The High Court · 2025

Manager, ll Floor, Vasudeva Land Mark Construction, H.No. 8-3-97714, Srinagar Colony, Hyderabad-s00 073. (Policy No.23 1 1 I 583541 1 3/00/000, Valid from 01 lA4l2O18 to 31/03/2019) Res pondents/Respondents Counsel for the Appellant(s): sri. S Surender Reddy Counsel for the Respondents: None appeared The Court made the following: Judgement I 1 THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA M.A.C.M.A.NO .248 0F 20.21 JUDGMEUl[i This appeal is filed by the claimant-petitioner, aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 26.12.2020 i,nM.\/.O.p.No.2B4 of 2ol9 passed by the chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge), Adilabad (for short "the Tribunal").

2. For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to as the.v \vL=re arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The brief averments of the petitioner before the Tribunal are that on 11.11.2018 at about 15.oo hours at Bokkalagutta village, while the injured was proceeding on motc,r bike, a car bearing No.TS-22 -A-9594 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed his motorcycle, as a result he fell down and sustained fractures and grievours injuries. Thereupon, immediately he was shifted to Government Hospital and from there to Sunshine Hospital, Karimnagar, where he underwent operation and undergone treatment for the injuries sustained by him. His case is that he incurred huge expenditure of Rs.SO,OOO/- towards his treatment irnd he was , I I f' 2 ETD,J MACMA No.248_2021 earning Rs.32,00O/- as a police constable and he was aged 30 years. He filed claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.6,00,OOO/ -.

4. Respondent No.1, the driver-curr:owr.l€r of the crime vehicle remained ex parte before the Tribunal.

5. The respondent No.2-Insurance Company has filed counter denying the averments of the petition regarding occurrence of the accident, the age and income of the injured- petitioner and they further contended that there is no negligence of the driver of the car and that the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the petitioner herein.

6. Based on the above rival contentions, the Tribunal has framed the following issues:- 1 I

3. Whether the petitioner had sustained injuries in the accident that occurred on 11.11.2018 due to ra"sh and negligent driuing of Swifi Dzire Car beaing No.TS-22A-9594 bg respondent No.l or wither there was any negligence on the part of tle ri.der of Motorcgcle as alleged bg the respond.ent No.2? Whether the petition is bad for rwn-joinder of owner and insurer of the Motorcycle as parti.es in thb petition? Whether the petitioner is entitled for ampensation? If so, to what amount and agoinst wham?

4. To what relief ?

7. To prove their case, the petitioner himself got examined as P.w.1 and got marked Exs.A.l to A.ls. on behalf of the respondents, no evidence was adduced. t \ { 3 ETD,J MACMA No.248_2021

8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.1,33,333/-. Aggrieved by the said order and decree dated 26.12.2020, the present appeal is frled by the appellant.

9. Heard Sri S. Surender Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance Company.

10. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Tribunal has granted very meagre compensration without considering the evidence of the petitioner, that he incurred huge medical expenditure but the Tribunal failed to consider the sarne. He further submitted that the petitioner suffered a lot due to the fracture injuries and the pain and suffering underwent by him is not properly assessed by the 'l'ribunal. He also submitted that the petitioner incurred much amount on additional expenditure and that Tribunal has not a.warded any amounts regar-ding the same and therefore prayed to enhance the compensation. 1 1. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has; submitted that the Tribunal has awarded reasonable compensation and that the petitioner is working as police constable and his \ ./ i' I I I i t, 4 ETD,J MACMA No.248 2021 medical bills were reimbursed and therefore alnount granted by the Tribunal itself is more than required and has prayed not to interfere with the order and decree passed by the Tribunal.

