The High Court · 2025

Judgment

This I\{.A.C.M.A. is filed by the appellant/Insurance Company ) under Sectjon 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, the Act, 19881 aga.inst the order and decree, dated O2.O4.2O18 in M.V.O.P.Nc,.190 of 2014 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-l Additional District Judge, Nizamabad (hereinafter referred to as the learned TribunalJ wherein the learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.24,54,158/- with interest @7.5o/o per annum to t:he claimants.

.2. Heard Sri Harinath Reddy Soma, learned Standing Counsel fcrr the appellant-Insurance Company and Sri P.Radhive Reddy, learned counsel for respond.ent No. 1. Perused the record.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referrerl to as they are in the M.V.O.P. 4, The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed claim petition under section 166 (1)(a) of the Act, 1988 and 4s5 of the Andtrra Pradesh Motor vehicles Rules, 1989, claiming 2 f,rR,J UAC![A.I[o.469 of 2O2O compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident.

5. The petitioner was aged about 30 years and was Software Engineer at S&T Capital IT Company at Hi-Tech City, Hyderabad and earning Rs.38,000I - per month. on 17 .O2.2014 at about 11.30 AM, the petitioner was proceeding on his motorcycle bearing No.AP-2S -AP-3742 on one side of the road from Tadwai towards Yellareddy side and when he reached Laxmapur Gate, Yellareddy Mandal, Nizamabad District on Kamareddy to Yellareddy Road, at that tirne, lorry bearing No.AP-10-V-8417 driven by its driver came in a rash and negligent malaner at high speed from opposite direction on wrong side of the road and dashed the petitioner motorcycle with front portion of the lorry, due to which the petitioner fell down and front wheel of the lorry ran over the petitioner. Due to which the petitioner sustained fracture injury to right hand., left 1.g, right shoulder and also received injuries all over the body. Immediately after the accident, he was shifted to Government Hospital, Yellareddy and from there he was shifted to Sai Krishna Hospital, Kamareddy and from there he was referred to Hyderabad, where he was admitted in Yashoda \q- 3 f,f,R,J MACMA.I[o.469 of 2O2O Hospital, Sr:cunderabad, where he was treated by team of doctors and he was operated twice and rods also inserted. It is also stated that due l.o the said accident the petitioner is being taking treatment 'nrith private hospitals. So far the petitioner incurred expenditurr: of Rs.20,00,OOO / - towards medicines, transportation, special diet and attendant charges. The motorcycle of the petitioner was also damaged worth Rs.5o,000/-. The Doctors advised that the petitioner for further treatment operations, for which he required more than Rs.2o,oO,ooo/-. It is stated that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of lorry berring No.AP- 10-V-8417 only. 6, Respondent No.1 is owner of the said lorry.Respondent No.Z is thr: insurance company and insurance policy was in force at the timr: of accident, as such both the respondents are liable to pay compe:nsation jointly and severally to the petitioner.

7. Basing on the complaint, the policy yetlareddy registered a case in Crime No.36 of 2014 under Section 337 of IpC.

8. Respondent No.1 remained absent. 4 f,rtR,J EACMA.[o.469 of 2O2O

9. Respondent No.2 filed written statement denying averments made in the petition including the age, occupation, income of the petitioner. It is also denied the manner of the accident and sustaining of injuries by the petitioner. It is further stated. that the subject accident took place on account of collusion of the motorcycle and lorry and there is greater negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle, as such the ou'ner and insurer of the motorcycle are necessary parties to this petition and hence, he prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

10. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial? (i) whether on L7.O2.2O14 at about 11:30 AM at Laxmapur gate, Yellaredd.y Mandal, accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of lorry bearing No.AP-16-TW-1758 driven by its driver? (ii) Whether the petitioner received injuries in that accident? (iii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from which respondent? (iv) To what relieP 11. [n support of the case of the petitioner, P.ws.l and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.15 *"h**ked. On behalf of the respondents, no oral or documentary evidence was evidenced. z' 5 IYI{R'J UACUA.I{o.469 of 2O2O L2. The learned Tribunal after hearing both the counsel and after considering the entire material on record, held that respondent Nos.l and 2 who are insured and insurer of the offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.24,54,1581- with costs and interest @ 7.5% per annurr. from the date of petition till the date of realization.

13. Being aggrieved by the Order and decree passed by the Iearned Tribunal, the appellant-insurance company preferred the present appeal on the following among the other grounds: (i) It is averred that the learned Tribunal grosqly erred in making the appellant liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. (ii) It is averred that the learned Tribunal ought to have dismissed the claim petition against the appellant as the driver of lorry was not having driving licence as on the date of accident. (iii) It is further averred that the Tribunal ought not to have considered the salar5r slip filed by the claimant under Ex.A. 14 for an amount of Rs.38,000/- as gross salary though Ex.A.14 does not bear signature of the person who issued the same. (i") It is stated that the petitioner did not Iile the appointrr.ent letter of the company or any d.ocument pertaining to nt\o € 6 ,l ITICR,J fACUA.Ito.469 of 2O2O his employment in the company except salary slip or the income tax returns. (v) It is stated that the Tribunal ought not to have granted any amount towards medical expenses without examining any witness to speak about the medical bills or prescriptions. (vi) The Tribunal ought to have seen that the injured was not wearing helmet at the time of accident as stipulated in the Act (vii) The Tribunal wrongly erred in granting more compensation on different heads without supportive documents. 13(t) Having heard learned Standing Counsel for the appellant, the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the entire material placed on record, the following points which arise for consideration are: (q Whether the learned Tttftr.tnal hqs commltted. ang error ln pass{ng the sald order and decree? (lq Whether the appellant-lnsurance comPang ls llable to pag the comgensatlon to the petltloner or not? (iltl) Whether the petltloner ls entltled Jor compensatlon or not, lf sofrom uthlch rcspondent? (lal To ta.hat relleft

