The High Court · 2025

This appeal is filed by the claimalt, aggrieved by the order and decree dated 1O.01.2072 in O.P. No. 164 of 2006 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II Additional District Judge), Nalgonda at Suryapet.

2. Heard Sri P.Venkanna, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri A.Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2-The New India Assurance Company Limited.

3. Brief facts of case: On 77.02.2006 the appellant who is working as Village Secretary of Thummala Penpahad Village, after completion of his duty at about 5-OO p.m. was going on left side of the road by walk to the bus stage at Thummala Penpahad, in the meantime, one Hero Honda Splendor motorcycle bearing No. AP.24.H.6029 came in a rash ald negligent manner with high speed from Suryapet side and dashed the appellant. As a result, he fell down and received fracture of left hand forearm, fracture of left ankle, mandible, serious head injury and other multiple injuries 2 all over the body. Immediately he was shifted to Government Area Hospital, Suryapet, where he was treated as inpatient for about nine days and later he was shifted to Cure Hospital' Khammam for better treatment' On complaint' the Police' Athmakur (S) registered a case in Crime No'2O of 2OO6 for the offence under Section 337 IPC against the Hero Honda Splendor motorcycle bearing No' AP'24'H '6029' Pior to the accident' he was hale and healthy arrd used to earn Rs.6,600/. per month by working as Village Secretar5r but due to the accident' he became permanently disabled and he spent huge amount towards his treatment. Thus, the appellant has frled O'P'No'164 of 2006 against the respondents claiming compensation of Rs'1'50'O0O/- under various heads' 4 Considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal has allowed the O.P. in Part and to be PaYable bY of Rs.36,210l- awarded comPensation the claim against respondent No'2- respondent No. I and Insurance ComPanY is dismissed'

5.Learnedcounselfortheappellantvehementlycontended that the appellant has sustained grievous injuries due to rash and negligent driving of the Hero Honda Splendor motorcycle - , bearing No. AP.24.H.6029 and he was admitted in the hospital and took treatment as inpatient at Area Hospital, Suryapet for a period of nine days and later he was shifted to Cure Hospital, Khammam and he spent huge amount towards his treatment. However, the Tribunal awarded meager amount of Rs.36,2 l0/-. He further submitted that the Tribunal in the absence of any evidence dismissed the claim against respondent No.2-Insurance Company on the ground that the rider of the motorcycle is having driving license to drive auto rickshaw non-transport and transport and light motor vehicle non-transport and he is not having valid driving license to drive two wheeler and the same is contrary to law.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that the 'I'ribunal has rightly dismissed the claim against respondent No.2-Insurance Company and awarded compensation after considering the evidence on record and therefore, the appellant is not entitled for enhalcement of compensation as claimed by him in this appeal.

7. This Court considered the rivat submissions made by the respective parties and perused the records. It is not in dispute that the accident occurred on 17.02.2006 at 5-OO p.m. due to 4 I rash arrd negligent driving of the rider of Hero Honda Splendor motorcycle bearing No. AP 24 H 6029 and the appellant has sustained grievous injuries in the said accident. B. Coming to the liabiliry, it is also not in dispute that the rider of the motorcycle is having driving license to drive auto rickshaw non-transport and transport and light motor vehicle non-transport and he is not having valid driving license to drive two wheeler. It is, no-doubt, true that by the time of accident, the offending vehicle was insured with respondent No.2 Insurance Company and trx.B.l policy was very much in force by the said date. There is no dispute that in the case of third party risks, as per the decision in National Insurance Company Ltd, v. Swaran Singh and othersl, the insurer had to indemni$r the compensation amount payable to the third party and the insurance company may recover the same from the insured. In the said decision, the Apex Court considered the doctrine of "pag and recoue/' and examined the liability of the insurance company in cases of breach of policy condition due to disqualifications of the driver or invalid driving license of the driver and held that in case of third party risks, the insurer has (2OO4) 3 SCC 297 7 ) I to indemnifir the compensation amount to the third parby and the Insurance Company may recover the same from the insured' Therefore, respondent No.2 Insurance Company is directed to frrst satisfy the award by paying the compensation and then recover the same from the owner of the crime vehicle' g. Coming to the quantum of compensation' the appellant has sustained fracture of left hand forearm, fracture of left ankle, mandible and also head injury' The Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards the injuries sustained by'the appellant. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the appellant is entitled for Rs'1,OO,OOOl- @ Rs'25'000/- for each injury and he is also entitled to an amount of Rs'19'80O/- towards loss of earnings for three months @ Rs'6'600/- per month, Rs.4,21O/- towards medical bills, Rs'1O,OOO/- towards transportation and extra nourishment and Rs'2O,OOO/- towards pain and suffering' In addition to the said amounts' the appellant is also entitled for Rs'10,OOO/- towards litigation expenses, as per the principle laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in V.Mekala v. M.Malathi and another2' Thus' in all' the appellants are entitled for Rs.1,64,010/-' '20t4(s)at-o+zsc I I 6

10. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.36,210/- to Rs.1,64,010/-. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 7.Soh p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization. However, considering the principle of 'pag and recouef , respondent No.2-Insurahce Company is hereby directed to first satisff the award by paying the compensation to the appellant and then recover the same from the owner of the crime vehicle without filing any separate suit and the comperrsation amount along with accrued interest shall be deposited within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The appellant is directed to deposit the deficit court fee before the Tribunal. On such deposit of court fee only, the appellant is entitled to withdraw the said amount without furnishing any security. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stald closed' Sd/- P PADMANABHA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY' E TION OFFICER

1. The Chairman, lvlotor Accidents Claims Tribunal (ll Additional District Judge) Nalgonda at Suryapet (With Records)

2. One CC to SRl. P VENKANNA, Advocate IOPUC] 3 One CC to SRl, A RAMAKRISHNA REDDY, Advocate [OPUCj 4. Two CD Copies \ To @^ HIGH COURT DATED: 0210112025 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.796 ot 2014 r( SfATE '\ 1B trs M ? I ,L' .l / l ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS { W IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVI L MISCELLANE OUS APPEAL NO: 796 OF 2014 Between: Bantu Bhadraiah, S/o Pedda Abbaiah, a/a 36 years, Occ: Village Secretary of Thummala Penpahad, R/o Suryapet Town, and Mandal, Nalgonda District. ...APPELLANT/CLAIM PETITIONER AND '1 . Raparthy Ravi Kumar, S/o Sathaiah, Major, R/o H.NO. 1- 1-SS,Thallagadda Locality of Suryapet town, Nalgonda District. (ownei of Herci Honda Splendor Motor Cycle Bearing No. AP. 24H6029) 2 The New lndia Assurance Company Limited, rep by its Manager, Branch office, Sangamithra, Bank Complex, Prakasham Bazar, Nalgonda Town,.And District (Po.[icy No. 150604/31/05700599, Valid from 14-04-2005 to 13-04- 2006) .,.RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the Order and of the J udge, of 2006 dated. 10-01-2012 on Claims Tribunal (ll Additional the file District Decree made in OP.No.164 Chairman. Motor Accidents Nalgonda at Suryapet). 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 case and upon hearing the arguments of SRl. P. VENKANNA, Advocate for the appellant and SRl. A. RAMAKRISHNA REDDY, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is allowed enhancing the compensation amount awarded by- the. Tribunal Ir9, Rs.36,21dl- to Rs.'l ,64,0101 (Rupees one lakh sixty four thousand and ten only);

2. That the enhanced amount be and hereby shall carry interest at 7.5o/o p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization;

3. That the respondent No.2-lnsurance company be and. hereby.is directed to first satisfy the award by paying the compensation to the appellant and then recover same from the owner of the crime vehicle without filing any separate SUit;

4. Ihal the .compensation amount along with accrued interest be and hereby shall be deposited within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment; S. Itttt the appellant be and hereby is directed to deposit court fee before the Tribunal;

6. That.on such deposit of court fee only, the appellant be and hereby is entifled to withdraw the said amount without flrnishirij any security;

7. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. //TRUE COPY// Sd/. P PADMANABHA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR CTION OFFICER To Nalgonda at Suryapet.

1. The chairman, Motor Accidents claims Tribunal (ll Additional District Judge) 2. Two CD Copies @i I HIGH COURT DATED: 02101t2025 DECREE MACMA.No.796 ot 2014 ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS