The High Court · 2025

THII E ()N'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRI!.AD.ARSTNI M.A.C.M.A.No.9O3 OF 2016 JUDGME,N'TI

1. Ag5lrrr:. r rl by the Award passed by ttre lca;-r ed Motor AcciCents, (lI r:rs Tribunal (Principal District Ju:lgc). \r/iLrangai, in M.V.O.P lic,..l : it of 2OO3, dated 02.06.2(,O8, I )c claim petitiolter// jni, t:<i in the said O.p. prefcrred t]re l:rcij(r-it Appeal see king lo a ( \\. lhe Appeal by setting aside thc ,:, .( er of the learnccl T-ilrrrr lrl

2. For rh, sake of convenience, the ltartir s iret I nalter be referrcd as t1- :, \\.cre arrayed before the learned T:ibt:nll.

3. The 1,r: :- lacts of the case are Lhat on 22.D7.i,,|)t,, at about 6.30 p.m u r' t n the petitioner along with onr S. jrr tr vas were returning cn : looter bearing registration No.I p-3llB t,647 ancl when ther r,tir - I red near Madikonda Cross Road, \)y'ar,nr.1: I District, an Al-rto Ir',Lr r: Registration No.Ap 09-W 5062 ;an_L I (]pposite direcl ion i rL .. '. r sh and negligent manner at high :,pccrl r : ci dashed against thr: S .t:;ter o[ the petitioner. As a resr-,1t, _ltr- 1eLi1iorr". along u,itlr pr :r rn rider-srinivas sustained gric,.ous, rtr::1 simple injuries al. r. r.i : rhe body and immecliately alter t.te . c. c ent, they were shiftr d t( li1\'a Hospital, Hanamkonda for trerrlmel ..

4. Basr 11 o r .i complaint, police of Madikoncla F,olr:,. g1a1i6n registcred it ( r:,' in Crime No.164 of 2022, corrdu,.tr,:l <-letailed 2 MGP,J MACMA.N,.903 ol 2016 investigation and filed charge sheet against thc driver of the crime Auto bearing No.AP-09-W-5062. It is stated by the petitioner that he sustained fracture injury

5. to his right 1eg and multiple injuries all over the body Due to the said injuries, the petitioner is suffering from pains, shock and mental agony and lost his studres and spent heavy expenditure for his treatment. Hence, hled claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.3,00,OOO/- against the respondents who are owner and insurer of crime Auto bearing No.AP-09W 5062.

6. Respondent Nos.1 & 2 remained ex parte'

7. Respondent No.3/Insurance Company filed its counter denying the averments made in the claim petition including, narration of accident, rash and negligent driving on part of the driver of Auto, injuries sustained by the petitioner and medical expenses incurred by him and further contended that the compensation claimed is excess and exorbitant and hence prayed to dismiss the claim against.

8. Based on the pieadings made by both parties, the learned Tribunal had framed the following issues for conclucting trial:- t. WhetLter the accident is due to rash and negligent diuing bg the diuer of uehicle? B€Ji;*EEffif:.T, . ir, ;- i;. ,, --7 3 MGP,] itr:t A ND_9o3 of 2016 II LlL. \)'n. ther the petitioner sustained any inju ries clis tbilitg c.. t'- is entitled to cLatm compensation. If s,t, :o uthaL t. t lurlt a nd from tuhom? 'l t tthat relieP

9. Belirlc il: Tribunal, in order to substanti rte hrs ;laim, the petitioncr ,tt,.i 'rr ltcd himself as PW1, got examine I tI,r: I rctor u,ho treated hirn rL ; :,W2 and got marked Exs.A 1 to A 1O tn I is behalf. On the o ll Lc - hand, on behalf of respondenl No. .lr 1 nsurance Compat'rl . 1 ro ( , :f l evidence was adduced, howevt r, F)x..3 l -Copy of lnsurancc- i) rl r . rvas marked with consent.

