The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellants: Sri. T Mahender Rao Counsel for the Respondents : Sri. Palle Srinath The Court made the following: ORDER i I l I I I I I I I I I IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TE,L TNGANA AT ITYDERAB/II) THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR T EDDY M.A.C.M.A.N o.4O4 of 2O19 DATE: 2 12.2025 Between: Cholamandaiam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by its Manager, V.V.S. Vintage, Boulevard, V Floor, Door No.6-3-1O93. Raj Bhavan Road, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. AND Appellant Bela Venkatesham and two others JUDGMENT: .Respondents The appellant-insurance company has filed thi; appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, Iggg (for sl ort "the Act"), challenging the order and decree dated 2S.06.2i) g passed in MVOP.No.340 of 2Ol4 by the Chairman, Motor r.r cident Clerims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge, Medak e Sangareddy, whereby the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 1 ) ()0,O00/ _ with interest (@.7.5'/" per annum from the date of filing of thc petition till the date of deposit, in favour of the claimant i.e., responden _ \o. I herein for the injuries sustained him in a motor vehicle accident.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on lg.OS.2Ol4 at about 2:30 p.m., the claimant_respondent No.1 herein was proceeding on his Hero Honda passion pro motorcycle bearing registratron No.Ap_23_AT-g510 in a moderate speed and when he reached the limits of Isnapur X_road, in front of Indian petrol pump, on NH-65, a lorry bearing regisrration No.Ap-24_TB_7965, driven by its driver, allegedly came in the wrong route at high speed and dashed the rnotorcycle. As a result of the collision, the claimant sustained grievous injuries including compound Grade_III proximal fracture of the right tibia, fibula fracture, tendon rupfure, fracfure of right fibula, injuries to right ankle, elbow and eyebrow, and multiple injuries to his body. The claimant was first taken to Kakatiya Hospital, Isnapur, ald subsequentl-y shifred to Apollo Hospital' Jubilee Hitls, Hyderabad, where surgery was conducted. The Police, patancheru police station, registered a criminal case vide Crime No.3O5 of 2014 under Sections 337 and 33g of IpC against the lorry driver and also filed charge sheet attributing negrigcnce to the driver of the lorry. Stating that prior to the accident, the claimant was ha.le and healthy, working as private employee earning Rs.2u,0OO/- per month and due to the fractures and other grievous injuries sustained in the accident, he is not able to attend any work and he is depending on others, he filed the aforesaid claim petition seekin .' Rs. 1 o,oo, 0oo/- asainst .*r.., -"r.":;;o r.,;;":"I]""'t"" I I 0 3

3. Before the Tribunal, respondent Nos.l and 3 i.e., l rrry-owner and driver remained ex parte. Respondent No.2-insur mce company (appellant herein) {ited its counter, den5ring negli5s nce, disputing liability and contending that the driver was not holdin,3 a. valid licence, that policy conditions were breached, and thus, insure r was not liable. The Tribunal, after hearing the parties and perl ;ing oral and documentary evidence, found that tJle accident occur r :d due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry driver; that the c.z imant suffered grievous injuries leading to permanent partial disabiJi y; and that he had lost income and required future treatment; and a varded a lump sum compensation of Rs. 10,00,0OO/- along with inte r annum from date of petition till date of deposit, zr tst @ 7.5o/o per d directed the respondents therein (owner, driver and insurer) to I ,ay jointly and severally, within three months from the date of order, )hallenging the same, the appellant-insurer has now preferred the press rt appeal. \

4. Considereci the submissions of leamed counsel for the parties and pemsed the record

5. There is no dispute with regard to the finding of l. Le Tribunal that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the insured lorry; the claimant sustained grievous injuries and a permanent partial disability; and the liability. 4

6. So far as assessment of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal's computation of loss of earnings by taking into consideration the claimant's proved net income ald applylng the relevant multiplier is reasonable arrd consistent with established principles for assessing compensation in motor accident cases under Section 166 of the Act. Further, the award of Rs.10,O0,OOO/- as compensation, as hxed by the Tribunal, is within the claim and reflects a holistic appreciation of the injuries, disability, loss of eaming capacit5r, medical expenses, future surgery need, pain and suffering, and attendant expenses. .rherefore, the quantum of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal is neither arbitrary nor excessive so as to warrant interference. 7 Resultaltly, this appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed Sd/- M.JAWAHAR REDDY A SIST ANT REGISTRA //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER Medak at SangareddY. l.TheMotorAccidentClaimsTribunal-cum-VAdditionalDistrictJudge, z on.-CC tu sriT Matiender Rao, Advocate [oPUc] 3. One CC to Sri. Palle Sriharinath, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD CoPies l I I I I I I : I t I j To Yt- HIGH COURT CVBR, J DATED: 1211212025 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.404 of 2019 39t\ +5 o L) t,g I',il 'li\?6 7 z 6) l, ;>i, .t' ', ilt.., , t}ISMISSED i i l I I I I Grc'^ F' IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATEOF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 404 OF 2019 Between: Cholamandalam MS General lnsurance Co. Ltd, rep. by through its Manager, V.V.S. Vintage, Boulevard, V Floor, Door No.6-3-1093, Raj thavan Road, Somajiguda, Hyderabad ...APPELLANT/Respondent No.2 AND

