The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellant in MACMA 9/2019 and Respondent No.1 in MACMA 280 of 2019 :SRt. AZAF SRAVAN KUMAR ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Respondent No.2 in MACMA 9/2019 And Appellant in MACMA 280 of 2019 :SRt AVKSi )RASAD Counsel for the Respondent No.1 in MACMA 9/2019 And Respondent No.2 in MACMA 280 of 2019 :t,l rne Appeared The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY M.A.C.M.A.Nos.9 and 28O of 2Ol9 COMMON JUDGMENT These two appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment, since M.A.C.M.A.No.9 of 2019 filcd by the claimant, seeking enhancement of compensation and M.A.C.M.A.No.28O of 2Ol9 filed by tfre Insurance Company, are directed against *re very same order and decree, dated

22.1O.2078 passcd in M.V.O.P.No-625 of 2O15 on the hle of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, at Nizamabad (for short "the Tribunal").

2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The bricf facts of thc case are that the claimalt hled a petition vide MVOP No.625 o[ 2O 15 on the file of Tribunal under Seclion i66 of lhe Motor Vchicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.3,OO,OO0/- for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 05.06.2015 at about 6.00 p.m. in front of Tirumala Agro lndustries Rice Mill, Saloora Village. It is sLated that while *re claimant was walking towards Saloora Village, a Tractor and Trailer bearing Nos. AP 25 AQ 6594 and 2 AP 25 AC 2782, dnven in a rash and negligent r lanner, dashed him, due to which he sustained fracture of bo I bones of right leg, lacerated injury about 1O cm over fronta region, 5 cm laceration over right shoulder and other mulrir e ancl grievous injuries. It is further stated that the claimant uz s trcated as an inpatient at Dwarakamai Hope Super Special t , Hospital and later at Siva Sai Emergency Hospital, Nizamabarl

4. The lst respondent, owner of the vehicl, remained ex parte. Tbe 2"d respondent-lnsurance Company contested the claim, denying the involvement of the insurerl vehicle in the accident, pointing out a delay of l9 days in lodgir g the FIR, and contending that the accident was falsely imp i .:rted to claim compensation. It was further pleaded that the l nount claimed \VAS CXCESS]VE

5. The Tribunal, after considering the oral evir ence of PWs. I to 3 and RW. 1 and the documentary evidenr:t i. e, Exs,A I to A11, Ex.X1, and Ex.B1, held that the accidenr ) curred due to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor driv : ; the claiman t sustained grievous injuries as proved by the nr I ical evidence; the delay in lodging the FIR was satisfactorily ex1,l not fatal to the claim. Accordingly, the Tri r tined and was rnal awarded f 3 Rs.1,60,300/- towards compensation with interest at 7.Sok per annum from the dale of petition till realization, holding respondents I and 2 (owner ancl insurer) jointly and severally Iiable.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the claimant is that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is grossly inadequate and that the Tribunal crrcd in not granting arty amount towards permanent disability despite the nature of injuries and the medical evidence on record. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company contends that the Tribunal failcd to appreciate the delay of 19 days in lodging the FIR, Lhe in cor-rsiste ncie s in the medical records, and the facl that the claimant was under the influence of alcohol a[ the time of the accidcnt. If is further contended that the involvement of the insured vehicle was not satisfaclorily established and that the compensation awarded is excessive.

8. On perusal of Lhc impugned order, it is evident that the Tribunal has passed a well-reasoned judgment after due consideraLion of both oral and documentary evidence. The delay r=r- 4 in lodging the FIR has been duly explained ani in the absence of any material produced by the Insurance Conr rany to disprove the police investigation or to establish that he vehiclc rvas falsely implicated, the finding of the Tribunal {. thc respondents cannot be faulted. Th: <ing liability on qrrantum of compensation awarded is based on sound reas rning and does not call for enhancement or reduction. Hence, tt :re are ncr valid grounds to interfere rvith the impugned awar 1 passerl by the Tribunal. Accordingly, both tl"e appeals hled t y thc claimant ancl the Insurance Company are liable to be disrr issed.

