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 operation of Order and Decree dated 27-09-2018 passed in O P No 12 of 2013 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - Cum - Principal District ludge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B. Nagar. Counsel for the Appellant : Sri. A Ramakrishna Reddy Counsel for the ResPondents: - The Court delivered the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASI(AR REDDY N0.429 of 2Ol9 JUDGMEN'T:. This appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is preferred by the appellant-insurance company assailing the judgment and decree date'd 27.o9.2o18 passed in M.V.o.p.No.12 of 2013, whereby the Tribunal au,arded a total compensation of Rs.3,2g,066/- with interest at zvo p.a. in favour of the claimant (respondent No.l herein) for the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident.

2. The t,rief facts of the case are that on 14.09.2012 at about 14.00 hours the claimant-respondent No. t herein was going along with his friend Kondal Rao in car bearing No. Ap t t AE 5g5o from piilaipally village to Hayathnagar and when the car reached Bandaravirala village, Hayathnagar, Ranga Red<ty Districr, one lorry bearing No.Ap-29-TA-0401 coming from Hayathnagar to Pillaipally Village driven in rash and negligent manner with high speed dashed the car in opposite direction, resulting in multiple grievous injuries to the claimant, including blunt injury to chest, right orbital injury, dislocation of lens and dislocation of the right temporo- mandibular joint. Treatment was taken at omni Hospital and at Max Mission Hospital. Stating that the claimant was hale and healthy before accident but got permanently disabled due to injuries suffered in the accident anc that he was aged 49 years and earning Rs.So,ooo/- per month on manufacture of water and waste water treatment plant, he filed the 2 aforesaid claim petition before the Tribunal, seeking compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- against the owner and insurer of the crime lorry.

3. Before the Tribunal, respondent No. 1 i.e., the owner of the lorry remained ex parte and respondent No.2 i.e., the Insurance Company filed counter denying the averments of the claim petition and contended that the amount claimed is excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

4. The Tribunal, after conducting full-fledged trial and on appreciation both oral and documentary evidence, held that the appellant suffered injuries in the accident occurred due to negligent driving of the said lorry and awarded compensation of Rs.3,28,A66 l- under various heads with interest at 7o/o per annum in favcur of the claimant. The appellant-insurance comparly challenges the said award in this appeal. S. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is, whether the Tribunal was justified in awarding compensation of Rs.3,28,066/- and whether any interference is warranted? T. As regards proof of manner of accident, the record reveals that the claimant (PW1) clearly explained the accident. Ex.A1-FIR, Ex.A2-charge sheet and the 161 Cr.P.C. statements of Kondal Rao and Sugunakar Reddy (Exs.A4 & A5) corroborated the occurrence of accident and fixed negligence 3 on the lorry driver. The insurer did not lead any evidence to rebut this material. Thus, the Tribunal rightly accepted negligence.

8. As regards discrepancy in vehicle number, it is evident that though the FIR initially mentioned the lorry number as AP-29-PA-0401, the eye- witness stalements (Exs.A4 & A5), and the evidence of RWl established that the lorry actually involved in the accident is AP-29-TA-0401, which was insured with the appellant. The Tribunal correctly held that the error in the FIR was a clerical mistake and not fatal.

9. Insoftr as nature of injuries and assessment is concerned, the record discloses that according to Ex.AS (MLC record), the claimant suffered grievous blunt injury to chest, orbital injury, dislocation of lens and dislocation of the temporo-mandibular joint. The discharge summaries support the same. The absence of a doctor's oral evidence is not fatal in an injury case when documentary medical evidence is clear and unchallenged, as held in several precedents. As such, the amounts awarded by the Tribunal i.rl., Rs. 1,50,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.50,0O0/- towards inc,rnvenience, Rs.25,ooo/- torvards e.xtra nourishment, Rs.5,0o0/- towards trirnsportation, and Rs.23,066/- rorvards medical bitls, are reasonable and supported by the nature of injuries and treatment undertaken.

