The High Court · 2025

: Sri Swati Guda Counsel for the Respondent No.l & 2 : Sri A.Shravan Kumar The Court made the following : JUDGMENT ,_f : Itd+7 I I I I THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR M.A.C.M.A.N o.29O OF 2024 ORDER: Hearcl Sri Su'ati Guda, Iearned counsel for the petitioner ald Sri A. Shravan Kumar, learned counsel appearing lor respondent Nos. I and 2-

2. The present appeal is filed assarling the orders passed in M.V.O P.No 279 of 2Ol7 dated 20.04.2022 on the file of the Motor Acciclertts Clairns Tribunal Cum Principal District and Sessions Jrrclgc At Nizamabad, wherein the learned Tribunal a,llorr.cd the pr:tition in part rvith proportionate costs awarding an amount of fts. 1,03,000/ as against the claim of Rs.4,OO,OOO/ to the claimant under the provisions of Section 166 of the Motor Vchiclcs Act.

3. The lacts which reveal from M.V.O'P.No.279 of 2Ol7 before the learned Tribuna] are that on 19.01.2016 at about

6.30 P.M., ri'hi1e the petitioner therein, along with respondent No. 1 therein, was returning to Maggidi on a motorcycle bearirrg registration No.TS-16-EF-2766 and while respondent No.1 was riding the motorcycle, one she-buffalo carne across the road running, due to which respondent No.1 got confused /' 2 GPK I 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 sustarn injuries. The claimant sustained fracture of both bones of right hand, apart from other grievous injuries

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

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

6. Before the learned Tribunal, the following two issues were framed: 3 GPK, J M.A.C.M.A_290_2024 \\lhcther the pctitioncr reccived injuries in the motor accident duc to rash ltrrtl rlcgligent driving ol'motor cyclc bearing No.'l S- I5-i l -1166''} Whethcr the pctitioncr is cntitlcd fbr compensation'? ll 5(,. t() u IlJt u\lcllt JnJ litrttt uhotn J l'o u hat rclic f) u III, On behalf of claimants, the petitioner examined herself 7 as P.W.l and markcd Exs.Al Lo AT On the other hand' respondcnt No.2 exarnined its Senior Assistant as R'W' 1 and marked Ex.B1 lor Jrroving her case

8. Learr-red Tribunal aftcr considering the issues framed held that basing Ex.A4, the claimant sustained two grievous injuries on account of the accident The testimony of P.W- 1, who is the eve-witness and injured, shows that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the motor cycle. 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) in favour of the appellant holding that the accident occurred due ro rash ald negligcnt driving of the motorcycle' *;:€ Ir 4 GPK, J M.A.C.M,A 290 202+

9. Further, while answering issue No.(ii), the learned Tribunal on perusal of Ex.A5-disability certificate, which was issued b1' Dr. K.Laxminarayara, observed that the clairnant is having 50% disability. According to the clairnant, she u'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 ciaimant u,as ar.r,arded an amount of Rs.18,OOO/- towards loss of earnings @ Rs.6,OO0/- per month. Finally, the learned Tribunal held that the respondents are jointiy and severally Iiable to pay compensation of Rs. 1,O3,00O/- to the claimants along with a simple interest at7.5o/o per annum 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- L 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 ald 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 CPK, J M.A.C.M.A_290-2024 driving license clcarl\' violated the policy conditions' 1 1. Further. t l-re learned <:ounse[ for the appellant contended that the leeirned Tribunal erred in coming to a conclusion that thc dri','er of the crime vehicle was holding a driving iicense based on the evidence of RW-2 and erroneoLrslv held that "if anl person obtains license in any other State. thc samc u ill not rcflect in their office, hence the driver ol' the crime vchrcle had a valid license". Thereby' it is contended that there is no liability on the part of the insurance company and prayed to set aside the order passed by Lhe learnecl Tritrunal by allou'ing the appeal.

12. On the other heu-rd, learned counsel for the respondent contends that the learned Tribunal has rightiy come to a conclusion bl awarding a reasonable compensation in favor of the claimant and the order passed by the learned Tribunal do not cali 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 I ,I 6 GPK, J M.A.C.M_A_Z90 _2024 due to the accident the ciaimant has become 50% disabled on account of fractures and she was unable to discharge her duties. Further, the tribuna-l awarded an amount of Rs.18,000/- towards loss of earnings (t) 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. However, as the case is that of pay and recovery, the amount u'as rightll' awarded to the claimant as the injury sustained by her resulted in 5O7o disability. This court considers that ihe order passed by the learned Tribunal appea,rs to be reasonable and does not ca-ll for any interference in this matter 16 Accordingly, the appeal hled by the insurance company is dismissed. There shal1 be no order as to costs. Miscellareous applications, if any, pending in this qpp_e4-qhall 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 IOPUC] Two CD Copies HIGH COURT DATED:1711012025 ( A. /-) :I {kl r. siAt c 'd 18 il4fl 202$ G, .r, JUDGMENT MACMA.No.290 of 2024 * of.S;:',1'i ::i(': {a DISMISSING THE MACMA t \D v € [ 34871 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 lMall, Kanteshwar, Nizamabad. (Policy No 39010231 156203200455 valid From 1410112015 To 1311 1 12016\ ...Petitioner/Respondent No.2 AND

1. Smt Saliganti Sruthi, W/o.Gangadhar, Aged about 21 years, Occ.Tailoring embroidery and Saree business, R/o.Maggidt 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. ...RespondenURespondent Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles against the Judgment and decree in M.V.O.P.No.279 of 2017. daled 2010412022, on the file of Court of the Chairman Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-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:

1. That the lr4otor Ac:ident Crvil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby rs disnr isseC

2. rFat save as aforesaid. the decree of the tribunal shall stands confirmed in all 3 That there shall be n: order as to costs in this appeal. cther respects, and ,TRUE COPY// SD/- M.JAWAHAR REDDY, ASStsrANr necrs-inanl ,r,-_)- L/ SECTION OFFICER To, 1 2 The Chairman Two CD Copies SV S MAC-- cum Principal District and Sessions Judge, Nizambad HIGH COURT DATED:1711012025 /,, \J 1'J' 6 o t [,{t 6 1B ll[, rrll\ * F SpATC\ DECREE MACMA.No.290 of 2024 DISMISSING THE MACMA