9. In the result, both the appeals are dismissrt d Miscellaneous petitions pending, if :LrL., shall stand dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/. VI.JAWAHAR REDDY ASS ISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1

4. rlpK I ?nc, ffiE;'L,*tr*1ffiiiullffirffi* ;l ;; cum Pr nc pa HIGH COURT CVBR, J DATED: 3111012025 I I i i '. --,--:=== ',:' '{tr':i, 0 5 fllft 2026 ' (.. ::)'l f; \ COMMON JUDGMENT MAGMA.No.g of 2019 AoD 2gs * M/l\ DISMISSED @,+^a. rqlJ* IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA FRIDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY MOTOR ACCID ENT CIVIL MISCE LLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 9 AND 280 OF 2019 MOTOR ACCIDE NT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 9 OF 2019 Between [t^a1,1!oja /aVaram Red.dy,S/o_Venkat Reddy, aged about 53 yrs. Agrictture and P-addy business, r/o H.No.1--45, Fathepur village, Bodhan Mindal, "Nizamabad district, Presently residing at Guthamna!ar, ruizimiOaO, Nizamabad Diskict. ...PETITIONERYAPPELLANTS AND Eletapu Ramesh, S/o Sayanna, Major, owner of tractor and Trolley No.AP25AQ6594 and AP2SAC2tB2, rto H.No6-j1,-satoor vittage, AoOhJi Mandal, Nizamabad district. ^

2. The United India ln Divisional Office, Nizamabad district. surance Company Limited, rep. by its Divisional Manaoer. Besides Hotel Mayura, Godown Road, Nizamab-ad. ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS MOTOR ACCIDE NT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS AP PEAL NO: 280 OF 2}'tg Between: United Office,T lndia lnsurance Co.Ltd, Div.offlce, P-Hub; Hyderabad rep. by its Dy.Man Nizamabad through its Regional aEer AND ...APPELLANT/R-2 1 2 Manukonda Jayaram Reddy, S/o. Venkat peddy, aqed about. Agriculture and Paddy Business, Ryo.1 -45, Fath6pur village (M),Nizamahad Dt, presently, residing at Gouthamnagar,Nizamab5d Eletapu Ramesh, S/o. Sayanna,_gge- rnajor, Owner of Tractor and Trolley- AP.25IAQ-6594 AP.2Sl AC-27 B2,ny6.O-Ot,' Satoora Viilage BoOnan UandZl, Niamabad Dist 50 years, Bodhan ...RESPONDENTS Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles a ;t against the Order and decree made in M.V.O.P.No. 625 of 2015 dated 22.10.2118 on the file of the Court of the Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -: m- Principal District Judge at Nizamabad. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing t re grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Court below and the materi: papers in the MVOP and upon hearing the arguments of SRl. AZAR SRAVAN KUI\ AR, Advocate for the Appellant in MACIT/A 09 OF 2019 and Respondent No.1 in M,\ )MA 280 of 2019 and of SRI AVKS PRASAD, Advocate for the Respondent No.2 r IVACIvIA 9/2019 and Appellant in tvlACMA 28O ol 2O19 and None appeared [c r Respondent no.1 in MACMA 09 of 2019 and Respondent No.2 in MACMA 2BO OF'. O2O This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: 1 . That both the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Ap I ral be and hereby is dismissed;

2. fhat there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. //TRUE COPY// Sd/- I I.JAWAHAR REDDY ASI) S ISTRAR ECTION OFFICER E I The Court of the Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tr I unal -cum- Principal District Judge at Nizamabad. Two CD Copies To

2. Kvr/pr P''1r, i- .: i il( THE S 14 5 l.l l\8 2026 Sp^T a HIGH COURT CVBR, J DATED: 3111012025 ( U r. ,? \,, COMMON JUDGMENT D€CqEE MAcMA.No.g of 2019 AND '>kol>ol\ / DISMISSED (qt"l,4'