The High Court · 2025

Judgment

Dissalisfied u'ith the quantum of compensat on au'arded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum- t Additional District Judge, at Khammam, (for short, the Triburr rl) pzrssed in O.P.No.229 ol 2OO7 , dated 23.03.2009, the clain.i thc present Appeal seeking for enhancert nt has hled nt of the compensation.

'2. For the sake of convenicnce , the parties h:'einafter are rcferred trs thc1, were arrayed before the Tribunal

3. The briet lacts o[ the case as can be seen fr,; n the record are that on 15.O'1.20O6 at abou[ O7:3O hours whik: -he claimanL and others u'cre travelling by auto bearing No- AP 2 I V-852 and when they reached near Mallcla Dharmaiall Rice Mi11, Jeellacheruvu, one TaLa Indigo Car bearing No. AF o5-AB 1203 driven by its rlriver, drove the said vehicle irr a rash and negligen L m.rnner at h igh spee<l rn'hile attempting c overtake a lorry, hc hit against the auto by r.r'hich the;x titioner uras proceeding. As a result, he fell dolvn and sustai red grievous injuries to scalp hematoma orr right temporal rc 1 ion, cuboids bone fracture ol left foot, injury on right foot, irr- ury on right 2 forearm, injury on right shoulder and simple injuries all over the body. Immediately, the petilioner was shifted to Government Headquarters Hospital, Khammam, for further treatment he u,as referred to Kinnera Super Specialry Hospital, Khammam, whercin he underwent treatment for cuboids bone fracture of lelt foot and for grievous injuries.

4. Based on the inlormaLion received, Police Kusumanchi, Khammam District rcgistercd a case in First Information Report (FIR) No. 5012006 under Section 337 ot lndian Penal Code, 1806 against the driver of Tata Indigo Car bearing No.AP.OS AB l2O3 and after investigation filed chargc sheet.

5. According to the claimant, he was aged about 28 years at the time of accidenL and he was engaged as Auto driver and usc to earn Rs. 250/ pcr da-v. Due to the said accident he suffered permanent disability, lost his earnings. Therefore, the claimant claimed compe nsation of Rs. i ,00,OOO/ -(Rupees One Lakh) under Se ction 166 o[ the Motor Vchicles Act, 1988 against the respondent Nos. 1 & 2, u'ho are the owner and insurer ol the crime vchicle bearing No. AP.05 AB- 1203 jointly and severally, for the injuries and disability suffcred by him under various heads. 3 6 Respondenl Nos. 1 remained ex porte, I Lr wever' the No.l2 has filed counter denying thr: manner of respondent accident, injuries sustained, disability, age' a\'( cation and income of thc cl:limant. Respondenl No 2 on the a[ )ve grounds assailed its liability to pay compensation and pral'e 'l to dismiss the claim application against Insurance Company' 7 Based on the rival contentions, the TribunlLl has lramed the following three issucs: Whrlther the accident took place ort tt rash anci negligent diuing bg the dr[r' e lndigo Car beaing I[o AP-OS'AB 15.04.2006 u.thile the petitioner u)as tr' Auto beaing No. AP.20.V.6852? or lt onA contibutory negligence on the pan of ctuto? Wlether the petitioner suffered ang inj disobilitg in the said accident? Whether the petitioner incuted ang ex for the treatment etc.? Wlrcther the diuer of the said auto Incltgo cor were holding ualid diuing liL:t whither the cime uehicle tuas hauing couerage bg the date of accident? Whether there LDas anA breach conditions? What uas the age, auocatiott and eon t petitioner? Wh.ether the clriuer, oluner and companA of Auto are necessary Part peti'tion? f so, is this petition is brt joinder of necessary Parties? Wh,ether the petitioner Lost ang eamLn(t: Wtat is the rate of interest if any payal :count of ' of Tata 203 on uelli.ng in .ere LL)AS of diuer ties and tenditure tnd Tata nse ? nsuraflce >1 policg qs of the nsurance zs to the I, for non ? le? L) i4 iu) u) ui) uii) uiii) Lr) x) 4 xi) Whether the Petitioner compensation and, if so, agoinst uhom? To tuhat relieJ? entitled to uhat extent

8. During the course of trial, petitioner got examined himsell as PW- 1 and got marked Exs.A I to A30. On behalf of rcspondent No.2, no oral cvidence is adduced; however, Ex Bl copy of the insurance policy u'as marked.