10. So far as the loss of earnings is concerned, though no direct proof of income was filed, the Tribunal adopted notional income of Rs.25,000/- per month, cons;idering that the claimant was a businessman travelling in his a 4 own car and required rest due to multiple grievous injuries. The amount awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.75,000/- for three months' loss of earnings cannot be said to be excessivc. 'fhus, the total compensation of Rs.3,28,066/- awarded by the Tribunal is neither excessive nor arbitrary. This Court finds no error, much lcss legal or factual infirmity, warranting interference in this appeal. 1 1. Resultantly, this appeal is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, ttre miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stancl closed. To, Sd/. M. JAWAHAR RED ASSISTANT //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

1. The Chairman Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cu irOg", Ringa Reddy District, at L'8. Nagar' (With 2. One CC to Sri. A Ramakrishna Reddy, Advocate [O1 3. Two CD CoPies Principal District records) KVR/DL i i ' : : i afE 6l c f o d \\\t 1\1t \s * DE$r': HIGH COUR'T OATED;2611'll2O25 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.429 of 2019 DISMISSINGi THE APPEAL 6> JKS ul"l* $ \ I I t I I i I I IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 429 OF 2019 Between: United lndia lnsurance Co. Ltd, Represented by its Divisional Manager, R/o Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. ...AppellanURespondent No. 2 AND

1. Samala Shankar Rao, S/o Narayana, Age. 49 years, Occ. Business, R/o Flat No.507, Somavarapu Enclave Apartments, Arunodhaya Colony, Road No.1, Nagole, L.B. nagar, R.R. District. ...Respondent No. 1/Respondent

2. Radhika Enterprises, Represented by A. Vidhya Rani D/o Not Known, Age. Major, R/o Plot No.2, Block No.14, Auto Nagar, Hayathnagar, R.R. District ...Respondent No. 2/Respondent No. 1 Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V.Act, against Order and Decree dated DL.27-09-2018 passed in O.P.No.12 OF 2013 on the file of the court of the Chairman Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-"cum- Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B. Nagar. . 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 argument of Sri. A Ramakrishna Reddy, Advocate for the Appellant. / This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and is dismissed; 2. That save as aforesaid, the decree of the Tribunal shall stands confirmed in all other respects; and

3. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. //TRUE COPYII Sd/- M. JAWAHAR REDDY ASSISTANT REG SECTION OFF!CER To,

1. The Ohairman Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- Principal District Judg,-., Ranga Reddy District, at L.B. Nagar.

2. Two ()D Copies KVR/DL HIGH COURT DATED:26"1112025 DECREE MACMA.No.429 of 2019 DISMISSING THE APPEAL R5 elz-lza /s / i .::,.::; .,-i

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 operation of Order and Decree dated 27-09-2018 passed in O P No 12 of 2013 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - Cum - Principal District ludge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B. Nagar. Counsel for the Appellant : Sri. A Ramakrishna Reddy Counsel for the ResPondents: - The Court delivered the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASI(AR REDDY N0.429 of 2Ol9 JUDGMEN'T:. This appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is preferred by the appellant-insurance company assailing the judgment and decree date'd 27.o9.2o18 passed in M.V.o.p.No.12 of 2013, whereby the Tribunal au,arded a total compensation of Rs.3,2g,066/- with interest at zvo p.a. in favour of the claimant (respondent No.l herein) for the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident.

2. The t,rief facts of the case are that on 14.09.2012 at about 14.00 hours the claimant-respondent No. t herein was going along with his friend Kondal Rao in car bearing No. Ap t t AE 5g5o from piilaipally village to Hayathnagar and when the car reached Bandaravirala village, Hayathnagar, Ranga Red<ty Districr, one lorry bearing No.Ap-29-TA-0401 coming from Hayathnagar to Pillaipally Village driven in rash and negligent manner with high speed dashed the car in opposite direction, resulting in multiple grievous injuries to the claimant, including blunt injury to chest, right orbital injury, dislocation of lens and dislocation of the right temporo- mandibular joint. Treatment was taken at omni Hospital and at Max Mission Hospital. Stating that the claimant was hale and healthy before accident but got permanently disabled due to injuries suffered in the accident anc that he was aged 49 years and earning Rs.So,ooo/- per month on manufacture of water and waste water treatment plant, he filed the 2 aforesaid claim petition before the Tribunal, seeking compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- against the owner and insurer of the crime lorry.

