The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the execution of the decree and .judgment dated 30.1 1.2018 passed in M.V.O.P.No.2374 of 2012 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Xlll Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad. lA NO: 2 OF 2019 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to pass orders permitting the petitioner to withdraw 50% of his share amounts by i vacating lnterim stay order, dated 17-04-2019 passed in lA N I 1 of 2019 passed in lA No. 1 of 2019 in MACMA No. 419 ol 2019, or to pass Counsel for the Appellant: SRI RAMA KRISHNA MALLOJHA- I Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : SRI T.VISWARUPA CHAF' Counsel for the Respondent No.2:-- The Court made the following: JUDGMENT - IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SRJ JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY M.A.C.M.A.No.419 of 2019 DATE: o4.12.2o2s Between: United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by its Divisional Manager Ch. Ranga Rao and another JUDGMEN T: AND Appellant Respondents This appeal is filed by the appellant_lnsurance Company, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, l9gg, aggrieved by the award and decree dated 30.11.201g passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribu nal_cu m-XIII Additional Chiel .Iudge, City Civil Court, H_yderabad (for shorr ,,thc .Iribunal,,) M.V.O.P.No.2374 of 2012, whereby the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.53,5OO/_ with intercst @ 6ok per annum from the date of petrtion till realization, for the inluries sustained bv the respondent No.2-t.laimant in a motor vehicle accident : t i l I I I t i I ; i 2 -

2. The briel facts of the case are that on 1g.O:;.2 )12 ar about 22:00 hours, the claimant and one Saryanaraya I I Raju were proceeding ol-r a scooter from Kundanpally Villagc to Cheeryal Vrllargc and ',vhcn thcy reachcd near Kundanpalll, ) - Roads, thel. met with an ;rccrdent with a lorry bearing No.Ap-2Cr r tJ l g6, rvhich rvas wrongly parked in the middle of the road with() r any parking Lights or warrring signs. Due to the sudden of s l.uction, the claimant, who was a pillion rider, and the rider f ll down and sustained mulriple grievous injuries and fractures. '- rr-'y werc first taken to Gar-rdhi Hospital, Secunderabad, where i r yanarayana Raju succumbcd to thc injuries. For better trcatmen lhe clarmant \r'as later shilted to T\rlasi Hospitals, ECIL, Hyder,r r r,I. t\ czrsc it-r Crime No. 135 l2Ol2 was registered on the file of r ::sara police Station lor offcnces under Sections 304-A and 337 It ] against the driver of the said lorry. The claimant filed the a I resaid claim pe[ition sceking compensation of Rs.3,OO,00O/- fr r the injuries suffered by him-

3. Before thc Tribunal, rcspondent No. l-ownc of the lorn, remaincd ex l)arte. The appe llan t-l nsu rance Cor I tanv filed :r countcr and averred that thc manner and mode of i r cident shows that thcre is contributory negligence on the part I rider o[ the scooter and that the compensation claimed bv ,-lL, cl2irnzn1 i. EXCCSSIVC 3

4. The Tribunal, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident occurred due to the negligent parking of the lorry in the middle of lhe road withou! any indicator or signal. Thc Investigating Officer, through Ex.A2-Final Report, also concluded that the acciden t occurred due t<'r rash and negligent parking of the lorry. The Tribunal rejected the plea of contributory negligence. Thus the Tribunal, awarded total compensation of Rs.53,5OO/- with interest @ 6% per annum, payable by the respondent No.l herein and appellant-Insurance Company jointly and severally. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeat is trled by the Insurance Company.

5. The learned counscl for the appcllant-lnsurancc Company contended that the Tribunal erred in accepting Ex A2-Fina1 Report showrng negligence of the lorry driver. It is argued that the accident occurred due to thc negligence o[ rider of scooter and that the lorry was not responsible. Thus it is contended that the compensation awarded by the Tnbunal is excessive'

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2-claimant supported the award and submitted that the evi.dence on record clcarly established that the lorry was negligently parked witl.rout any indicators at night, causing the accident. It is further submitted Lhat the insurer failed to produce 4 !- any evidence to prove breach of policy condilions therefore, the Tribunal rightly fastened liability on the insurer

7. A perusal of the material on record discloses L rt Ex.A1_FIR and Dx.A2-Fin:rl Report categorically hx negligence r r ,he driver of [he lorrl bezrring No.AP 2O-V-8186. The police, aftc: rrvcstigiition, concluded that the lorry was parked in the middk: r: thc road at night without any parking lights, which was the dirr:: :ause of the accident. The rnsurer did not examine the lorry dr i,., 1 6r produce any independent evidence to establish that the acc ( ent occurred due to neghgcnce of the scooter rider. Thus, thc f nding of the Tribunal on ncgligence warrants no interference. lJ. Coming to thc quantum o[ compensation, thc ' ribunal after examining the Ex.A3-MLC record, Ex.,{4-dischrrrl j summary, mcdrcal bills and the evidence of P.W.1, accepted tlrr I thc claimant sulfered one gricvous injury and two simple injurics. ( n that basis, it granted Rs.5.OO0/- for the grievous injury, Rs. 14.I )C/- torvards medical cxpenses, Rs.4,5OO/- towards loss ()f ostate, and Rs.3,OOO/- towards transportation and extra nounsl jlent. It also awardcd Rs 1,00,000/- towards pain and sufferirtr.. When *rese armounts are aggrcgated, thc total compensar i I r comes to Rs.1,26..50O,/-. The Tribunal, however, by a clear. , l,:rical crror, mentioned the total as Rs.53,500/-. Since the cL,: rrant sought Rs.3,0O,O0O/- and the insurer has not produced arry materral to show that the amounts awarded under each head are unwarranted or d isproportionate to the injuries suffered, the calculation error requires correction. The amounts awarded under each individual head are supported by the evidence on record and do not call for reduction. The proper compensation payable to the claimant is thercfore Rs. 1,26,500/-.

9. In the result, this appeal 1S disposed of and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is corrected from Rs.53,5OO/- to Rs.1,26,500/-. The remaining portion of the arvard passed by the Tribunal shall remain unaltered. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closcd- No order as to costs. SD/. M. JAWAHAR REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER To,

1. The chairman Motor Accident craims Tribunar-cum- Xilr Additionar chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

2. One CC to SRI RAMA KRTSHNA MALLOJHALA, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRt T.V|SWARUPA CHARY Advocate tOpUCI 4. Two CD Copies 'ts* NVB HIGH COURT DATED:0411212025 JUDGMENT+DECREE MACMA.No.419 of 2019 IF3TA ?tE o (J 0 I l'ilf, ?[28 7 z 6 ): DISPOSING THE MAGMA WITHOUT C0STS - Jrs [ 32s6 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY MOTOR ACCIDENT clvlL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 419 OF 2019 Between: United lndia lnsurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by its Divisional Manager, DO-1 1 Judges Colony, Malakpet, Hyderabad Policy No. 052501131111i02/00007860, Valid from 03.01 2012lo 02.01 .2013 ...AppellanURespondent No.2 AND 1 Ch. Ranga Rao, S/O Late Bucha Rao, Aged 40 years, Occ Agriculture R/O Prajay Sai Gardens, Bandlaguda village Keesara Mandal, RR District. ..RespondenUPetitioner

2. M. Chennaiah, S/o Bugaiah, Aged about Major, Occ Business, R/O 1-96, Keesara Dayara, RR District Owner of lorry bearing No. AP-20-V-8186 ... Respon d enURespo n dent No.2 Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act against the Judgment and Decree dated 30-11-2018 passed in M.V.O.P.No.2374 of 2012 on the file of the Court of the Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-Cum- Xlll Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. 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 Rama Krishna lvlallojhala, advocate for the appellant and of Sri T.Viswarupa Chary, advocate for the respondent No.1, and none appeared for the respondent No.2. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the l/otor Accident Civil IViscellaneous Appe I be and hereby is disposed of and the compensation awarded by the Tril r nal is corrected from Rs.53,50001 to Rs 1,26.5001.

2. That the remainrng portion of the award passed by the l-ribunal shall remain unaltered.

3. That save as aforesaid, the Judgment and decree of th: l-ribunal shall stands confirmed in all other respects; and

4. fhal there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. //TRUE COPY// SD/- I/I JAWAHAR REDDY ASSiI ;TANT REGISTRAR 0 \crrou oFFtcER To,

1. The chairman lVlotor Accident claims Tribunal-cum- Xl I rrdditional chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

2. Two CD Copies NVB 'e" I ! ( HIGH COURT DATED:0411212025 DECREE MACMA.No.419 of 2019 DISPOSING THE MACMA WITHOUT CC) iTS J t<s ta l,lre