9. Thc learned Tribunal aftcr considering the rival contcntions, partly allou'cd the claim petition by awarding Rs. I I ,OOO/ - (Rupees Elcvcn Thousand Only) '"l'ith interest at 7.5o/o ptr annum under various heads. Aggrievcd by the quantum of compcnsation, the claimant has preferred thc present Appeal to enhance the compensation. 10 Now the points for consideration arc: Whether appellant/ petitioner is entitled fo' enhoncement of compensation amount in addition to the compensotion amoutlt granted uide impugned Order and Decree bg the learned Tiburrul? 11 Heard both sides and pcrused the en[ire rccord including the grounds of APPeal

12. Before going into thc merits of Lhc case, it is approprlate to note down some of thc 2idmitted facts- Respondent No'2 has not preferred any appeal against the impugned Award There is 5 no dispute wit h regard lo Lhe manner of the acci( I rlt as the Tribunal by rt:lvirrg on Ex.A1 (First tnformatlon li port) and Dx.A 2 Charge Sh,:et, has answered issue No. t hol I r g that the :rccidcnt occurrcd due to rash and negligent driving rr thc crimc vchicle i.e., czrr Jtearing No. Ap OS AB 1203 arrr thrtt the claimant sustained injuries in the said accident. ,1. I :re is also no dispute that lhc insurzrnce policy uncler ._ (.Bl \{ias subsisring as on [he datc of thc accidcnt.

13. The Ilrst and foremost contention of thc leat r r cl counsel for the appellant is that the Tribunal ought to havc r onsiclered that the claimzurt has sustaint:d multiple grievous r r Lrric.s and w:rs admitted in t he hospital for treatment and hrL. inr:urred huge amount tou,ards treatmcnL, but the learned .l.ri runal has zru,:rrdecl verv rneagcr amount tog,arcls compensati.r Il u.irs further contendt:d that though appellant proved lri ; casc by adclucing cogent cvidence apart from relving on tht.r t)cumcnts uncler Exs. Al to A30 multiple medical and cash bill.; issnecl b-1, hospital Lowarcls medical expendilures, the learnt,:: Tribunal without considering the same has erroneousll, 61;... rrderl the evidence on re<.ord and granted very meager amoLrn ,tnder the heacl ol medical expenditures. On the above grounrl:; pravecl to .- 6 allow the application and grant j ust and re asonable compensation

14. Per conlra, the Iearned standing counsel for Insurance Company has contended that the learncd Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim petition and the interference by this courL is unwarranted.

15. It is cvident from thc rccord lhat thcre is no dispute that thc claim:rnt sustaincd grievous injurics in [he said vehicular accident u,hich occurred at .Jcellachcruvu and petitioner u'as admitted as inpatient from 16-04.2006 to 2O.O4.2006 and took treatment [or the said in-1uries. tn this rcgard to prove the same the claimant himself got examined as PWI wherc he reiterated thc contents of the claim application. PW2 i.e., the doctor, who treated lhe claimant at Kinnera Super Speciality Hospital, stated in his evidence that hc trcated thc claiman t for abrasions on right forearm, abrasion on lcft loot and contusion on right temporal region. It was also elucidated by him that there is no bony injury. It was admitted that trx.A-3 and Exs-A 6 to A-3O was issued by him which arc medical certificate indicating injuries sustained, dischargc cards, X Rzry films, Out Patient cards, cash bills and medical pcrceptions. 1

16. It is qtrite clear considering Ex.A3, medir:,t certificate indi<:erting inluries suffered and evidencc of Pu ] that the injlrries suffcrcd on account of vehicular accidc r is not of gricvous in r):rturc and does not involve any I;,r rc injuri<:s. Hort,ever, injtrries sustained though simple in nit. lre, but its vcracity on clilnrant cannot be discarded in tot:r il'. Furtl-rer, considering trxs.A- 10 to A-30 medical bills r rd doctors prcscriptions rnakes it clear that claimant has to,r i trcatm('nI lor the injurics sustained and claimant might h lc- incurrcd considcrablc :lmount towards hospital charges, mt licincs :tnd otl'rcr miscellirncous expenses. The lcarncd Tribt. r al crred it't ar,r'arding Rs.5,000/- towards medical expenscs i rrd u itl-rout appt:ciating the documentary evidence under Exs./ 1O to A-30 (Btrrrch of n'r<'d ical shops cash bills and X-r:r' cxpenscs), discarcling thcrn in tolality without prope r ration:rl canno( bc apprcciatcd and calls for interference of this Court .

