The High Court · 2025

Judgment

This M.A.C.M.A. is filed under Section 1'l ] of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the appellant/petili rner/claimant aggrieved by the Award and decree dated 20.(r, .2020 passed in O.P.No.177 of 201,7 by the Motor Accident C i Cum-Principal District Judge, Mahabubnagr ims Tribunal- ', (for short, 'the Tribuna-l'), seeking compensation of Rs. 1,Ot OO0/- for the injuries sustained by the appellant in a . rotor vehicle accident that took place on 06.03.2OlZ .

2. The brief facts of the case a-, that the appellant/clajmant frled O.P.No. 177 of 2OIT t nder Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming :ompensation for the injuries sustained by him in a motor ac< ident, alleged to have occurred due to the rash and negligenr. lriving of the driver of the Tavera bearing fVo--CF-2 1-A(l

8388. It is contended that on 06.03.20|Z at about 10: t0 a.m., the 2 ,MAqJ MACMA r{o.167 oJ 2O2O injured petitioner herein along with the deceased S.Mohan, Karkonda Narsimulu, P.Ventataiah, Go1la Venkataiah arrd their friend, who is the driver of the Tavera bearing No.Ap-21- AC-8388 started from Parsapur Village to Tandoor Government Civil Hospital, when they reached Kodangal Village near Ramalayam Temple at about 1O:30 p.m., as the driver of the said Tavera drove the vehicle at high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the Tractor bearing No.KA-33-TA-2289 loaded with grass from its backside. As a result of which, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries and he was shifted to the Governrnent Civit Hospital, Kodangal for treatment ald after discharge from the said hospital, he took treatment in a private hospital at Kondagal for the said injuries. The Police registered a case in Crime No.27 of 2OI7 under Sections 304-A, 337 and 338 of IPC against the driver of Tavera bearing No.AP-21-AC-8388 arrd frled charge shei 3 ,Ivl\R.J MACMA 1r'0.467 ol2O2O

3. The contention of the petitioner befo:-r the learned Tribunal was that due to said accident, he petitioner sustained three grievous injuries and he 'r rs shifted to Government Civil HospitaJ, Kodangal for - eatment and thereafter, he took treatment in a private hosplr il for the said injuries, for which the petitioner had incurrerl huge amount towards hospital and medical expenses ar r claimed an amount of Rs. 1,00,0O0/- trnder various heads as compensation for the said accident.

4. Before the learned Tribunal, Responden, Nos. I and 2, who were the driver and owner of the 'l'r vera bearing No.AP-2 l-AC-8388 remained ex-parte. Responc rnt No.3/The Reliance General Insurance Company Limilr I filed their counter-affidavit denying the material averr ents of the petition arrd submitted that the accident took ,lace because of the negligence of the Tractor bearing No.Kl -33-TA-2289. It is further contended that the driver of the cric e vehicle has contributed for the occurrence of the acciderr and further 4 rvMR,., U/|CMA I'10.167 ol2O2O contended that the petitioner was an unauthorized passenger and he was not a third party to the vehicle ald respondent Nos.l and 2 aTone are liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner but not respondent No.3. Further contended that the amount clairned by the petitioner was highly excessive and exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. Basing on the pleadings and averments made by both the counsels, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues, which reads as under: "1- Wlether the accident occuted on O6.O3.2017 at about 10:30 p.m., near a Ramolagam tenq)le on PWD road in Kodangal Vtllnge, utas d.Le to the rash and negligent divtng of respondent No.2 being th.e diuer of the Cheurolet Tauera uehicle bearing registration No.AP-2-AC-8388 and uheth.er the petttioner srL.stained injuries in th.e said qccldent?

2. Whether th.ere u.)as q contibutory negligence on the part of the drtuer of the tractor in negligent parking o-f the Trqctor without dlteing the other uehicles therebg leading to the qccklent? 3- Wlether R-2 had no ualid diuing ticence bg the time of accident/

4. Whether R-3 is ctbsolued of ang liabilitg to pag the compensqtion on the terms of the insur@nce poltcg due to breqch commilted bg the insured?

