High Court · 2025

Gounsel for the Appellant: Sri Kowturu Pavan Kumar Counsel for the Respondent No'1: None Appeared Counsel for the Respondent No'2: Smt' P' Satya.Maniula' sc ron tn-suRaHCe CoMPANY The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT *--7 { THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YAITA M.A.C.M.A.No .2303 of2019 JUDGMENT: Heard Sri l(owturu pavan Kumar, learned counsel for the appeilant/ claiman t and smt. p. Satya Manjula,' learnerl standing counsel for respondent No.2/Insurance Company. pe:used the entire record. 2 . This is arr appeal preferred by the appellant / claimalt aggrieved by the au,ard dated 2Z .11 .2OIg passed by th e learned Motor Accidents Cl,eims Tribunal (District Judge) at Kham mam, (for short 'the Tribun:Ll,) in M.V.O.p.N o.lll of 2OlZ .

3. The appellarn. fi1ed claim petition following the death of her daughter in road t_rrffic accident which took place on 03.1 l.2O).6 at 9.30am. The acci.ent occurred when the appellant,s husltand and daughter were prr:ceeding on Honda Activa bearing No.TS_O4_EC_ 3858 towards Treasury Office, Sathupalli as the aJrpellalt,s daughter has to attend duty in the Treasury ofhce. While the duo was proceeding ot1 the Honda Activa, respondent lrlo.l i.e. appellant's husL,a,i has driven the vehicle in a rash and aegligent manner while ar.oidrng she-buffalo, applied sudden brakes causing his daughter to felt down resulting in grievous heacl injurry which I I I 2 a ultimately resulted in her death on the same day while undergoing treatment.

4. The Tribunal upon examining the evidence adduced' computed the total compensation to Rs.22,22,?421- but reduced the same to Rs.10,11,l2i-l- d'enying compensation to respondent No.1 who was driving the vehicle at material time of the accident' he was the wrong-doer and a wrong-doer should not be benefited. In grounds of appeal, the appellant contended that all the 5. ingredients for grant of compensation under Section 166 of M'V'Act have been proven and therefore' full compensation ought to have been awarded. The appellant contended that the Tribunal committed error in denying 50% of compensation on the ground that respondent No'1 is the wrong-doer and no wrong-doer should benefit from his own wrongful act' The appellant contended that there is no provision under the Act to deny compensation on the alleged ground of negligence of respondent No' 1' The claim petition is frled by the mother of the deceased' as such deduction on the ground of negligence by resPondent No'1 ls contended unjustifiable. / 3 6 It is onh, rncidental that the accident occurred dr.re to driving of respondent |,1c. 1 and the same resulted in death of his daughter. The appellant 1o claim compensation has pleaded rash and negligent dri'inp; on the part of her husband. However, the question arises as to u'hether trying to avoid hitting she=b.ffaro amounts to rash and ne:gligent driving. Another question that arises for consideration is ,r,hether respondent No.1 was driving ne gligently or the she-buffalc sr-LdrJenry came in the way of Honda Activa. The act on the part of respondent No.1 in applying brakes to avoid hitting a she-buffalo canrrrt be held against him for denying conrpensation when there is instrrance coverage and the claim is made by wife of respondent No. 1 ,Ihe facts and circumstances of the cerse do .not clearly indicate *hether it is fault of respondent No.1 or the fault of buffalo which resulted in accident and consequent deztth of the deceased. Therefore, denying compensation of 5o% that too when compensation is ,a.ivarded only once, does not seent justifiable. In the circumstancesi. the award passed by the Tribunal is set aside to the extent of ded,ction of 500h of the compensation computed and respondent No.2,/lnsurance company liable to pay the total 1S compensation of Rs.2O,22,242 / _. t t