17. It is u,r:ll settled principle o[ Iaw that starl(] r'rls of proof likc rn a criminai trial are inapplicable in Motor At:i rient Cltrims cerst's zrnd stirr.rdards to be followcd in such claims ; one bascd on preponderance of probability rather than estil )lishing the casc bevond rr:asonablc doubt, as the Motor Vehit l, s Act, 1988 itsr'll-is a bcrrt--licial legislation u,hich has been frir r t:d u,ith 1}-re \- prime objective o[ providing relicf to thc familics who lost their lamily member in a vehicular accident. Unfortunately in the present case the learned Lribunal errcd in adjudicating the matter like a criminal trial, discarding the evidcnce on rccord and the version of eyewitness to the incidenl.

18. It is pertinent to place reliance on the decision of Honorable Apex Court in Anita Shorma and others u. New India Assurance Compang Linited and anotherrwhcrein it was held that standards of proof Iike in a criminal trial are inapplicable in Motor Accident Claims cascs at Para 16 observed that: "The standard of proof in such like ttratters is one of preponderanrce of probabitities, rather l.han begond reasonable doubt. C)ne needs to be mitdfut tlnt tlle approQctr tutd role oJ' Courls uthile exanrining e,uidence, itl occidetlt cloirrt cctses ought not be to fnd feLtlt with nortexartirtotiott o/ sotrll.' best eAe t-uitnesses, as mag happen tn a crininql trail; bul, irrstead shouLd be only to artalgze the mateial plQced on record bg tlrc parties to ascerlain Lulte,ther tle cloi'Ilanl's uerslott rs nore likelg th(].|l not ttue." 1,9. [n view of the above discussion ancl relying upon the decisions, viewed from any anglc, awarding oi Rs.5,OO0/ against the claim of Rs.33,163/ [ou,ards medical expenses ls on lesser side, more particularly considering thc nature of l0lr (l)s(('I7l 9 injuries sustainecl and medical charges. Hcnce. his Court considcring docurnentary evidence under Ex.A- 1O tI A-3O is o[ t}-rc vieu' thill awarcling Rs.33,163/- towards mcdical expt:ndilures u'ould bc just and appropriatc- Fl r[hcr, thc It:arrrccl Triburral has not awarded any compensatior under tht: hearl o[ simplc injury, thus considering the same Iis crlurt is inclincd to grir.nt Rs.9,OO0/ (Rs.3,OO0/ each for llec simplt: Inlrrncs). The le:rrrted Tribunal has not grantcd I )l' ilmounL uncler the herrcl ,:r[ pain and sufferings. Thcreforc. :onsrdering thc lacl tlrat lhe claimant got admitted in the hospiti I lor 5 days :rr-rcl might hrrve also took time to completely rcco!/ rr ll-om thc injtrries sustitinr:d. Hcnce, this Court is of th: view th:rt :ru'irrding Rs. 10,000/- towards pain and suflcrirg and extrzr norrrishmcnt r.r ould be just and appropriate. 20 Tht' lcerrnerd Tribunal considering the evider cc of PW-2 :rnrl Ex.A- 1O lr.ospiral bills, awarded an amount o Rs'7,O5O/ s'hir:[r appear-s to bc just and rcasonable, as sttr:l r t here is ntr nct'd lo interli're u'ith thc findings of the Tribunirl irl this rcgarcl'

21. Thr: lcrrrned Tribunal failed to award any ar rount undcr the heads ol tritnsportatton and attendant chargcs Considering th(' naturc ol ir.rjuries this Court is of the vieu' that t rc pctitionur 10 is entitled for Rs.15,OOO/ towards transportation and attendant charges

