The High Court · 2025

: Sri Swati Guda Counsel forthe Respondent No.1 & 2 : Sri A.Shravan Kumar The Court made the following : JUDGMENT ==Fr i ,i II I THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR M.A.C.M.A.No.29O OF 2024 ORDER: Hearcl Sr Srvati (iuda, Iearned counsel lor the petitioner and Sri A. Shr-avan Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. I ar-rd 2.

2. 'lhe prest:nt appeat is filed assailing the orders passed in M.V O.P.No 279 of 2017 dated 2O.O4.2O22 on the file of the Motor Acciclenls Claims Tribunal-Cum-Principal District and Sessions J urdgc At Nizamabad, wherein the learned Trlbr-rnal alloscd thc pctition rn part u'ith proportionate costs awarding an trmounl of Rs.1,03,000/- as against the clairn of Rs..1.00,OO07 to thc claimant under the provisions of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

3. The facts rvhich reveal from M.V.O'P.No.279 of 2Ol7 before the learnecl Tribunal a-re that on 19.01 .2016 at about

6.30 P.M.. ul.rile the petitioner therein, along rvith respondent No.1 therein. wzrs returning to Maggidi on a motorcycle bearing registration No.TS- 16-EF-2766 and while respondent No.1 u,as riding t.he motorcycle, one she-buffalo carne across the road running, due to which respondent No.1 got confused / 2 GPK, J M.A.C.M.A 290-2024 and lost control over the vehicle making the petitioner and respondent No.1 fall down on the road and sustain injuries. The claimant sustained fracture of both bones of right hand, apart from other grievous injuries.

4. Nizamabad Rural Police registered a case in Crime No.28 of 20 16 under Section 337 of the IPC. The claimants approached the learned Tribunal stating that on account of injuries, she suffered permanent disability and unable to attend to her works and that she lost her earning capacity. Thereby, she claimed an arnount of Rs.4 lakhs as compensation from respondent No. 1.

5. On the other hand, respondent No.2, i.e., the appellant herein, filed the counter denying their liability to pay the compensation and pleading that the rider of motor cycle was not having va-lid ald effective driving license, apart from that the compensation claimed is excessive.

6. Before the learned Tribunal, the following two issues were framed: 3 GPK, ] M.A.C.M-A_290_2024 \\'hetlier thc Petitioncr reccivcd irluries in the motor accident drrc to raslt rurtl ncgligent driving ol motor cycle bearing No. I S- l)-l t l?(16'.' Whcrhcr tlrc pctitioncr is entitled tbr compensation'/ I t's(). to w'hat c-\tcllt and lrom $'honr? 'I o u l-Lat rcliel'l On behali of claimants, the petitioner exarnined herself 7 as P.W-l and mankecl Exs.Al to A7' On the other hand' respondent No.2 examincd its Senior Assistant as R'W' 1 and marked Ex.B1 for proving her case' Learncd Tribur-ral after considering the issues framed 8. held tl-rat basing or-r Flx.A4. the claimant sustained two grievous injr,rries on account of the accident' The testimony of P.W. I , who is the eve-witness and injured, shows that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the motor cvcle . In the cross-examination, nothing has been brought on record to impeach the said testimony of the witness. Therefore, the learned Tribunal answered issue No'(i) infavouroftheappellarrtholdingthattheaccidentoccrrrred due to rash ald negliger-rt driving of the motorcycle' =".-,W i 4 GPK, ] M.A_C.M.A_290_2024