1. Bela Venkatesham, S/o. Anjaiah, aged 49 years, Occ: Private Employee, R/o. Hanuman Nagar, Sangareddy Town and Mandal, Medak District.

2. Pasala Balraj, S/o. Balaiah, aged 50 years, Occ: Owner of lorry bearing No. A.P. 24-T8-7965, R/o. H.No.7-23, Kethepally Village, Nalgonda dist.,

3. Banda Sudhakar, Sio.Andhraiah, agd 47 years, Occ: Driver, R/o. H.No.6-78, R/o. Kethepally Village, Nalgonda Mandal and District. ...RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENT Nos. 1 & 3 Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the order and the decree made in IV1VOP No.340 of 2014 dated 256-2018 on the file of the l\iloto r Accident Claims Tribunal -cum- V Additional District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Court below and the material papers in the lvlVOP and upon hearing the arguments of Sri. T Mahender Rao, Counsel for the Appellant and of Sri Palle Srinath, Advocate for the Respondent No.1. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Motor Accident Civit Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is dismissed;

2. That save as aforesaid, the decree of the Tribunal shall : tands confirmed in all other respects; and

3. That there Shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. Sd/- II.JAWAHAR REDDY ASI} STANT REGIS //TRUE COPY// t TION OFFICER To

1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -cum- V Adci ional District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy.

2. Two CD Copies Pr Y4' HIGH COURT CVBR, J DATED: 1211212025 DECREE MACMA.No.404 of 2019 DISMISSED \t "4ne> X(.c

Counsel for the Appellants: Sri. T Mahender Rao Counsel for the Respondents : Sri. Palle Srinath The Court made the following: ORDER i I l I I I I I I I I I IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TE,L TNGANA AT ITYDERAB/II) THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR T EDDY M.A.C.M.A.N o.4O4 of 2O19 DATE: 2 12.2025 Between: Cholamandaiam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by its Manager, V.V.S. Vintage, Boulevard, V Floor, Door No.6-3-1O93. Raj Bhavan Road, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. AND Appellant Bela Venkatesham and two others JUDGMENT: .Respondents The appellant-insurance company has filed thi; appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, Iggg (for sl ort "the Act"), challenging the order and decree dated 2S.06.2i) g passed in MVOP.No.340 of 2Ol4 by the Chairman, Motor r.r cident Clerims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge, Medak e Sangareddy, whereby the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 1 ) ()0,O00/ _ with interest (@.7.5'/" per annum from the date of filing of thc petition till the date of deposit, in favour of the claimant i.e., responden _ \o. I herein for the injuries sustained him in a motor vehicle accident.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on lg.OS.2Ol4 at about 2:30 p.m., the claimant_respondent No.1 herein was proceeding on his Hero Honda passion pro motorcycle bearing registratron No.Ap_23_AT-g510 in a moderate speed and when he reached the limits of Isnapur X_road, in front of Indian petrol pump, on NH-65, a lorry bearing regisrration No.Ap-24_TB_7965, driven by its driver, allegedly came in the wrong route at high speed and dashed the rnotorcycle. As a result of the collision, the claimant sustained grievous injuries including compound Grade_III proximal fracture of the right tibia, fibula fracture, tendon rupfure, fracfure of right fibula, injuries to right ankle, elbow and eyebrow, and multiple injuries to his body. The claimant was first taken to Kakatiya Hospital, Isnapur, ald subsequentl-y shifred to Apollo Hospital' Jubilee Hitls, Hyderabad, where surgery was conducted. The Police, patancheru police station, registered a criminal case vide Crime No.3O5 of 2014 under Sections 337 and 33g of IpC against the lorry driver and also filed charge sheet attributing negrigcnce to the driver of the lorry. Stating that prior to the accident, the claimant was ha.le and healthy, working as private employee earning Rs.2u,0OO/- per month and due to the fractures and other grievous injuries sustained in the accident, he is not able to attend any work and he is depending on others, he filed the aforesaid claim petition seekin .' Rs. 1 o,oo, 0oo/- asainst .*r.., -"r.":;;o r.,;;":"I]""'t"" I I 0 3