10. Bas:<i tL the oral and documentary evidt,nce s,ii ilable on record, th: .e : lcd Tribunal came to a conclusiorr thal ilicre is no nexus bet\\.(l(,- the accident and the offending velLir:Lr: and the petitioner lzriL, rL ro provc the involvement of the r:ffer di|r1 Aulo as he had r ,t ,r iged any report with lhe polic e a Lrrl thercfore dismissed t-lrt ' airr-r petition due to lack of bona fides \ggrieved with thc s:riri 'rrcling, the petitioner/ injured prcferrerl I I r pre sent Appeal. 1 1. Healrl : -l.rments submitLed by Smt.S.A.V. ?atn:Lrn learned counsel fo- th, rrppellant who appeared through , irtl.al ;rode and Sri V.\/er <rrt llami Reddy, learned Standir g Ltc,.r tsel for responden . / I n i _ rance Company. perused the rec<;rcl .n<.LL .cling the grounds of .A :1 r r r 1. 4 MGP,J MACMA.No.903 of 2016

12. The main contention of the learned Counsel for I appellant/ injured is that the learned Tribunai erred in dismissing the claim petition on the sole ground that there is delay in lodging complaint before the Police. Learned counsel also contended that the Tribunal ought to have seen that as the driver himself pleaded guilty for occurrence of accrdent, the petitioner is entitled for compensation and therefore prayed to allow the Appeal by granting compensation.

13. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for respondent/ Insurance Company contended that the learned Tribunal had rightly dismissed the claim petition on the ground that there was delay in lodging complaint before police station and therefore, the said linding requires no interference by this Court.

14. Nou, the point that emerges for dctcrmination is, (, (il POINTS:- WlrctLrcr the order passed by the leamed Tribunal suffers from ang iregulaitg? Wheth,er ttrc appellant is entitled for grant of compensation? i 5. This Court has perused the entire evidence and documents available on record. The appellant/ injured examined himself as PW1 and reiterated the contents of the claim petition. To prove about the injuries sustained by him, he got examined pW2- Orthopedic Surgeon. PW2 in his evidence deposed that the l i 1 I I I I I I I i i I 5 MGP,J 1.t/\ t\4A tto.g13 ol 2016 petitioncr \\ r: admitted in their Hospital with follov.,t rg injuries sustaine :[ i:r a road accident viz., (l) Corrmir:ul](l ll.racture HLrmn'rernr s . jrlht and (2) Fracture of both bonr s ri 1l,rr.. I{e stated that the -.lri( riilrries are grievous in nature and he trc.rl ld the said injurics Lr, discharg,:cl serting plates and rods ancl the I)i ticnt was 'r L)8.08.2002. He also deposed thar Il::.A2_injury. certrfica t : s r;.ued by Dr.Venkateswar Rao and slated i tat patient u,ould in:,- r' i amount of Rs.l5,OO0/- for rem:val c:' rlates ancl rods. Tlrr:rr lr PWs 1 & 2 were cross examinccl, n,rtll rg irdvcrse rr",as ehcitci. r : lisbclieve their testimony.

16. As ler I clocumentary evidence is concer.ncd. Fl>.A1 is lhe FIR regrsLcrc I ir,r. Madikonda police Station, Wa:ar-r13ai l)istrict, in Crime No.l -r r l' 2OO2 on Ol.I2.2OO2, conducted invesr.rllation and filcd ch:r.gr' ; : r:ct under Ex.A3 against the dri.,.e r cl- r: :ime Auto beaflng lrrr,., : 6q1y tOUr. trx.A4 is the cOpy r;l' order in CC. No. I 1 3r' .1002 on the file of IV Additonal . udi::al lagistrate of Firsl (1t..;: 1r,':rrangal. Ex.A5 is the Discharge Su r,::L rry- issuecl by Jaya Ilo:;r; rrl, Hanamkonda. Ex.A6 is the co,rer :tore ol.policy. Ex.A7 :rrc 1 :tr : r tnch ol medical bills. trx.Ag is the lc ttt,r issued by KITS, Wtr',rnr: l. trxs.A9 & A10 are the MemorarLdutn ,>1 marks of 1st semester.

17. Frorn tl'I elVidence trn:l I ;rbove oral evidence coupled with the clocrmentary .Jxs.A1 to A1O, it is made clear t.rat thl retitioner t I :,' i:' 6 MGP,I MACMA.No.9O3 of 2076 sustained fracture injuries in an accident that occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of crime Auto bearing No.AP-09W-5062 who himself admitted his guilt on the date of filing of charge sheet.

18. The contention of the learned counsel for appellant is that though the petitioner adduced nccessary oral and documentary evidence to substantiate his contentions, but the learned Tribunal, without considering the same, had dismissed the claim petition only on the sole ground that there is delay in lodging complaint immediately after the accident.

79. In this regard, it is pertinent to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ravi vs Badrinarayan & Orsrwherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court at paras 20 & 21 held as under:_ "to. It ts uell set ed that detoA in lodging the FIR cqnnot be a ground to doubt the claimont's case. Knouting the Indion conditions as theg are, LUe cannot expect a common man to fi.rst rush to the police station immediatelA aJter an (lccid.ent. Human trature anr) famtLll responsibilities occupa the mind. of kith and. ktn to such an ertent thot thea giue more importance to get the uictim treated rather than to t.,sh to the police station. tJnder s.tch circumstances, theg are not expected to act mechanicoLLA uith promptitud_e tn lodging the FIR with the police. Delag in lodging the FIR firus, cannot be the ground to d.eng lustice to th.e uictim. AIR 20I I SUPRf[TE COURT t226 I : ds{Eq1:IEr!!Et-ry-Fl!- -. *::1.:r1 7 MGP,J i/r\a ,4A.No.9O3 of 2016 ,l (:rr5^('s t I deloA, the coutls are required to exanrtle tt:( e )iderLce wLth (t t:lt ..1 sctutinA otld in doitlg so the contents cf the l)l\'. sLLauLd aiso t(-' -s, il ri,rised nore c7refullA. If the court finds tlLaL lL',:t z is tto tndrc'tti:tr ,', fabncation or it hcts not been concocted or e]Lllttrc?red to intpli :tt e ? i )cen/ J)erso/rs then, euen if there is a dellg it totlg ing the Ft?. rrt , r r/. .r./-se cannot be dismissed ntere,lg on hat lrc',tt d.'l'|rc pury.)ost ( 'L ilnng the FIR in such tgpe of cases is Pil,ruil,/ to iltitnote the p tlt t t ) tttLticrte inue.sttgation of ciminal offences.

21. l.:cilrt,,t )f l,-|R cenoiftlA proues the factum of acctdertt so 1\o1 tlae utcti,rr t,; t ltt.. 1r, 1orrr. a case for cornpensation but c'ela11 rtr d tirtg so cotul )r l), ! e tnoin ground for rejecting the claim ltetiti)'',. lL olher wot..ls. 1l1t c iqlt loclging of FIR ts wtat in decidirtg mol,)r acci.-i?t t cLdittt crr-sc,:, 'll rl rl lLttlllttg the sante sltould not be treled i1s -f lttt! for sttclr l;ro ' clttqs, if claintort hqs beett abte to riertLcttsttate s(rlr.s ii..'r..lr '1tld cogent reesons for it. There coulcl be .1 t)e 1etL,J of re(.s(,r.i i ,r.-'rrrrirrc coses for deLayed lodgement of FIR. t,'rtle s.s kifh an(1 i: ti c ',1" urctinl are qble to regatn a cetTain leuet of antl iLlitll of rrrittd t'tci t'' contltosed to lodge Lt, euen [f, tlTere is delatl. ll1) scLnle deser rrcs 'i be corrdoned. In such ctrcumstances, the autlvL tatA of the FIR ct. :r ttles much rnore signifi.cance than delag r.tt loooirtg thereof supl) )rl,?(1 i 1 c:ogent reosons."

20. .As t'rr,. rs,rgcrl [iom thc above jucigment, altl-orrgn there is delay in .,).1:t, r1l t'lR immediately after the accici:nt, bu thc same should n ){ h ' i-e irtecl as fatal for such proceedillrls, :f c'li imant has been ablr tr) la rnonstrate satisfactory and cogent re asonr, for it 2I. In I 1 '.lsc on hand, the petitioner/in iure cl, ,luring his examinatio:1 :,:posed that as himself and pillic n ricler both have been ad:riLt. :: in the Hospital at the same tirrre z nd family membcrs ivert hcld up in taking care of himself try givrng necessary mcdicinc; ,.ir r i to time, they were unable to lodgr: compl lint before - I I i r I t .': 8 MGP.I MACMA.No.9O3 oJ 2016 Police station immedia tely after the accident. 1.his Court, considering the reason stated by the petitioner and the grievous injuries sustained by the petitioner and the treatment undergone by him, is of the considered oprnion that the delay occurred in and the petitibner is entitled for lodging FIR is unintentional compensation .

