The High Court · 2025

For r:onvenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the'lribunal.

3. The casc of the petitioner before the Tribunal was that

18.05.2013 at about 10:O0 hours, the petitioner along with her relatives were proceeding in a car bearing No.AP-29-s-5100 towards l\lair and when they reached near Ramajipeta Village, a Maruthi swift car bearing No.AP-26AU-6345 coming in the opposite ,lirection, in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed, lost control over the vehicle and dashed the petitioners vehicle, due to which the petitioner and her family members sustained grievous injuries. Immediately they were shifted to Government Hospital, Bhongir and from there the petitioner went to Kamineni Hospital, Hyderabad for better treatment. It is averred that the petitioner requires further surgeries and thus, she claimed a compensation of \=-* Rs.5,00,COO/-. t--- 2 ETD,J MACMA No.159 2021 '..*

4. The Respondent No.2-Insurance company filed counter denying all the averments of the petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident, nature of treatment and the medical expenses. It is further contended that the driver of the crime vehicle did not possess valid driving license as on the date of the accident and the Insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. It is further contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of driver of the car bearing No.Ap-29s-5100 and that there is no negligence of the alleged crime vehicle and that the owner and insurer of the car bearing No.Ap-29s-5100 are necessary parties to the proceedings.

5. Based on the above pleadings, trial court has framed the following issues for trial:- 1 Whether the accident took place due to the rash and. negligent driuing of the Maruthi Sutifi Car bearing No.Ap-36AU-6345 causing injuries to the petitioner?

2. Wlrcther the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what extent and from whom?

3. To uthat relief ?"

6. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined pWl to 3 and got marked Exs.Al to A7. on behalf of the respondents RWl and.2 were examined and Exs.B1 to E}6 were marked. 3 ETD,J MACMA No.159_2021

7. Basecl on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has dismissed the petition. Aggrieved by the said decree of dismissal, the present appeal is preferred by the claimant.

8. Hearrl the submissions of M/s C.M. Prakash, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri A. Rama Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent No.2-lnsurance Company.

9. .. The l.earned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the court below has not properly appreciated the evidence on record and committed an error in dismissing the claim petition. He further argued that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligence of the dri'er of Maruthi swift car bearing No.Ap-26AU-6345 and that the Tribunal ought to have granted compensation. He further argued th.et though the car number was written wrongly in the FIR due to ovt:rsight, it was rightly mentioned in the charge sheet. That the 'lribtrnal ought to have observed the said fact that the respondents have never taken any such plea in their pleadings, they neve:r contended that the vehicle is planted, but the Tribunal has observed that the vehicle number is wrongly mentioned and has erroneously dismissed the claim petition holding that the petitioners failed to establish that the offending vehicle bears the number A.P-36-AU-6345. i"'-:dE ?'-: \ \. " q ETD,J MACMA No.159 2021 4

10. Learned counsel for the appellant has further contended that - the petitioner suffered grievous injuries in the accident and they need to be compensated. Therefore, he prayed to set aside the dismissal order passed by the Tribunal and grant just compensation in favour of the petitioner 1 1. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has submitted that there is an overwriting in the charge sheet and that the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the petition. He further contended that there was no eye witness examined and when there is a discrepancy in the charge sheet, the petitioners ought to have examined the Investigating officer. He therefore, submitted that the order passed by the Tribunal rnay be upheld by dismissing the appeal.

12. Based on the above rival contentions, this court frames the following points for determination:- 1 2 3-

4. Wlether the car bearing No.Ap-36ALI-6345 b not inwlued. in the accid.ent? WtLether the claimants are entitled to compensation. If so, to rthat ertent? whether the order and Decree passed by the Tfiburwl need any interference ? To tuhat relief ? a) 13 Point No.1: A perusal of Ex.A1/FIR reveals that the number of the vehicle is AP-36-AV-6343. In the complaint annexed to the FIR , \: 5 ETD,J MACMA No.159_2021 which is lodged by the complainant-A Srinivas reveals the number of the car as AP-36AU-6343 which is a handwritten complaint in Telugu and this was interpreted in the FIR as AP-36AV-6343. It is clearly menr-ioned in the charge sheet that the car bearing No.AP- 36AU-6345 was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the car bearing No.AP-29S-5100 causing the accident, at; a result of which the petitioner and other inmates of the car sus;tained injuries. It is visible that there are corrections urith regarc- to the number of car, "V" is corrected as "U" and the last digit ir; corrected as "5" in the charge sheet. It is also to be observed that in the handwritten complaint, it was mentioned as "u", but in the FIR it is taken as "V". This also probabilizes that the numb,:r might also have been wrongly noted as "3" by the complainant. b) The respondents have not taken such a plea in their counter disputing the involvement of the vehicle bearing No.AP-36AU-6345 in the accident. On the other hand, they have filed Ex.B1/Inr;urance Policy issued to the said vehicle-Maruthi Swift Desire be;rring No. AP-36AU-6345. Their only contention is that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid driving license. To that effect, they have let-in their evidence by examining Rwl ancl, 2. But nowhere they have taken a plea that the said vehicle was not involved in the accident. The complainant is listed t'- -.. " ,/ 6 ETD,J MACMA No.159 2021 u. as LWI in the charge sheet and he is a relative of the injured and he is not an eye witness to the accident. on the narration of the inmates, he must have lodged a complaint based on which the FIR was registered under Ex.Al. However, after thorough investigation the charge sheet under Ex.A2 is filed. c) PW 1 is the injured-petitioner. Her evidence reveals that she sustained injuries in the accident. she deposed with regard to the manner in which the accident has occurred, while the petitioner was travelling in a car bearing No.Ap-29s-51oo along with her relatives towards Alair from Hyderabad, one Maruthi swift car bearing No.AP-36AU-6345 coming in the opposite direction, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed, dashed against the car in which the petitioner was travelling, rcsulting in fracture injuries to the inmates of the car. Immediately, the petitioner was admitted in Kamineni Hospital. It is pertinent to be observed in this regard that pwl is the injured witness and has clearly narrated the manner in which the accident has occurred. d) In her cross examinations, she admitted that the car number is mentioned as AP-36AV-6343 in the FIR, while it is mentioned as AP36AU6345 in charge sheet by overwriting. Based. on this \ 't ETD,J MACMA No.159 2021 admission ind the overwriting in the charge sheet, the Tribunal has dismissied the petition. e) The charge sheet being a public document, and when it is not disputr:d by the respondents in their pleadings with regard to the involve ment of the vehicle bearing No.Ap-36AU-6345 in the accident, this court is inclined to hold that the car bearing No. Ap- 36AU-634[i was involved in the accident. As per the averments of the charge sheet and as per the assertion made by pwl, it is held that the a:cident occurred due to the rash and negligence of the driver of the car bearing No. AP-36AU-634S. Point No.l is answered accordingly. L4. Poirrt No.2:- a) Ex.1\3 and A5 are the discharge summaries pertaining to the petitioner Ex.A3 is issued by Kamineni Hospital, The petitioner u'as admitted on 18.05.2013 and she was diagnosed with'llpe S proximal tibia fracture right, distal radius fracture left and also multiple injuries all over the body and that she was treated for the said inju:ies in their hospital with oRIF and closed reduction of the fractare injuries by fixing implants and was discharged. by observingl that the patient requires autofocus bone marrow injection at the fracture site after one month from surgery and she was also advised with rnedication and physiotherapy. \, '=4 8 ETD,J MACMA No.159_2021 b) Another discharge summary is at Ex.AS which shows that she was admitted on o5.05 .2014 and discharged on o7.05 .2014 and that she was treated for implant removal. Thus, it is revealed that the petitioner has sustained fracture injuries in the accident. It is elicited that she sustained'I)rpe S proximal tibia fracture distal radius fracture and also other multiple injuries all over the body. Thus an amount of Rs.l,OOrOOOl- is awarded towards pain and suffering. c) PWl asserted that she used to work as a tailor and used to earn Rs.6,00o/- per month. The record discloses that she is aged around '40' years. No proof can be expected with regard to her income. she underwent treatment for three months during the first spell and one month during the second spell, considering a total treatment period of four months, the loss of earnings comes to Rs.12,OOO/- (Rs.3,00O x 4). d) tt is the common observation in the society that many ladies do undertake tailoring work at home, apart from attending to household works. In the absence of any proof, some amount of guess work is required in assessing the income of the deceased. Hence, an amount of Rs.3,OOO/- per month can be assessed as monthly income. / /b 9 ETD,J MACMA No.159_2021 e) The pr:titioner has also filed bills under Ex.A6 to an extent of Rs.29,412.it4/-. Further a set of Pharmacy bills are also produced which com()s to a total of Rs. L,LL7| -. In addition to that the petitioner must have incurred expenses towards extra nourishmer t, attendant and Incidental Expenditure. Therefore, an additional amount of Rs.25rooo/- is awarded towards the said expenses a:rd thus an amount of Rs.55r529/- is au,arded under the. head "hospital, medical expenses, transport, extra. nourishment and other incidental expenses etc., and the same is rounded up to Rs.55,53Oi-." 0 In al., the petitioner is entitled to the following compensation amounts: Rs.1,00,000/- 1 ss,ss0/- 2 3 Conrpensation under the head 'injuries, sho,:k, Pztin and suflering 1 , Los; of : Cor:rpcnsation under the head of hospital, : Me<lical Expenses, transport, extra- , no-u rishlne-n! and other : Total .-.,',,': Rsrt1671530l. , g) Therefore, the compensation to which the petitioner is entitled is calculated as Rs.1,67,5BOl-. Hence, point No.2 is answered accordingly.