3. Before the Tribunal, respondent Nos.l and 3 i.e., l rrry-owner and driver remained ex parte. Respondent No.2-insur mce company (appellant herein) {ited its counter, den5ring negli5s nce, disputing liability and contending that the driver was not holdin,3 a. valid licence, that policy conditions were breached, and thus, insure r was not liable. The Tribunal, after hearing the parties and perl ;ing oral and documentary evidence, found that tJle accident occur r :d due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry driver; that the c.z imant suffered grievous injuries leading to permanent partial disabiJi y; and that he had lost income and required future treatment; and a varded a lump sum compensation of Rs. 10,00,0OO/- along with inte r annum from date of petition till date of deposit, zr tst @ 7.5o/o per d directed the respondents therein (owner, driver and insurer) to I ,ay jointly and severally, within three months from the date of order, )hallenging the same, the appellant-insurer has now preferred the press rt appeal. \

4. Considereci the submissions of leamed counsel for the parties and pemsed the record

5. There is no dispute with regard to the finding of l. Le Tribunal that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the insured lorry; the claimant sustained grievous injuries and a permanent partial disability; and the liability. 4

6. So far as assessment of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal's computation of loss of earnings by taking into consideration the claimant's proved net income ald applylng the relevant multiplier is reasonable arrd consistent with established principles for assessing compensation in motor accident cases under Section 166 of the Act. Further, the award of Rs.10,O0,OOO/- as compensation, as hxed by the Tribunal, is within the claim and reflects a holistic appreciation of the injuries, disability, loss of eaming capacit5r, medical expenses, future surgery need, pain and suffering, and attendant expenses. .rherefore, the quantum of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal is neither arbitrary nor excessive so as to warrant interference. 7 Resultaltly, this appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed Sd/- M.JAWAHAR REDDY A SIST ANT REGISTRA //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER Medak at SangareddY. l.TheMotorAccidentClaimsTribunal-cum-VAdditionalDistrictJudge, z on.-CC tu sriT Matiender Rao, Advocate [oPUc] 3. One CC to Sri. Palle Sriharinath, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD CoPies l I I I I I I : I t I j To Yt- HIGH COURT CVBR, J DATED: 1211212025 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.404 of 2019 39t\ +5 o L) t,g I',il 'li\?6 7 z 6) l, ;>i, .t' ', ilt.., , t}ISMISSED i i l I I I I Grc'^ F' IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATEOF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 404 OF 2019 Between: Cholamandalam MS General lnsurance Co. Ltd, rep. by through its Manager, V.V.S. Vintage, Boulevard, V Floor, Door No.6-3-1093, Raj thavan Road, Somajiguda, Hyderabad ...APPELLANT/Respondent No.2 AND

1. Bela Venkatesham, S/o. Anjaiah, aged 49 years, Occ: Private Employee, R/o. Hanuman Nagar, Sangareddy Town and Mandal, Medak District.

2. Pasala Balraj, S/o. Balaiah, aged 50 years, Occ: Owner of lorry bearing No. A.P. 24-T8-7965, R/o. H.No.7-23, Kethepally Village, Nalgonda dist.,

3. Banda Sudhakar, Sio.Andhraiah, agd 47 years, Occ: Driver, R/o. H.No.6-78, R/o. Kethepally Village, Nalgonda Mandal and District. ...RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENT Nos. 1 & 3 Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the order and the decree made in IV1VOP No.340 of 2014 dated 256-2018 on the file of the l\iloto r Accident Claims Tribunal -cum- V Additional District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Court below and the material papers in the lvlVOP and upon hearing the arguments of Sri. T Mahender Rao, Counsel for the Appellant and of Sri Palle Srinath, Advocate for the Respondent No.1. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Motor Accident Civit Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is dismissed;

2. That save as aforesaid, the decree of the Tribunal shall : tands confirmed in all other respects; and

3. That there Shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. Sd/- II.JAWAHAR REDDY ASI} STANT REGIS //TRUE COPY// t TION OFFICER To

1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -cum- V Adci ional District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy.

2. Two CD Copies Pr Y4' HIGH COURT CVBR, J DATED: 1211212025 DECREE MACMA.No.404 of 2019 DISMISSED \t "4ne> X(.c