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 grant STAY of all further proceedings including execution of the decree dated 22- 01-2019 passed in O.P. No. 98 of 2018, on the file of MACT-cum- Ill Additional District Judge, Asifabad. Counset for the Appellant : SRl. SURESH KUMAR BOLLA 7 Counset for the flespondent No.1 : LAXMALLA SANDEEP Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : - Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : - The Court made the following: JUDGMENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASI(AR REDDY M.A.C.M.A.No.563 of 2O19 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the appellant/lnsurance Company aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 22.OL-2O19 passed in O.P.No.98 of 2018 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-lll Additional District Judge, Asifabad (for short "the Tribunal").

2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the minor claimant, represented by her father and natural guardian, Iiled a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of Rs.3,25,000/- for the injuries sustained by her in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 19.03.2017 at about

5.40 p.m. It is stated that while the minor claimant was coming out of her house at Ramnagar, Thegalpahad village, a Hero Glamour motorcycle bearing No.TS-O1-ED-4634, driven in a rash and negligent manner and at high speed by the respondent No.l, dashed her and ran over her right leg, causing grievous fractures of both bones of the right leg. Immediately, she was shifted to Vennela Ortho Hospital, Mancherial, where she was treated as an Il 2 inpatient for seven days i.e, from 19.03.2OI7 to 25.03.2017 and surgery was performed by fixing implants. It is further stated that her fath,:r spent a considerable amount towards medica-l expenses, transpor.t, and attendant charges and claimed compensation of Rs.3,25,000/-.

4. Tt.e respondent Nos-l and 2, rider and owner of the motorcy,:le, rernained ex parte. The respondent No.3/lnsurance Company filed its counter denying the manner of accident, age and occupation of the injured, and quantum of compensation claimed, and contended that the rider of the motorcycle was not having a valid driving licence and that there was a clear violation of policy conditions, and therefore, the insurer was not liable to pay any compens;ation.

5. The Tribunal, after considering the oral evidence of PW.1 and the doctrmentary evidence marked as Exs.Al to A13 on behalf of the clairnant and Ex.Bl on behalf of the insurer, held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the motorcy<:le by respondent No.l. The Tribunal awarded a total compensiation of Rs.2,0O,O0O/- with interest at 9o/o per annum from the date of petition till realization, holding respondents 1 to 3 jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. 3

6. Heard both sides and perused the record.

7. The learned Standing Counsel for the appellant/ Insurance Company contends that the Tribunal failed to appreciate that the rider of the offending motorcycle did not hold a valid driving licence at the time of accident, which amounts to a clear breach of policy conditions. It is also contended that the Tribunal erred in fastening liability upon the insurer despite such violation, and that in any event, the rate of interest awarded at 9o/o per annum is excessive. He submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajesh and others a. Rajbir Singh and othersr has ftxed 7.5oh per annum as a reasonable rate of interest in motor accident claim cases, and therefore, the impugned award needs to be modified accordingly.

8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 herein/claimant submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reasonable and based . on proper appreciation of evidence. It is contended that the claimant sustained grievous fracture injuries, and underwent surgery, thereby justifying the award granted by the Tribunal. He further submits that the insurer has not produced any cogent evidence to establish that the rider was not duly licensed or that there was willful breach by the insured. , (2013) 9 SCC 54 - : i 4

9. The Tribunal, on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, rilihtly held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent ri<iing of the motorcycle. The charge sheet also supports the said fir.ding. The Tribunal considered the medical bills f-tled under Exs.A4, A5, and A13 and awarded compensation under various heads including pain and suffering, medical expenses, transportat.on and attendant charges and loss of education as follows: Head of Compensation Pain and suffering Medical exl)enses Transportalion and attendant charges Loss of education Total (rounded off) Amount (Rs., 50,ooo 1,29,975 10,000 10,000 2TOOTOOO The above compensation is just and reasonable and requires no interference