9. Further, while answering issue No.(ii), the learned Tribunal on perusal of Ex.A5-disability certificate, which was issued by Dr. K. Laxminarayana, observed that the clairnalt is having 50% disability. According to the clairnant, she w,as a tailor and used to earn Rs.15,000/- per month and due to the injuries she is unable to do her regular duties. Thereby, the claimant rvas awarded an amount of Rs. i8,OOO/- towards loss of earnings @ Rs.6,OO0/- per month. Finally, the learned Tribunal held that the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs. 1,O3,O0CI/- to the claimants along with a simple interest at 7 .SYo per annr.rm from the date of .petition till the date of realization.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate the evidence of RW- 1 in proper perspective, wherein RW- I deposed that the respondent-driver was not holding a valid driving license at the time of the accident but only a learner's license which is evident from Ex.Xl and further failed to appreciate that even though under Ex.Bl, Rs.538/- premium was collected for owners risk, the driver of the vehicle by not holding a valid 5 GPK, J M.A.C.M-A_290_2024 driving license clearly violated the policy conditions. 1 l. Furthcr. thc leirnecl counsel for the appellant contended that thtr learned Tribunal erred in coming to a conclusion that the driver of the crime vehicle was holding a driving license based on the evidence of RW-2 and erroneoltsll, held that "if an1' person obtains license in any othcr State. the samc ri'i11 not reflect in their office, hence the driver of the crime vchicle had a valid license". Thereby, it is contended that there is no liabilitv on the part of the insuralce compaxy and prayed to set aside the order passed by the learnecl Tribunal by allou'ing the appeal.

12. On the other harrd, learned counsel for the respondent contends that thc learned Tribunal has rightiy come to a conclusion bv awarrding a reasonable compensation in favor of the claimant and the order passed by the learned Tribunal do not call for any interference by this Court.

13. Perused the record.

14. This court is of the view that the learned Tribunal after considering the issues had rightly come to the conclusion that r] 6 GPK,I M.A_C.M.A_290_2024 due to the accident the claimant has become 50% disabled on account of fractures and she was unable to discharge her duties. Further, the tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.18,000/- towards loss of earnings @ Rs.6,OOO l- per month. The contentions raised by the appellant that the driver was not holding a valid driving license at the time of the accident is not acceptable

15. Horvever, as the case is that of pay and recovery, the amount u'as rightly awarded to the ciaimant as the injury sustained by her resulted in 5O% disability. This court considers that the order passed by the learned Tribunal appears to be reasonable and dc,es not call for any interference in this mat ter 16 Accordingly, the appeal hled by the insurance company is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if aly, pending in this 4pp9ar shall stand closed. SD/- M.JAWAHAR REDDY, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR. //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1 2 J 4 SVS The Chairman, MACT cum Principal District and Sessions Judge, Nizambad One CC to Swathi Guda, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Sri A.Shravan Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies ' ' -:t:''tt ;'' HIGH COURT DATED:1711012025 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.290 of 2024 lE siA 1 c ar t 18 fiAfl 202[ .i, * ^* ol.c ;:t...**.t DISMISSING THE MACMA I\, ''')' A [ 3487 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 290 OF 2024 Between : National lnsurance Company Limited, Represented by its Branch Manager, Branch office Near Anu Tex Mall, Kanteshwar, Nizamabad. (Policy No 39010231 '1 56203200455 valid From 1410112015 f o 1311112016\ ...Petitioner/Respondent No.2 AND

1. Smt.saliganti Sruthi, W/o.Gangadhar, Aged about 21 years, Occ.Tailoring embroidery and Saree business, R/o.Maggidi Village, Armoor Mandal, Nizamabad District. ... Petitioners/Respondents

2. S.Gangadhar, S/o.Gangaram, Aged about 25 years Occ. agriculture, R/o H. No. 2-36 R/o Maggidi Village, Armoor Mandal, Nizamabad District. ... Res po n d e nURes pon d e nt Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles against the Judgment and decree in M.V.O.P No.279 of 2017, dated 2010412022, on the file of Court of the Chairman Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-C um-Principal District And Sessions Judge At Nizamabad. This Appeal 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 Sri Swati Guda, Advocate for Appellant and of Sri A.Shravan Kumar, Advocate for Respondent No.1 & 2. This Court doth order and decree as follows: disrn isseC

1. That the lvlotor Accident Crvil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is 2. That save as aforesaid the decree of the tribunal shali stands confirmed in all 3. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. other respects. and //TRUE COPY// SD/- M.JAWAHAR REDDY ASSISTANT NCCTdiNAN] /c+ SECTION OFFICER To, 1 __.- 2 SVS The Chairman, MAC f cum Pnncipal District and Sessions Judge, Nizambad Two CD Cocres HIGH COURT DATED:1711012025 1'Joo \( t Lt € 1U ut\l ;tll h I * SPAT DECREE MACMA.No.290 ot 2024 DISMISSING THE MACMA \ \q lP