5. Whether ttle ckim of the petitioner is excessiue?

6. Whether the petitioner i.s entitled to seek tle compensation for the injur[.es slstained bg the petitioner and, if so, tahat amount ad from whom? \ 5 tvt\R J AACEA No.467 ol2o2o

7. To what relief "

6. After pemsing the oral arrd docume:r ary evidence placed on record by both the parties, the lea ned Tribunal allowed the claim in part and granted ccr rpensation of Rs.6O,OOO/- along with interest @ 9Vo per a-nnl.l n. 7 . Being unsatished and aggrieved by the meager compensation amount awarded by the learnerl Tribunal, the present appeal is hled by the ciaimant on the 51r rund that the learned Tribunal, having held that the accider 1 occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the drive of the crime vehicle, however, not granted just compensati n amount as claimed by the petitioner. On behalf of the rr rpellant, PWl was examined and Exs.Al to A8 were marke<l On beha-lf of respondents no oral evidence was adduced, but Ox.Bl copy of Insurance Policy was marked with consent.

8. Heard Sri K.Venkatesh euptq learned c runsel for the petitioner and Sri A.Ro;ma Krishnrr Red.dg, l: Lrned counsel 6 /\a,gJ EAcUA t\b.467 ol2O2O for respondent No.3. Perused the material on record. The only point that arises before ttris Court in this appeal is that: Wtether the petitioner is entitled Jor the enhanced compensation, if so, to uhat extent? Point

9. Admittedly, respondents have not frled cross-appeal against the Award passed by the learned Tribuna-l. As such, there is no dispute rega-rding liability of the respondents ald occlrrrence of the accident.

10. The main grievance of the petitioner before this Court is that the learned Tribunal ought to have awarded reasonable compensation as the petitioner sustained three grievous injuries but the learned Tribunal has awarded only Rs.20,000/- towards one grievous injury and Rs.10,OO0/- towards two simple injuries, Rs. 10,000/- towards Transportation and attendart charges, Rs. 10,00O/- towards extra-nourishment and Rs.5,000/- towards loss of income, in total a sum of Rs.60,000/- was awarded to the petitioner for the injuries sustained by him in the accident. But Ex.A2 7 I\IIIR,J TACMA No.457 of 2O2O shows that PW1 sustained two grievous injtt ies and one simple injury and the arnount awarded to the irj rries ippears to be meager, as such this Court is inclined t: enhance the compensation under pain and sufferance for two grievous injuries at the rate of Rs.20,0O0/- each, wh :h comes to Rs.4O,OOO/- a-nd simple injury at Rs. l( ,OOO/- and Rs.2O,OOO/- towards other fracture injuries. other amounts, which were granted und( Further, the - the head Tralsportation and attendant charges, extr,l nourishment arld loss of income.

11. l,earned counsel for the respondent No.1l submits that after considering the entire evidence available r n record, the learned Tribunal has awarded just comperLr ation, which needs no interference.

12. On overall re-appreciation of the pleadinll , material on record this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled for enhancement of compensation as nodified and 8 c- 1\1I\IR,J fiAC A ,6.467 of 2O2O recalculated as above and as given in the table below for easy reference. Hcad gnevous lnJurres simple injury Transportation and att€ndant s Extra-nourishment Loss of income Medical cxpenscs l-oss of clothing Total Arnorurt arrived at by the Tribunal Arnou-Et arrived at by tb.is Court Rs.2O,0O0/- RSlO,OOO/- Rs.15,0OO/ Rs.10,OOO/- Rs.5,0Oo/- Rs.40,OOO/- Rs.1O,OOO/- Rs.2O,(x)O/- Rs.10,OO0/- R8.lO,OOo/- Rs.5,OOO/- Rs.5,OOO/- Rs.6O,OOO/- Rs.1,oO,OOO/-