3. Before the Tribunal, respondent No. 1 i.e., the owner of the lorry remained ex parte and respondent No.2 i.e., the Insurance Company filed counter denying the averments of the claim petition and contended that the amount claimed is excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

4. The Tribunal, after conducting full-fledged trial and on appreciation both oral and documentary evidence, held that the appellant suffered injuries in the accident occurred due to negligent driving of the said lorry and awarded compensation of Rs.3,28,A66 l- under various heads with interest at 7o/o per annum in favcur of the claimant. The appellant-insurance comparly challenges the said award in this appeal. S. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is, whether the Tribunal was justified in awarding compensation of Rs.3,28,066/- and whether any interference is warranted? T. As regards proof of manner of accident, the record reveals that the claimant (PW1) clearly explained the accident. Ex.A1-FIR, Ex.A2-charge sheet and the 161 Cr.P.C. statements of Kondal Rao and Sugunakar Reddy (Exs.A4 & A5) corroborated the occurrence of accident and fixed negligence 3 on the lorry driver. The insurer did not lead any evidence to rebut this material. Thus, the Tribunal rightly accepted negligence.

8. As regards discrepancy in vehicle number, it is evident that though the FIR initially mentioned the lorry number as AP-29-PA-0401, the eye- witness stalements (Exs.A4 & A5), and the evidence of RWl established that the lorry actually involved in the accident is AP-29-TA-0401, which was insured with the appellant. The Tribunal correctly held that the error in the FIR was a clerical mistake and not fatal.

9. Insoftr as nature of injuries and assessment is concerned, the record discloses that according to Ex.AS (MLC record), the claimant suffered grievous blunt injury to chest, orbital injury, dislocation of lens and dislocation of the temporo-mandibular joint. The discharge summaries support the same. The absence of a doctor's oral evidence is not fatal in an injury case when documentary medical evidence is clear and unchallenged, as held in several precedents. As such, the amounts awarded by the Tribunal i.rl., Rs. 1,50,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.50,0O0/- towards inc,rnvenience, Rs.25,ooo/- torvards e.xtra nourishment, Rs.5,0o0/- towards trirnsportation, and Rs.23,066/- rorvards medical bitls, are reasonable and supported by the nature of injuries and treatment undertaken.

10. So far as the loss of earnings is concerned, though no direct proof of income was filed, the Tribunal adopted notional income of Rs.25,000/- per month, cons;idering that the claimant was a businessman travelling in his a 4 own car and required rest due to multiple grievous injuries. The amount awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.75,000/- for three months' loss of earnings cannot be said to be excessivc. 'fhus, the total compensation of Rs.3,28,066/- awarded by the Tribunal is neither excessive nor arbitrary. This Court finds no error, much lcss legal or factual infirmity, warranting interference in this appeal. 1 1. Resultantly, this appeal is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, ttre miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stancl closed. To, Sd/. M. JAWAHAR RED ASSISTANT //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

1. The Chairman Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cu irOg", Ringa Reddy District, at L'8. Nagar' (With 2. One CC to Sri. A Ramakrishna Reddy, Advocate [O1 3. Two CD CoPies Principal District records) KVR/DL i i ' : : i afE 6l c f o d \\\t 1\1t \s * DE$r': HIGH COUR'T OATED;2611'll2O25 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.429 of 2019 DISMISSINGi THE APPEAL 6> JKS ul"l* $ \ I I t I I i I I IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 429 OF 2019 Between: United lndia lnsurance Co. Ltd, Represented by its Divisional Manager, R/o Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. ...AppellanURespondent No. 2 AND

1. Samala Shankar Rao, S/o Narayana, Age. 49 years, Occ. Business, R/o Flat No.507, Somavarapu Enclave Apartments, Arunodhaya Colony, Road No.1, Nagole, L.B. nagar, R.R. District. ...Respondent No. 1/Respondent

2. Radhika Enterprises, Represented by A. Vidhya Rani D/o Not Known, Age. Major, R/o Plot No.2, Block No.14, Auto Nagar, Hayathnagar, R.R. District ...Respondent No. 2/Respondent No. 1 Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V.Act, against Order and Decree dated DL.27-09-2018 passed in O.P.No.12 OF 2013 on the file of the court of the Chairman Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-"cum- Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B. Nagar. . 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 argument of Sri. A Ramakrishna Reddy, Advocate for the Appellant. / This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and is dismissed; 2. That save as aforesaid, the decree of the Tribunal shall stands confirmed in all other respects; and

3. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. //TRUE COPYII Sd/- M. JAWAHAR REDDY ASSISTANT REG SECTION OFF!CER To,

1. The Ohairman Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- Principal District Judg,-., Ranga Reddy District, at L.B. Nagar.

2. Two ()D Copies KVR/DL HIGH COURT DATED:26"1112025 DECREE MACMA.No.429 of 2019 DISMISSING THE APPEAL R5 elz-lza /s / i .::,.::; .,-i