7. In the result. the Motor Accident Miscellaneous Appeat a-llowed and respondent No.2/Insurance company shall dettosit the IS i t r 4 Ar comPensatio nof Rs'2O'22'2421- with interest at 7 'Soh p'a' from the date of petition till the date of realizat\ot' within a period of (8) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of judgment' The amount' if any, deposited by respondent No'2 shall be deducted from the said amountofRs'2O,22,242/-'Onsuchdeposit'theappellantis entitled to withdraw the entire amount without furnishing the security. However, the appellant shall pay the deficit Court Fee on the comPensation amount awarded ' MiscellaneousPetitions,ifany,pendinginthisappeal,shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs' I I I I t 1 I To, sD/- P cH6l$3+l'HHSiSHiA //TRUE COPY/i SECTI ON OFFICER '1 . The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge)' Khammam (with , ;; c;; tii'Ko*t"u Pavan Kumar Advocate [oPUCl 3. One CC to Smt. P' Satya ftl"nj'f'' SC for lnsurance Company [OPUC] 4. Two CD CoPies records, if anY) kanr/['SL ir *rir-" HIGH COURT DATED:07 t03t?-O2S JUDGMENT+DECREE MACMA.No.il303 of 2019 ; j, i.i i F 10 [P'1 2$6 1'" :l .,,.'.. :l 'J ). ALLOWING TF{E MACMA 7 1.2 9/*/tr ' t i ! 134421 rN rHE HIGH "o,*If3lo-ffiottsE oF TELANGANA - ' 1?t'+ 13 5 &',YS XIB h'=R?'Yfr [E PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKAYARA M.A.c.M.A. No:2 303 of 2019 Between: fffi fld[,:,!'x'fi .W#n:J+tl?'ffi:r 57 vears, Occ: House Wife R/o #r.'rt'r-r,rm District Presently lE,]rnl"prrrrn, Khammam Town ...APPellanUClaim Petitioner AND 1 2 5#h'f ['""r3]r,E3i3l?3*fl ilia;i#e'"%o'i'i"3ln"J"""'l:lP"'n''it"; Khammam Distnct' U*ru*r""*i:,:t'"n::J:ii{fl .ti[hft"$#{*'*r#a;Brdr;' to 19 06 2017) "'ResPondents/ResPondents Appeal f iled under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act aggrieved by the order and decree dated 27-11-2018 passed in M V O'P No"l 11 of 2017 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge)' Khammam. 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 MVOP and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Kowturu Pavan Kumar' Advocate for the Appellant and of Smt P Satya Manjula' SC FOR INSURANCE COMPANY for the Re.ponaent No 2 and of None appeared for Respondent No' 1' ':i1,., - *,7 This Court doflr Orrjer and Decree as fo,lows:

1. That the \4ctcr Ac Miscelianeous Appeal be and hereby is allowed and the {:,ompensa; or "#.eposit the date of petition tifl the -" ' q PLr'(ru <-rt 1u') weeks frorn the d'lte of receipt of respondelt uo.rr"'o"nt Rs 20,22,24:2, ;Tj::,",,;U:;,. date of reari,zation, within a period of (sl *u.'from copy of jucignr€nt, That the arrolint, rf any, deposited by respondent Nci.I the said amou.rt of Rs..20,22,242t- That on su,:l^, <Jr_,posit, the entire amoL nt rvithout furnishrlffil.:ffi.herebv That the appell,ant shall pay the deficit Court fee on the awarded; ar d That there snail be no order as to costs in this appeal. 2 3 4 J I shall be deducted from is entitied to withdraw the u! | tI le comperlsation amount sD/' P cH NA3+VB[8E,t+HiA To, 1 2 IITRUE COPYII II: [|t3:ft:jcje n ts c ra ims rribuna r (District Jud 6ECTIoN oFFIGER o ), Khammarn karn/l,SI- t/ HIGH COUR-T DATED:07 t0St2O2S DECREE MACMA.No.2303 of 2019 ALLOWING THE MACMA { ,a31 9/+z/zi