The High Court · 2025

Insuralce Company aggrieved by the impugned rrder, dated

26.09.2024 in O.P.No. lO2 of 2022 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal Dist ict Judge, Suryapet (for short, 'Tribunal') and thereby, sr < king to set aside the impugned order.

2. The appellant herein is the respondent No. l-insurance company, respondent no. t herein is the petitio:t rr/claimant and respondent No.2 herein is the respondenr I Lo. 1/driver- cum-owner of the crime vehicle before the T r bunal. For convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred t: as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The brief factua_l matrix of the present appez I is that on

28.03.2022 at about 8.20 pm., while petitioner wi s returning from Kirala shop on his motorcycle bearing Nc TS 0g EB 2 LNA.J MACt/tA No.54i ol2025 0606 and when he reached near SN Biryani Hotel, Annaram Bridge, one tractor and trailer bearing Nos.TS 29 D 5220 and TS 29 D 5221 were negligently parked in the middle of the road without any parking signals and indicators' The petitionercouldnotidentifythestationedtractorarrdtrailer and hit the tractor and trailer from the back side due to which he sustained injuries in left frontal region, fracture of nasal bone and others parts of the body' Immediately after the accident, he was shifted to Area Hospital, Suryapet and from there to Omni Hospital, Hyderabad' The Police' Penpahad Police Station registered a case in Crime No'37 of 2022 agatnst the driver of the tractor and trailer and hled charge sheet.

4. According to the petitioner, he was hale and healthy' aged about 30 years ald was earning Rs'20,000/- per month by doing coolie work and that on account of the accident' he is unable to do his norma'l work and not in a position to attend his regular work and therefore, he filed claim petition 3 LNAJ MACMA No_543 of 2025 claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,00O/ rgainst the respondents

5. Before the Tribunal, respondent No. 1/driv,: .-cum-owner of the offending vehicle remained ex parte. Restrrr ndent No.2- Insurance Compaly filed counter denying all tlr : allegations in the claim petition as regards the manner of rr:cident, age, avocation, income of the petitioner and the involv:ment of the tractor and trailer in the accident. It was furthr r contended that the driver of the tractor ald trailer was nor having valid driving licence; that there was a delay in hling th: complaint; that the tractor and trailer was falsely implicateri in the case; and that the compensation claimed by the l,etitioner is excessive and exorbitant and prayed to dismi s ; the claim petition.

6. Basing on the above pleadings, the followirr 1 issues are framed for trial:

1. Whether the accident occurred on 28.0.,,.2022 at about 8.20 p.m. near NSP canal bridge i. L front 4 LNA) MACMA No 543 ol2025 of SN Biryani Hotel Annaram Bridge, due to negligent parking of tractor bearing No.TS 29 D 5220 and Trailer bearing No.TS 29 D 5221 in the middle of the road, and the petitioner/injured namely Parvatham Orugallu sustained injuries in the said accident?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, at what quantum ald from whom?

3. To what relief ?

7. On behalf of the petitioner, petitioner himself was examined as P.W. 1 ald also examined PWs.2 & 3 and Exs.Pl to Ex.P6 were marked. On behalf of respondent No.2- insurance company, R.W. 1 was examined and Ex.Rl was marked.

8. The Tribunal, on due consideration of oral evidence and material placed on record, cane to conclusion that the accident took place due to rash ald negligent parking of the 5 LNA) MACMA Na.54l of 2025 offending vehicle without indicators and par k .ng lights and awarded total compensation of Rs.g,2l,27ti .'' along \.ith interest @ 7 .Sok per arrnum.

9. Heard Ms.Padmaja, learned counsel rt: rresenting Sri Harinath Reddy Soma, learned counsel for tlr appellant on record and Sri C.Mohan prakash, learned cc unsel for the respondent No. 1/claimant. perused the record.

10. During the course of hear-ing of appeal, l: trned counsel for the appellant-insurartce company submitt( ( that though the accident took place on 2g.O3-2O22, rlr, respondent No. 1/ claimalt frled complaint with delay of thrr:, days i.e., on 02.O4.2022, however, this aspect was not prope r lv considered by the Tribunal while adjudicating the claim p() ition filed by respondent No.l. Learned counsel further sutrrits that the trial Court has awarded exorbitant interest t | 7 .So/o p.a. instead of 6%o, therefore, the same requires ir _erference of this Court. Learned counsel would also r ubmit that respondent No.l was not wearing helmet whil< driving the 6 LNA,I MACMA No-54j of 2025 motorcycle which is in contravention of provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, therefore, the Tribunal ought to have dismissed the claim petition or to have deducted suitableamountinviewofthecontributorynegligenceonthe part of respondent No. 1/claimant'