13. Admittedly, there is no appeal preferred by the AS such, the respondent No.3/Insurance respondents, Company is liable to pay the enhanced compensation amount. L4. In the result, the appeal is allowed by enhancing the compensation from Rs.60,000/- to Rs.1,OO,OOO/- {Rupees one lakh only) with the interest of @ 9 Yo on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of petition till the date of realization The respondent No.3 -\;directed to deposit the 9 Niw,r, tLAcltA ,,10.467 of 2O2O said a-rnount together with costs and interest zJ .er giving due credit to the amount already deposited, if any, ,, ithin a period of two months from the receipt of a copy of t ris judgment. On such deposit, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the same without furnishing any surety. There sht I be no order as to costs Miscellaneous petitions, if any are pendin i, sha1l stand closed. SD/- II. OSMAN ALI BAIG ASS,I ;TANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Chairman Motor Accident CIaims Tribunal-cum-Prirrr pal District Judge, Mahabubnagar.

2. One CC to SRI K.VENKATESH GUPTA Advocate [OPL,( ] 3. One CC to SRI A.RAIVAKRISHNA REDDY, Advocate [O '>UC] 4. Two CD Copies Spare KVR/nvb { <:e .-/. t att? E Ar HIGH COURT DATED:2410712025 JUDGMENT+DECEREE MACMA.No.467 ot 2020 1hE, STA 1 ['tB ?B?6 i - i t.rr.^-/.i .-. ,., ]-,\ ,, * 'o ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT C(: STS t tJ [ 3,+43 J IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MI SCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 467 OF 2020 Between: Medagari Venkatappa @ G_olla Venkatappa, S/o. Medagari Sayappa @ Golla -S.ayapga.,.{9! 41 years, Occ. Agricutture, R/o. parsflur Vittig'e, Ko-dangat Mandal' Mahabubnagar District ...Appera nucraimant AND

1. C.Rajender fqdly, S1o C.Chenna Reddy, Age Major, Occ. Owner of Tavera bearing No. AP 21 AC 8388, R/o. H.No.1-7719, Tedchers Colony, Shadnagar.

2. Santosh, S/o. Laxmanna , Age 24 years, Occ_ Owner-cum-driver of Tavera bearing No.,AP 21 AC 8388, R/o. H No.4-56/1/2, Chimailwar Village, Bomraspet Mandal, Mahabubnagar District.

3. The Reliance General lnsurance Co.Ltd., Represented by its Legal Officer, 1st Floor, Vijetha Sanjeevani, H.No.6-4-8, Opp. Gandhi Hospitai. Musheerabad, Hyderabad. (Respondent No.'l &2 remained exparte and did not contest the claim of the appellants_in the court.below. Hence, they are made only proforma party in this appeal and no notice is necessary to them) ...Respondents Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the order and decree in M.V.o.P.No.177 of 2017 dated 20.05.2020 on the file of the court of the chairman Motor Accident C[aims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Mahabubnagar. 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 K.Venkatesh Gupta, Advocate for the Appellant and of Sri A.Rama Krishna Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent No.3 and Not Necessary Proforma Parties are Respondent No.1 and 2. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be ind hereby is allowed by enhancing the compensation from Rs.60,000/- to F s.1 ,00,000/- (Rupees one Lakh only) with the interest of @ 9o/o on the rnhanced amount of compensation from the date of petition till the date of rea ization.

2. That the respondent No.3 be and hereby is dir3ecte, to deposit the said amount together with costs and interest after giving dtrr credit to the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of tow montr from the receipt of a Copy of this Judgment.

3. That on such deposit, the petitioner be and hereby is ,ermitted to withdraw the same without furnishing any secrety.

4. That save as aforesaid, the decree of the Tribunal sh a stands confirmed in all other respects; and

5. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. SDi ,I. OSMAN ALI BAIG ASI; STANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// iECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Pri r ipal District Judge, Mahabubnagar. 2. Two CD Copies Spare KVR/nvb HIGH COURT DATED:2410712025 DECEREE MACMA.No.467 ot 2020 ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS