2021 1 AT A r\tl C)}. \\\t }( l\ E5 k () .O 1 t DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS I8 rN rHE HIGH "or*If3[otJ*tot"t#E oF TELANGANA FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF--Jy-LY rwo tuousnuo AND TWENTY FlvE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA MOTOR ACCIDENT Clvl L MISCE LLANE OUS AP PEAL No"'|'57 oF 2021 Between: The Oriental lnsurance Hub, Regional Office BegumPet, HYderabacl' , ComDanY Limited, Rep by its Manager' T P Claims "ill''-'"o"" ' 'dn"h,i"[na 'complex Green lands' ...PET|TloNER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT No' 2 AND 1 smt R sayawaw,ir.,ftl1fL, Borgaon Village' Rer 2. Shaik Nayeem, S/o Shaik Mahaboob'.Major' Owner of Auto bearing No'TS- 16-UA-3740, nio. rr-r'ii-b-i12'tunair'nagar' t'tlvipet village And Mandai' Nizamabad District' i,rrJ,fi?li;o"Bf.?l:i o"'"n rabour works' R/o ...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS Appeal filed under Section 173 of M V Act aoainst the Award and Decree the fiie of the court of the Motor Dated 09/01/2ozo in o.p'.ril.i; "iiriio "n Accidents ctaim Tribunar tprincipar District Judge) at Nizamabad' This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of c"o"t netow ano the papers in the Case appeal, the Judgment 'no'olt'"I'oi'iri" and upon hearing tn" ur.gL;;n1' of Sri S Satyananda Rao' Advocate for the Appellant and of sri v R'Y;'$;it;inJav' no'o"ate for the Respondent No 1 This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: 1 That the MACMA be and ,l"r:.b.V. is _dismissed uphotding :::',-^-drt:9 .oe 01 2o2o. in u V o.p. ot 2016 i,}X#il;,'otor Accident cr"i,.,r i,.ioun;LC"u;-principar That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. -N;::; the Order and passed by the District Judge, SD/. N.SRIHARI DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII \ \ I S CTION OFFICER 1 2 The Motor Accidents craim Tribunar (principal District Judge) at Nizamabad Two CD Copies VH 2 To, HIGH COURT DATED: l$tltt2OZs DECREE MACMA.N o.1|t ot 2021 DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS 29 [8 lrd