The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellant :Sri A Ramakrishna Reddy Counsel for the Respondent No.I: Sri Tarigoppula Mahendar Counsel for the Respondent No.2: None Appeared The Court delivered the following: Judgment II\t THE HTGH COT'RT FOR THT STATE OF TELANGANA AT I{YDERABAI) THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY MACMA No.422 of 2O19 DATE: O2.L2.2O25 Between: United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Represented by its Divisional Manager, R/o. Basheerbagh, Hyderabad Kondal Rac, Q23swada and another AND JUDGMEN'T: .Appellant Respondents This appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is filed by the appellant-lnsurance Company challenging the award dated

15.10.2018 passed in M.V.O.P.No.1O64 of 2OL2 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents C1aims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, whereby the Tribun"l "*".d"d total compensation of Rs.4,4O,OO0/- with interest at 7%o per annum in favour of the respondent No.2-claim:rnt for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident.

2. The crief' facts are that on 14.O9.2OL2 at about 14:00 hours, the claimant along with his friend Samala Shankar Rao was travelling in car bearing No.AP f 1 AE 5850 from Pillaipally Village to Hayathnagar and when 2 they reached Bandaravirala Village, Hayathnagar, a lorry bearing registration No.AP 29 TA 0401 came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed the car, resulting in multiple grievous injuries to the claimant, including a comminuted fracture of the proximal shaft of the humerus with subluxation of the shoulder joint, and grievous injuries to L1 and L2 vertebra. Stating that he took treatment at Sunshine Hospital and other medical centres and tJ at due to the injuries, he was unable to continue his avocation and suffered prolonged disability, the claimant filed the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.6,o0,o0o/-.

3. Before the Tribunal, the owner of the lorry remained ex parte. The Insurance company filed counter denying the manner of accident, the age, occupation and income of the claimant, and further contended that the lorry No.AP 29 PA O4O 1 was not insured with it and that the vehicle involved was different. It was also pleaded that the amounts claimed were excessive and ultimately, prayed to dismiss the petition.

4. After full-fledged trial, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lprry driver and that the lorry involved was the one insured with the appellant. It then awarded total compensation of Rs.4,40,000/- with interest @7o/o per annum. Aggrieved by the same, the Insurance Company filed the present appeal.

5. Heard the learned counsel for both sides and perused the record.

6. The point that for consideration in this appeal is: 3 "W,.ether the compensation of Rs.4,4O,000/ - awarded by the Tibunal fs excessirrc, and tuhether any interference is warranted?" 7 . Regarding the manner of accident, the claimant as PW I clearly narrated t.he incident. The FIR, complaint and charge sheet (Exs.A1 and A2) support':he occurrence. The 161 Cr.P.C. statements of eye-witnesses Shankar Rao, Kondal Rao and Sugunakar Reddy (Exs.A3 to A5) are consistent and confirm that the lorry came in a rash manner and hit their car. The medical legal case record (Ex.A8) and the wound certificates corroborate the injuries suffered. There is no rebuttal evidence from the insurer. '[he Tribunal rightly held that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry.

8. Thr: insurer disputed the vehicle number, arguing that the policy covered 'rehicle No.AP 29 TA 0401, whereas the FIR mentioned vehicle number as AP 29 PA 0401. The Tribunal examined this aspect in detail. Ex.A6 (sr:ene of offence panchanama and sketch) and the statements of witnesse:; show the vehicle involved was the lorry insured with the appellant.. RWl (lnsurance Company witness) admitted that the policy covered .\P 29 TA O4O 1 and that the discrepancy in FIR appeared to be clerical. Dx.Bl (policy) supports coverage. The Tribunal correctly concluded that the lorry involved in the accident is the one insured with the appellant, and the rnistaken mention of "PA" instead of "TA" in the FIR is not fatal. _--1:_ .-* 6"ra !a

9. As to the nature of injuries, the claimant suffered three grievous injuries i.e, comminuted fracture of the proimal shaft of the humerus with subluxation of the shoulderjoint; fracture to Ll and L2 vertebrae; and other radiologically noted spinal injuries. The claimant was hospitalized from

14.09.2012 to 24.O9.2OL2 and underwent physiotherapy thereafter. The absence of oral evidence of the doctor is not fatal whel medical records are clear and unchallenged. The Tribunal's assessment is based on documentary evidence. The Tribunal awarded Rs.1,50,0OO/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.1O,OOO/- towards transportation, Rs.2O,OOO/- towards extra nourishment, Rs.2,00,000/- towards injuries and discomfort, Rs.6O,00O/- towards loss of earnings, totalling Rs.4,40,0OO/-. On reappraisal of the whole material, this Court finds that the Tribunal applieti correct principles, the amounts awarded are supported by evidence, and the compensation is neither excessive nor disproportionate. No legal or factual inhrmity is demonstrated warranting interference. Accordingly, this appeal is devoid of merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.

10. In the result, this appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pcnding, if any, shall stand closed SD/ M. JAWAHAR REDDY STANT REG //TRUE COPY// CTION OFFICER To,

1. The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B. Nagar.(with records) 2. One CC to SriA Ramakrishna Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri Tarigoppula Mahendar, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies -M4/ Kvr/Sa HIGH COURT DATED:021'1212025 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.42:2 ot 2019 II I J ilri\'il ?i?6 ,i: .a' ' 't,) c) DISMISSING THE APPEAL 7/(s '-/u/'" [ 32e6 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO:422OF 2019 Between: United lndia lnsurance Co Basheerbagh, Hyderabad Ltd.,, Represented by its Divisional Manager, Rl/o ...AppellanURespondent No.2 AND 'l . Kondal Rao Gajwada, S/o Laxmi Rajam, Age: 41 years, Occ: Business, Rl/o 4- 116, Opposite DPS School, Durga Nagar, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad

2. Radhika Enterprises, Represented by A. Vidhya Rani D/o Not Known, Age: Major, Rl/o Plot No.2, Block No.14, Auto Nagar, Hayathnagar, R.R. District ...Respondent No.1 /Petitioner ...Respondent No.2/Bespondent No.1 Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V.Act, against Order and Decree dated 15-10-2018 passed in OP.No. 1064 of 2012 on the file of the court of the Chairman, Motor Accident 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 forthe Appellant and Sri Tarigoppula Mahendar, for Respondent No.1 and none appeared for Respondent No.2. This Gourt doth Order and Decree as follows: 1 . That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and is hereby Dismissed: 2 3 That savt: as aforesaid, the decree of the Tribunal shall stands confirmed in all other respects; and That then: shall be no order as to costs in this appeal sgll{.{AWAHAR REDDY ASSISTANT REGISiRAR //TRUE COPYII OFFICER To, Kvr/Sa I iruFlffil;[ffilii?i""1:J:r rribunar cum principar District Judse, 2. Two CD Cc,pLs w I{ 't I I I : I I i t I ! HIGH COURT DATED:02112120125 DECREE MACMA.N o.422 of 2019 s o [ 5 l{ll.fl 2tl?fi * * DISMISSING THE APPEAL KS ,/"1,,