22. So far as compensation is concerned, since the petrtioner/ injured sustained 2 grievous fracture in.;ures, lhis Court considering the same, hereby award an amount of Rs.25,ooo/- each towards the said two fracture injuries. A perusal of Medical bills filed under Ex.A7 discloses that the petitioner incurred an amount of Rs.2Z,42O/- towards Discharge Bill issued by Jaya Hospitals, Hanamkonda. Hence, this Court, considering the same, hereby grant the said amount towards medical expenses. I,.urther, a perusal of Estimation Certificate dated 26.O1 .2OO4 Jaya Hospitals, Hanamkonda, Warangal, discloses that the petitioner/ injured undcrwent surgery for removal ol plating on Right Humerus & Tibia (old fractures) and incurred an expenditure of Rs.35,00O/-. This Court finds the same to be reasonable and hereby award the same. Further, Exs.A9 & A10 clearly discloses that the petitioner was studying II year B.Tech (EC) in Kakatiya Universit5r and during his evidence he deposed that he was treated as inpatient for 2 months at Jaya Hospitar and lost two semester issued by a--,-l--- . i'iYtl.r:J:.. ?.!i1t". .i a' 9 MGP,] l\ /.: MA.li..gO3 of 2016 / :, .l exarns a .rc. : r l tred a lot of paln and suffering. He rcr:, this Court is inciincd t,r u'ard an amount of Rs.50,0OO/ tou.arC; pain and suffenng, ;r. lmount of Rs.5,000/- towards Eixtre. no -rrrshment, amour-lr ol lls 5.OOO/- lowards attendant cha. gcs rr- lreatment takern ir '-l-L IJospital and Rs.3,0O0/- towar,ls lirt l'e medical expenses. (rcc, thc peti tioner/ injured is cltitlec br a total compensaLtir, ,rnder various heads as detailed unde': I .si.ti,). Details of the Head Cornpensation. awarde d Rs.5O,0 t)o I Rs.2 5,0C Rs.27,4 Rs- 3 5,0 Rs.5O,0 Rs.5 00 o/ q 1!lt L ,201 - t)o l. t)o I medical Rs.3,001) / - Tr.r'o fracture inj uries Meclical Bills Removal of -b!14L - Pain and Sufferin Extra Nourishment Future C ENSES Attendant charges incurred during the period of trea tment TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.5,001 / - Rs.1,75,42O,'

23. As l:rr rL. iiabilitl, is concerned, a perusa of trx.1il-Copy of InstLrarcc r, li :r' shou,s that the respondent No. I rvi,s t.t e owner of crime ve ri,r:l, \uto and the policy was in force as or: r hc date of accident.. A; .,uch, respondents 1 to 3 are jotntlv arl severally Iiable io pay rr,compensation awarded to the pe titionrrr injured.

24. So fz l r-r rate of interest on the compel Lsarion amount is concerncl. til r Court, by relying upon the decis;ion t>I tee Hon'ble Apex Corrrt rr Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh an,l others2, 2 2013 AC.l i1 )l' . ,l),:l (.11 ALT 35 10 MGP.) MACMA-No.903 ol2016 hereby grant interest @7 .5o/. per annum from the date of petition -.l.rx till the date of realization

25. In the result, the Appeal is partly-allowed by setting aside the Award passed by the learnecl Tribunal and Lhe appellant/injured is ar,r.arded vvith a totai compensatron of Rs.|,75,420/- which shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the da[e of realization payable by respondent Nos.1 to 3 jointly and severally. The respondents 1 to 3 are directed to deposit the said compensation withrn a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. Upon such deposit, the appellant/ injured is entitled to withdraw the same by foregoing interest for a period of 3 1g days, which is lhe period of delay occurred in representing the Appeal, as per orders dated 29.O2.2016 passed in I.A.No.l ol 20 10 (M.A.C.M.A.M.p.No.32 of2O1O). There shall be no order as to costs.

26. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// Sd/. P PADMANABHA REDDY SSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To PR

1. The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims tribunal -Principal District Judge , Warangal (with Records)

2. One CC to SRl. S A V RATNAM, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRl. V VENKATARAN/I REDDY, Advocate IOPUCI 4. Two CD Copies (x HIGH COUR-T DATED: 20101t"12025 I JUDGMENT MACMA.No,()03 of 2016 R Tl-, ': I :;l o4 ti 1,[2' )2 c^.. ,y .-t- Or:- ';,' i ,' : ' I : PP,RTLY ALLOWING THE MACMr\ I I , i I : C du> W IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI MOTOR AC CIDENT CIVIL MI SCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO : 903 0F 2016 Between l P.Sudheer, S/o.Punnam Tirupathi Reddy, aged 20 years, Hindu' Occ: Student Fl/o. H.No.6-30/1-8, Viveknagar, Hanamkonda' ...APPELLANT/PETITIONER AND

1. Md.Riyaz, S/o.Nazar, Aged Adult, Occ: Owner of Auto Bearing No'APO 9 W 5062 R/o.H.No.3-6-738, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad

2. The New lndia Assurance Co Ltd, O/o. Branch,Office H No' 22-7 -26911 ' Opp' - Jublee Post Office, Dewan Devdi, Noor Mahal Complex, Hyderabad'

3. The New lndia Assurance Hanamkonda. ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS.l & 2 Co Ltd, O/o. Branch Office Chowrastha' ...RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT.3 AppealfiledunderSectionlT3ofl\/]otorvehiclesAct.,againsttheJudgment and decree, made in O.P.NO.353 of 2003 dated 02 06'2008 on the file of the i\/otor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- Principal District Judge, at "6uir*un, Warangal. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds 9f '!.P9-'l' the Judgment and Decree of the court bLlow and the material papers in the MVOP anO upJn hearing the arguments of SRl. S A V RATNAM, Advocate for the appellant anO oi Snt. V Vf1XnlnnnMl REDDY, Counsel for the Respondent 2 & 3 and None Appeared for the Respondent No.1 This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the NIACMA be and hereby is partly allowed; 2. That the award passed by the tribunal and the appellanUinjured be and herebyawardedwithatotatCompensationofRs.l,T5,420l-whichshallcarry )'/o eat annum from the date of petition till flre ,irrte of realization interest (@i ',i payabl€ b,7 re roondent Nos.lto 3 joinfly and several y, 3. That thrr r,::s:crrdents 1 to 3 be and hereby directed lo d€)pos t the said compersatitlr ,,,ithin a period of 2 months from the c ate of re ;eipt of a copy of this judlrrn e,,t;

4. That up,)n s I ; I deposit, the appella nt/injured be anc her:b\, :ntitjed to withdrarv thr' ;,rme by foregoing interest for a period cf 3 1g r rys, which is the period oI delay occurred in representing the appeal, :]s p()r .)r lers dated 29.02.2Q16;rir rsed in t.A.No.1/2010 (N/AC|VAA/P.N c 32 of 2,C10

5. That sa'e as aforesaid, the decree of the Tribunar sr- al stand; confirmed in all other resp e rr;ts; and

6. That the.e srr:r I be no order as to costs in this appeal. To //TRUE COPYII Sd/- P PADMAI ASSISTT\l ^ \ \_... r" ,1, SEC \.IABHA REDDY .IT REGISTRAR TION OFFICER 1 2 The Cha rma r, Motor Accident Claims tribunal_cum WarangaL Two CD 3cp es -F'rincipa I l)istrict Judge , PR Hr HIGH COUFII" DATED: :20lttZl2025 DECREE MACMA.No 903 of 2016 ( ,:b\ "t r,.,. * \ [l 4 .1i1 'tlt"l ,l i i .. ,i { ; i-1ii-i ; PARTLY ALI..CWING THE MACMA I .o8ll Xttr'