10. As r:gards the contention that the rider did not possess a valid licen<:e, the Insurance Company neither examined any official witness nor produced any documentary proof to substantiate the alleged br:ach. Mere reference to the charge sheet does not by itself absc,lrre the insurer of liability in the absence of proof of willful vic,lation by the insured. Hence, the Tribunal rightly fastened -oint and several liability on respondent Nos.l to 3. .,1 -.--r.r.:.@_i,' 1 -- k=" 5 However, insofar as the rate of interest is concerned, this Court finds force in the submission of the learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company. In Ra.1'esh us. Raibir Singh (supraf , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the appropriate rate of interest in motor accident claims shall be 7.5%o per annum. Therefore, the rate of 9Vo per annum awarded by the Tribunal requires modification.

11. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed. The award dated

22.01.2019 passed in O.P.No.98 of 2Ol8 by the Tribunal, is confirmed in all other respects except the rate of interest, which is reduced frorn 9Yo to 7.5%o per annum from the date of petition to till realization. The remaining terms and conditions of the award regarding deposit and withdrawal shall remain unaltered. No order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/-T.SRINIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR6 SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The MACT-cum- lll Additional District Judge, Asifabad. 2. One CC to SRl. SURESH KUMAR BOLLA Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRl. LAXMALLA SANDEEP Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies GE/PSL HIGH COURT DATEO:1O11112025 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.56:) of 2019 i1,,i IF t o) .5-oo 25 IEB 2026 (, -\ ., PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS ?-b $ IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD [ 32e61 MONDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY P Between: United lndia lnsurance Company Limited, Represented by Branch Office . 6-7311 ,Balaji Complex Ganga Reddy road ,Ma its Branch Manager, ncherial. ENT' ..APPELLANT/RESPONDENT NO.2

1. Boggila Harini, D/o Srinivas, Age . 13 years, Occ . Student (minor), under the guardianship of her Natural father and next friend Boggila Srinivas, S/o Satyanaryana ,Age . 41 years, Occ. LIC Agent , R/o Q .No. 319/D Goleti Village . Mdl' Rebbena Dist' Kumrambheem Asifabad .... 'ETITToNER/RES'.NDENT

2. Gunta Jaggaiah, S/o Late Rajamallu .age .52 years , Occ . Rider of Hero Glamour Motor cycle , R/o Ramnagar, Thegalpahad Mdl . Naspur .Dist . Mancherial.

3. Bootam Swamy, S/o Madunaiah ,Age .Major, Occ.Owner of Hero Glamour motor cycle , R/o. H.No. 3-310, Srirampur colony. Mdl. Naspur , Dist . Mancherial - 504303. ...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT NO.1 Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V.Act, aggrieved by the order and decree dated 22-01-2019 passed in O.P. No. 98 of 2018, on the file of the court of the MACT-cum- lll Additional District Judge, Asifabad. 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. SURESH KUMAR BOLLA, Advocate for the Appellant and SRI LAXMALLA SANDEEP, Advocate appeared for Respondent No.1 and none appeared for Respondent No.2 & 3. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That thr: Motor Accident civir Misceilaneous Appear be and is hereby partry allowed

2. That th() award dated 22.01.2019 passed in O.p.No.98 of 20.18 by the Tribunal, be and is hereby confirmed in a[ other respects except the rate of interest' which is reduced from g% to 7.50/o per annum from the date of petition to till realization 3 That the rbmaining terms and conditions of the award regarding deposit and withdrawal shall remain unaltered.

4. That ther3 shall be no order as to costs in this appeal Itlrue Copyll SD/-T.SRINIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 6 SECTION OFFICER To

1. The MACT-cum- Ill Additional District Judge, Asifabad. (with recorrl, if anv). 2. Two CD Copies. " GE/PSL w HIGH COUF.T DATED:10/11/2025 DECREE MACMA.No.563 of 2019 PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS 1/ \,\