12. Based on the above rival submission, -this Court frames the following points for determination:-

1. Whether the compensation granted bg the Tribunal is just and reasorwble?

2. WhetlLer the Order and Decree passed bg tlrc Tibunal need ang interference?

3. To what relieJ? 13. Point No.1:- a) It is asserted that the petitioner was aged 3O years at the time of accident and that he was working as police constable. Once he is working as a police constable, he is entitled for reimbursement under Arorya Badratha scheme and there is no need to pay any amount towards treatment. A perusal of the medical bills and the discharge summaries of the petitioner reveals that they are attested copies filed by the petitioner. It is the common knowledge that the original copies are required to be submitted by the petitioner to the department for making claim of his medical expenditure and thus he has filed the attested copies. Though he incurred expenses for treatment, the said. amount was paid by the department. However, the injured must have incurred some incidental expenses. He must have I 5 ETD,] MACMA No.248_2021 required at least one attendant and also some arnount needs to be granted tou,ards compensation under the heads pain and suffering, extra nourishtneut, transportation charges and attendant c:harges. The Tribunal has granted an amount of Rs.50,O0O/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.3O,rlo0/- towards transportation, medicines, extra nourishment trnd attendant charges, grznted an amount of Rs.53,3331- towards loss of earnings b), taking into consideration Ex.A.14 whi<:h reveals that the petitioner r.r,as paid only half pay for 1OO days. Considering all these heads, the Tribunal has granted a-11 amount of Rs. 1,33,3 33 I -. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the said amount granted by the Trib nd is found to be just and reasonable. Thus, this Court finds that there is no reason to interfere with the amounts granted by the Tribunal. Hence Point No.1 is answered accordingly. L4. Point No.2:- b) In view of the finding at point No.l, it is held that the order and decree passed by the Tribunal do n6t need any interference nnd therefore, the same is upheld. I J 6 MACMA No.248_2021 a Point No.3:- In the result, the appeal is dismissed uphording the order and Decree dated 26.r2.2o2o in M.v.o.p.No.2g4 of 2o1B passed by the chairman, Motor Accident claims Tribunal (principal District Judge), Adilabad. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appeal, shall stand closed. M. OSMAN ALI BAIG REGI I/TRUE COPYI/ OFFICER To,

1. The Chairman, MACT cum Principal District Judge, Adilabad. 2. One CC to SRl. S SURENDER REDDY Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CD Copies w t \ $1-AtrE ,7 C) Jr. o() t f, fii'l fi''l ,,\ .t1.. - IiI: ::': , ' ^.' .'. -.' . -<\/,. * HIGH COURT ETD,J DATED: 09/0412025 JUDGEMENT+DECREE MACMA.No.248 of 2A21 DISMISSING THE MAGMA

6.oq?"b ffi.-.Ias 34/,41 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTTCE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA. - MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAT NO: 248O-.-FZO-21 Between: Voddi Vidhya Sagar, S/o. Sathaiah, Age. 33 years, Occ...Police Constable, R/o. Native of a'ettamfalli, Q.No.74, Hanuman Basthi, Bellampalli, Presently residing at H.No. 8-655/25, Pittalwada, Adilabad. .AppellanUPetitioner AND

1. Md. Najmuddin, Mohammed Najmuddin and Another' S{g Sqbegry-ddi1' Ag9'. Major, Occ. Driver-cum-Owner 6t Switt Dezire Car No. TS-22-A-9594, R/o. Q.No. 39,'1.8. Colony, Godavari Khani, Peddapalli District-505 209- 2 A. Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Limited, Re^presentedby its Manager, ll Floor, Vasudeva Land Mark construction, H.No. 8-3-977/4,-Srinagar colon"y, Hyderabad-500 073. (Policy No.231 1/58354113/00/000, valid from 01 lO4t2O18 to 31 /03/201 9) ... Res pondents/Res Pondents Appeal filed under section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988- a_gainst the-_Order and Deirbe passed in M.V.O.P. No.284 of 2018, dated 2611212020, on thefileof the Chairmah, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal Dist. Judge), at Adilabad. 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 upoin hearing the arguments of Sri S. Surendar R9qOy, Advocate for the Appeliant and None appeared for the Respondent No. 1&2. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is Dismissed;

2. That save as aforesaid, the decree of the Lower Court shall stands confirmed in all other respects; and

3. That there be no order as to costs in this appeal //TRUE COPY// To,

1. The Chairman, MACT cum Principal District Judge, Adilabad. 2. Two CD Copies k NP SD/. M. OSMAN ALIBAIG ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER HIGH COURT Jt 09t0412025 DECREE MACMA.N 0.248 ot 2021 DISMISSING THE MACMA ^*k*