11. Per contra, learned counsel for No.l/claimant would submit that respondent No' 1 sustained grievous injuries and fracture rnjury in the accident' and has respondent takentreatmentinthehospital,assuch,delayoccasionedin lodging the complaint; arld that the same is not a ground for rejecting the claim petition' In support of the same' he relied on the Judgment rendered by the Apex court in Ravi rt' Badrinaragan and others r wherein at para-L7 ' the Honourable Apex Court held as under; " 17. It is utell settled that delag in lodging the FIR cannot be a ground to d'oubt the claimant's case' Knouing the Indian conditions as theg are' u)e cannot expect a common mqn to first rush to the police station immediatelg afier an ctccid.ent. Human nature and familg responsibilities occttpg (2011) 4 Supreme Court Cases 693 - 7 LNA.I |ACMA Na.543 ol2025 the mind of kith and kin to such an ertent thot ; key giue more importance to get the uictim treated ratlu't than to rush to the police station. Under such circum-sttttt es, theg are not expected to oct mechdnicallg r,uith prom( tttude in lodging the FIR tuith the police. Delag in lodgin'1 the FIR, thus, cannot be the ground to deng justice to the t :tim."

12. In view of the aforesaid Judgment of tht Honourable Apex Court, the learned counsel for respondent rr ruld submit that the claim petition cannot be rejected only or the ground of delay of 3 days in lodging the complaint.

13. Learned counsel for respondent No- 1 furl rer submits that the Tribunal in fact did not grant any <r mpensation towards pain and suffering, grievous injuries z nd fracture injury sustained by respondent No. 1/ clairnant ar d attendant charges and prayed this Court to grant.suitable <:r mpensation towards pain and suffering as well as fracture injt ries. Consideration:

14. A perusal of record would disclose thrL the claim petition was hled on account of injuries s r stained by . .4a,:a 8 LN4! MACMA No_543 oJ 2025 respondent No. 1/claimant in the accident that took place on 2,'o3'2o22. compiaint was rodged on o2.o4.2o22 ',rt, a delay of 3 days ald the Tribunal has come to conclusion that the delay in frting the complaint was properly explained by the claimarrt in the complaint. Further, in view of the Judgment rendered by the Honourable Supreme court in Ranti u. Badrinaragan,s casie wherein the Honourable Apex Court held that the deray in rodging compraint should not be treated as fatal in injury cases, this Court is of the considered opinion that the delay of 3 days in lodging the complaint is not a ground to reject the claim petition.

15. Insofar as the contention of the Appellant lnsurance company with regard to contributory negligence is concerned, the offending tractor and trailer was parked without any signals and indicators in the middle of the road, as a result, the claimant could not notice identify the vehicle and dashed against the tractor and trailer. As such, the ground raised by the Insurance company that the craimalt violated the prowisions of the M.V.Act, by not wearing a helmet or safety 9 LNA) MACMA No 543 of2O2S guards, does not constitute a valid grour ( appeal. to entertain the

16. karned coulsel for respondent No. i / claimant would submit that though claimant sustained Inevous injuries including fracture injury, no arnount was r warded towards grlevous injuries, fracture mJury, pain at 1 suffering and attendant charges

77. A perusal of record would disclose r hat respondent No. 1/claimant has sustained the following ini, 61"r. Hemorrhagic contusion in left frontal egron-grievous i) ii) Fractures of bilateral nasa_l bone _ grje vous iiil Hemorrhagic contusion bilateral lurr I extensions _ grlevous irr) Right ear bleed _ grievous; and v) Blunt chest and abdominal injury _ gri, vous

18. Respondent No. 1/claimant was admi:.ed 1n Omni Hospital, Hyderabad, and was treated as n_patient on k 10 LNA) MACMA No.543 ol202s

29.03.2022 and was discharged on 15.04.2022 and incurred medical expenses.

19. Respondent No. 1/ciaimant sustained grievous injuries and one fracture injury due to which he suffered physical discomfort arrd experienced distress and this includes mentai arrd emotional trauma resulting from the accident. In considered opinion of this Couit, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards pain and suffering is very iess, considering the grievous fracture and other injuries sustained by respondent No. 1 in sensitive pa-rts of the body.

20. Further, respondent No. 1/claimant has taken treatment for 15 days in the Hospital for the grievous injuries and fracture which require attendant services to attend to his daily activities. As such, this Court is of the considered opinion that respondent No. 1/claimant is entitled to Attendant Charges.

21. A perusal of record would disclose that the Tribunal did not award any amount towards grievous injuries and LL LNA) t tacMA No-543 0l 2025 fracture. As such, respondent No' l/claimalt is entitled to compensation towards grievous injuries and flr :ture injury sustained bY him.

22. The Honourable Supreme Court in t Solntosh 2 held that in the matter of insural r reference to the motor accident, the Court shcr hyper technical approach in declining just comps on the ground that the claimalts have not p: cross-appeal or cross-objections in an appeal insurance company challenging the award pzLr Tribunal, and ensure that just compensation i I urekhd 1r. :e claim in ld not take rsation only eferred any iled by the sed by the awarded to the affected person or the claimants ' 23 In view of the aforesaid Judgment ren<l :red by the Hnourable Apex Court, in a given case, ttLr facts and circumstances warrant enhalcement of comp: rsation, the High Court can enhance the compensation amc unt, though no appeal or cross-appeal is frled by the claiman:r ' 'i2o2t) 16 S.lp.em. court cases 467 72 LNA) MACMA No.S43 ol2O2S -

24. In the said circumstances, in the considered opinion of this Court is that the Tribulal erred in not awarding compensation towards grievous and fracture tnSunes, pain and suffering and attendalt charges. In view of the same, though, no cross-appea-l or cross-objections a_re filed by respondent No. l/claimant, to meet the ends of justice arrd in the light of the Judgment rendered by the Honouable Apex Court in Surekhq. u. Santosh,s case (cited. s-upra 2), this Court is inclined to grant compensation towards pain and suffering, grievous injuries and attendant charges as follows; Pain ald suffering ( in addition [o thE amount awarded by the Tribunal) Fracture injuries Attendant Charges Total Rs.50,0O0/- Rs.75,O00/- Rs.2s,000/- Rs.1,50,0O0/-

25. Accordingly, appeal frled by the Insurance Company is dismissed arrd al amount of Rs.I,50,0O0/_ is awarded to the claimant in addition to the compensation awarded bv the I i : l 13 LNA) MACMA No.543 ol2025 Tribunal in the OP payable by respondents 1 ar I 2 in the Op with interest @, 7.5% p.a. on the enhanced arr ( unt from the date of petition till the date of realization. On ;uch deposit, claimalt is permitted to withdraw the arr:r ,unt without furnishing the security. There shall be no order rs to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications if arL. shall stand closed. Sd/- M. JAWAHAR REDDY ASSIS TANT REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY// \ ;ECTION OFFICER To, 'l . The Chairman [Vlotor Accident Claims Tribunal-cu rinr:i ral District Judge at Su ryapet.

2. One CC to Sri Harinath Reddy Soma, Advocate [OPUC 3. One CC to Sri C lr,{ohan Prakash, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies ASrkar.r I. -.-15 - ,-l :r $ i ttr)$ t$L$ I \ i ir, 1 i I I HIGH COURT DATED:1 510712A25 JUDGMENT+DECREE MACMA.No.543 of 2025 DISMISSED Jr= of>-lze IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD [ 33831 TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY M.A.C.M.A.No: 543 OF 2025 Between: Chclamandalam [\tlS General lnsurance Company Ltd, Represented by its It/anager, 1-2-73t2 and 1-2-63 to 64, No.302, 3'd Floor, S.R Arcade, Parklane, Above Bank of Baroda, Secunderabad-500 003. ,..AppellanU2'd Respondent AND

1. Parvatham Orugallu, S/o Laxmaiah

2. Dasari Satheesh, S/o Lingaiah .,.RespondenUPetitioner ... Res pondenU'l't Respondent Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the order and Decree made in IV.V O.P.No.102 of 2022 dated 26-9-2024 on the file of the Court of the Chairnran ltlotor Accident CIaims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge at Suryapet. This appeal comrng 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 Harinath Reddy Soma, Advocate for the Appellant and Sri C. Mohan Prakash, Advocate for the Respondent No.1. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the MACMA filed by the Insurance Company be and hereby is dismissed and an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- is awarded to the claimant in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in the O.P. payable by respondents '1 and 2 in the O.P. with interest @ 7.5% per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of petitron till the date of realization; 2 That on such deposit, claimant be and hereby is permitted to withdraw the amount without furnishing the security;

3. That save as aforesaid, the decree of the Tribunal sh: I stands confirmed in all other respects; and

4. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. //TRUE COPY// Sd/- !. JAWAHAR REDDY ASI; STANT REGISTRAR i\ --- /secrroru OFFICER To,

1. The Chairman f\ilotor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Prirt ;ipal District Judge at Suryapet

2. Two CD Coptes r\S/kanr W I I i I I i HIGH COURT DATED:1510712025 DECREE MACMA.No.S43 ot 2025 1r E SIA 0 : ill,q Ttut ,z 6) t t -r) :'A * DISMlSSED J-<s to\=\ze ,