22. ln view of thc loregoing discussion in the abovc paragraphs, this Court is of the considered opinion thzrt the impugned order passed by thc learned Tribur-ral is required to be modified as indicatcd abovc. Thus, in all, appetlant/ claimant is cntitlcd for the compensertion under various heads, as follows: Sl.No Name o[ the head I 2 4 Simple Injuries (Rs.3,00O x 3) Medical Expenses (Rs. 33,163 + Rs.7,O5O/ ) Pain and Suffering Attendant and charges In Total transportation Co mpcnsa[ion en t it led b-y the claiman t Rs.9,OO0/ Rs.40,213l- Rs. 10,000/ Rs. I5,000/ Rs.74,213 /-

23. In the result, the Appcal is partly allowcd bv cnhancing the compensation from Rs.1 1,000/- to Rs.74,213/ u'hich shall carry interest at 7.5o/o pcr annum from the datc ol filing of thc pctition till the date of realization payable by the rcspondents jointly and severally. The rcspondents arc dirccted to dcposit 11 the cnhancecl anlount within a period of two montl-s from the datc ol rcccipt o1 .r copv of this judgment On such cl' posit' the appcllernt is erntitL-:d to \,\'ithdraw the same withor'rt lt positing anv securitt'. Tht'rrr sl'rall be no order as lo costs M isct:llancotls petitions, if any, pending :'l zlll stand closcd . N. SRIHARI REGISTRAR SDI ,\ DE PUTY \ /ITRUE COPY" qEcTloN oFFlcER 'o' ., . an" chairman Motor Accident claims Tribunal-cunr. I Addition - " '- *'tnoRE KoWURI Advo; rte toPucl Judge at Khamntam (With records' n un'l 2. one cc to sRl ^*'J**^ 3. One CC to Smt ft'f eHA'SKAnn LAKSHMI Advocate t()''UCl 4 Two CD CoPies AS/gh al District HIGH COURT DATED:0210712025 \) t I t: ?16 Z (r) _\:. I I -a * JUDGMENT+DECREE [2 E RAFTS] MACMA.No.3122 of 2009 PARTLY ALLOWED WITHOUT COSTS. (,t lEl IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVI L MIS CELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 3122 OF 2009 Between: Kummarikuntla Veerabharam,, S/o. Narsaiah Auto Driver Singaram Village, Kusumanchi Mandal, Khammam District. R/o. Perika ...APPELLANT(S) AND 3 4 Smt Kgppuravuri Jhansirani, (Adult), W/o. Krishna Murthy, Owner of Tata lndigo Car bearing No.AP-05-AG-1203 R/o. Near Venkata Krishna Hardware, Near Ramalayam, Old Bus Stand, Wyra Village and Mandal, tvl/s. National lnsurance Company Limited, Represented by its Branch Manager Wyra Road, Khammam Branch Kharirmam Distritt Appeal filed Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the Judgment and decree in M.v.o.P.No.22gt2007 dated. z3t3t2oog on the fite of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- I Additional District Judge at Khammam. ...RESPONDENTS 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 SRl. K. Krishna Kishore, Advocate for the Appellant and of Smt. M. Bhaskara Lakshmi, Advocate for the Respondent No.2 and none appeared for the respondent no.1. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is parfly allowed by enhancing the compensation from Rs.1.1,0001 to Rs.74.2131_ which shall carry interest @ 7.Sokp.a. from the date of filing of the petition tr the date of realization payable by the respondents 1oinfly and severally;

2. That the respondents are directed to deposit the enhanc:d amount within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of tlr ; Judgments; 3. That on such deposit, the appellant is be and hereby ent led to withdraw the same without depositing any security;

4. That save as aforesaid, the Judgment and decree of the - rrbunal shall stands confirmed in all other respects; and

5. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. //TRUE COPY// SD/. N. SRIHARI DrE ruTY REG|STEI\P-= -.-'-' --"'-= '\ \\ \ i;ECTtoN oFFtcER '.-

1. The chairman, A/otor Accident claims Tribunal-cum- Additional District To, Judge at Khammam.

2. Two CD Copies AS/sh HIGH COURT DATED:02107t2025 DECREE MACMA.No.3122 of 2009 PARTLY ALLOWED WITHOUT COSTS. rlt t/