15. POINT NO.3:- In riew of the findings arrived at point Nos.1 and,2, the order and decre e passed by the Tribunal need to be set aside. Poirt No.3 is answered accordingly. ./ ^,i'* 10 ETD,J MACMA No.159_2021

16. POINT NO.4: In the result, the MACMA fired by the claimant is a,owed, setting aside the order and Decree dated 14.08.2016 in M.v.o.P.No.2666 of 2013 passed by the Motor Accident craims Tribunal-cum-XXlV Additional chief Judge; city civil court, Hyderabad and the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs'1,67,530/- and the compensation shail carry interest @ T.so/o per annum from the date of claim petition till realization. However, the interest for the period of deray, if any, is forfeited. Respondents are directed to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. on such deposit, the appellant is entitled to withdraw the said amount without furnishing any security. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appeal, shal stand closed. //TRUE COPY/ SD/.A.V.S.P.PRASAD REGISTRAR S OFFICER To, 1 The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - Chief Judge, CitY Civil Courts, Hyderabad(With Reco 2. one CC to SRl. c MoHAN PRAKASH, Advocate IoPUC] 3. One CC to SRI A RAMA KRISHNA REDDY, Advocate [oPUCI 4. Two CD CoPies. XXIV Additional \Ct- HIGH COURT DATED:18/0 612025 q 5 o,J 11 ilfi$ 2ufi tr,: * 0,:il *: .yf t\ JUDGMEII{T+DECREE 2 DRAFTS MACMA.lrlo.159 of 2021 WITHOUT COSTS .{PA C ftr. 134441 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 159 OF 2021 Between: A.Padma, W/o. Late A.Kondaiah, aged. 40 Years, Occ. Railor. R/o. 12-8- 1461A, Laxmi Nagar, Uppuguda, Hyderabad. ...APPELLANT/Claim ant AND

3. Nagabandi Vinay Babu and another, S/o. Veerabhadr?iqh,Ageg. M^ajor,^Occ. Bu5iness, FUo. 16-5-310, V.B.Hospital, Under bridge, Warangal - 506 002.

4. M/s. Bajaj Allianz General lnsurance 99rp-qny Limited= Rep. by North f-ait Plaza, 4th Floor, Beside BIMW Showroom, Erramanzi Khairatabad, Hyderabad- 500 082. its Manager, lCross Road, ...RESPONDENTS/ResPondent Appeal fited under Section 173 of ttlotor Vehicles _{.Lggrysi the Order and Oeciee made in M.V.O.P. No 2666 of 2O13 dated 1410312016 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - cum - XXIV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad. This Appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the groun{s of aqP93! tne juOgment and Dec-ree of the Court below and the ryte-rj{.Papers in the MVOP inO up6n hearing the arguments of Sri P C.M PRAKASH Advoeate for the App.iiSnt anO ot Sri n nnnt"n KRISHNA REDDY Advocate for the Respondent No 2. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the MACIUA filed by the claimants be and hereby is q[g*wed, Setting aside the order dt 14103t2016 in M.V.O.P.No 2666 of &O0$tEssed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum- by the Motor Accident claims Tribunal - cum - XXIV Addl Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad; 2. That the petitioner is be and hereby entitled for compensation of Rs.1 ,67,530| and the io*pensatory shall carry interest @ 7 .5o/o P.A from the date of claim petition till realization;

3. That, However the interest for the period of delay if any, is forfeit6d; 4' That the respondents are directed to deposit the compensation amount with accrued irtterest within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment; 5' That on sttch deposit the appellants is be and here by entiiled to withdraw the 6. That therer shail be no order ai to costs in irris appeat. said amotrnt without furnishing any security; SD/-A.V.S.P.PRASAD DEPUry REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// To,

1. I|g 9|, ryaq.Mo_tor Accident Ctaims Tribunat _ cum Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad. - - 2. Two CD ,lopies. OFFICER XXIV Additionat Yd- HIGH COURT DATED:1810612025 JUDGMENT+DEGREE 2 DRAFTS MACMA.No.159 of 2021 Ri ALLOWINGTHE MACMA WITHOIIT COSTS 4 .6d & I i