14. The main grievance of the appellant-Insurance company is petitioner-respondent is. not having valid driving : .:i.:, ,l I I I i 7 !lI(R,J UACUA.[o.469 ol2O2O licence to drive the motorcycle and that the accident had occurred due to negligence of the petitioner himself and not due to the negligence cf driver of offending vehicle. But the sarne was denied by the petitioner. So also, to rebut evidence of the petitioner- respondent, no evidence was let-in by the appellant-insurance company. Therefore, petitioner proved that he received injuries due to rash and negligent driving of driver of offending vehicle and the same \vas accepted by the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the appellant ,lrgued and contended that the very application is not maintainacle and iearned Tribunal ought not to have considered the salary of the petitioner at Rs.38,000/- and further learned Tribunal ought not to have considered Ex.A.14-pay slip. - 15. Admittedly, the petitioner was working as Soft Engineer and eami:rgs Rs.38,OO0/- per month. Though it is contended that \ no appointment order was placed to prove his earnings, on perusal of the enl.ire material on record, the Tribunal has taken only net salary of the petitioner at Rs.30,454/-. There is no dispute regarding considering the net salar5r of the petitioner and so also consideri::rg disability at 72oh due to conducting surgeries femoral condoyle left and ORIF right humours and debrid.ement fracture of \ ,l I 8 INCR,J UACf,A.lIo. tt69 of 2O,l2O left leg. It is the case of the appellant-respondent that the petitioner lost his job in the road accident and the learned Tribunal after taking into consideration the evidence on behalf of the respondents, no one was exarnined and no documents were marked to rebut the same, as such this court do not see any ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Tribunal. 16. For the said reasons, the appeat falrs to the ground and the same deserves to be dismissed. L7. In the result, the appeal s dismissed confirming the order and decree, dated 02.04.2018 in M.v.o.p.No.190 of 2ol4 passed by the Motor Accident C1aims Tribunal-cum-I Additional f District Judge, Nizamabad. Miscellaneous petitions, if any are pending, shall stand. closed. To, SD/- M. JAWAHAR REDDY ANT REGISTRAR /TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

1. The Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-l Additional District & Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.

2. One CC to SRI HARINATH REDDY SOMA, Advocate IOPUC] 3. One CC to SRI P.RADHIVE REDDY Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies NVBw ,.-*-+:,tlj#. ,=tffi g *r? S t 1 t\[R ?[?B -ff * HIGH COt.IRT DATED i0',111012025 JUDGMENT+DECREE MACMA.No.469 of 2020 DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS (" *e Xfi' : i i I I I I I i I I I I t I I I i I t I I I I I I I i [ 34431 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARS lNG RAO NANDIKONDA oTo IDENT C IL MISC EOU PEAL OF Appeal under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the order and decree in M.V.O.P.No.190 0l 2014 dated 02.04.3.2018 0n the file of the court of the chairman Motor Accident claims Tribunal-cum-l Additional District & sessions Judge, Nizamabad. Shriram General lnsurance Company Ltd, Represented by its Manager, Office it C-O-stz Sai Datta Arcade,4th Floor, Flat No401 to403' Himayathnagar' Hyderabad. ...APPellanU2nd ResPondent AND ' 1. Dammannagari Ravinder, S/o SangareddV' fqgd. pO-yea Enoineer at3andT Capital lT Company at Hightech City, iadwai Village and Mdndal, Nizamabad District-503 120' rs, Occ. Software Hyderabad, R/o. . . . RespondenUPetitioner - ioiri,-6"iiinq no-.Ap to '.v aafi-, R/o. H:No.12-1-67712, North Lalaguda, 2.V.ViiavKumar.S/oYadaqiri,Aged.Maior,Occ.BusinessandOwnerofthe Lalabet, Sec-underabad-500 0 1 7. ...ResPondenUl "t ResPondent Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the order and decree in M.V.O.P.No.19O oI 2014 daled 02.04..;.2018 0n the file of the court of the chairman Motor Accident claims Tribunal-cum-l Additional District & sessions Judge, Nizamabad. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal,thejudgmentandDecreeoftheLowerCourtandthematerialpapersin thecaseanduponhearingthealgumentofSriHarinathReddySome,Advocate for the Appellan:s and Sri P.Radhive Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent No.1 and none appeared 1br Respondent No.2. This Court doth Order and Decree as foltows:

1. That the tMotor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and is hereby Dismissed confirming the order and decree dated 02.04.2018 in tvl.V.O.p. No.1StO of 014 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal- cum-l Additional District Jude, Nizamabad.

2. That save as aforesaid, the decree of the Tribunal shall stands confirmed in all cther respects; and a SD/. M. JAWAHAR REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To,

1. The Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-l Additional District & 2. Two CD Copies Sessions Judge, Nizamabad. AS/l.,lVB v,Y /t' ; 17 HIGH COIJRT DATED:0'l11012025 DECREE MACMA.No.469 of 2020 DISMISS;ING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS %