The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellant(s):SRl. KULDEEP JADHAV Counsel for the Respondent Nos.l to 3 : counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 : sRl. T. MAHENDER RAO The Court made the following: JUDGMENT TIIE HONOI'RABLT SRI JUSTICE G.M. MOHIUDDIN M.A.C.M.A.No.5OO of 2O2O JUDGM]BNT: Hr:ard sri Kuldeep Jadhav, learned counsel for the appellant and sri T.Mahender Rao, Iearned Standing counsel for resprsndsnl No.4-Insurance company and perused the record.

2. The present appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant aggrievecl by the order dated tr.or.2o2o passed in M.v.o.P.No.533 of 2or4 by the learned chairman, Motor Accident claims Tribunar-cum-Additional District Judge at Nizamab:rd (for short, the TribunalJ in allowing the petition in part granting Rs.1,36,5oo/- towards compensation \Mith interest Q) 7.5o/o per annum from the date of liling of the petition till the date of realisation as against the total compensation of Rs.6,oo,0ool. claimed for the injuries, ross of future earnings, pain and suffering and medical expenses of the appellant.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate and the order in refusing to grant compensation in the quantum as prayed for, is illegal an<l arbitrary- Learned counsel further contended that the Tribunal ought to have awarded Rs.2,oo,ooo/- towards \- 'Eo 2 amputation of two toes and Rs.1,OO,0OO/- towards dislocation ! of the toe fingers. Learned counsel further contended that the Tribunal ought to have awarded Rs.1,O0,0OOl- towards pain and suffering, Rs. 1,O0,O OO I - towards medical "*!"r""", Rs.50,OO0/- towards nourishment and Rs.75,00O/- towards loss of amenities. Learned counsel further contended that the Tribunal ought to have awarded interest @ l5%o per annFm and not @ 7 .5% per annum as awarded by the Tribunal. 4 The core issue involved in the present appeal is that the application of Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act (fotr short, M.V.ActJ vis-A-vis Section 166 of the M.V. Act. The correctly identified that the claim under Section 163-4 of the M.V. Act is based on ho fault liability'. The appellant's $trategr to amend the claim from Section 166 ofthe M.V. Act to Section 163-A of the M.V. Act ('no fault liabilityJ is crucial inasn[uch as it simplifies.the burden of proof of the claimant and by the said amendment, the respondents (especially the in$urance company's) defences based on the negligence of the drirrer were rendered irrelevant.

5. The relevant Section 163-A of the M.v. Act mandates that compensation be awarded as per the structured formula provided in the Second Schedule of the M.V. Act- The u l \ J rightly ac,knowledged that courts can deviate from the second schedule of the M.V. Act in appropriate cases to ensure just and fair comprensation as held in the case of Pto;ttallad Rathod a' K.VittaU. This Court finds that the amounts awarded under each hea,C are commensurate to the severity of the injury and do not warrant any interference by this Court'

6. This court is of the opinion that the Tribunal rightly awarded amounts under the head of grievous injury and loss of amenities which adequately compensate functional disability of the appt:llant; and the impact the injuries would have on her future earning capacity. The grant of interest @ 7.5o/o per annum is just and reasonable, and further no compelling reasons are cited on behalf of the appellant to justify the rate of interest@|s%perannumaSsoughtinthepresentappeal. Thus, the Tribunal applied the principle of ho fault liability'and awarded just and reasonable compensation. The Tribunal's quantifir:ation under various heads was liberal' In view of the above, no legal foundation is made out in 7. the sa.rse warranting interference with the quantum of compensation or the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal' I t '1zolz; 3 ALD 472 4 The appeal fails being devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.

8. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. .:.?. C6nsequenfly, miscellaneous petitions, if any pelrding, shall stand closed. SD/- M.OSII/IAN ALI BAIG ASSISTANT REGISTRAR / //TRUE COPY// sEcTloN OFFICER 'o'.r. The Motor Accident claims Tribunal-cum-Addl-District Judge at Nizamabao. twitn records, if anv)

2. one cc t" biii.'kuiolri-j4DHAv Advocate Lq1g-c-l 3. One CC to S-ni. i. nn[n-it'toen nnO Advocate IOPUC] 4. Two CD CoPies GE/PSL o\ / / S () ? 1 Ir\\ $lt * * HIGH COURT DATED:021091i2025 JUDGEMENT MACMA.No.S00 ot 2O2O DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS 1& ,*{ IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRTJUSTICE G.M. MOHIUDDIN EOUS APPEAL NO: oF 2020 Between: Kum.Kachakayala Ramya, d/o Chinna Reddy, Aged about 25 yeans, caste. Hindu, Occ. Student and beedi roller, r/o Marampally village, Nandipet Mandal,Nizamabad District. AND ..,APPELLANT/CLAf M PETTTTONER 1 Sri Koripally Thirupathi Reddy, s/o t[alla Reggy,ngeg majqr., Driver No.AP 25 C 3663, rlo U.trto.2-2111, G.G.Nadukuda village, Nandipet Nizamabad District. of the car Mandal,

2. Y.Rama Krishnudu, s/o Narayana, Aged major, Occ. Owner of the car AP 25 C 3663, Dwarkanagar, Nizamabad.

3. Younus Khan, s/o Sikandar Khan, Aged rnrjor, Owner of the Auto AP 25W 2213, Nandipet village and Mandal, Nizamabad.

4. Reliance General lnsurance Company Ltd., Rep. its Branch ltIar office at Balaji Bhavan, H.No.1-1-329,2nd floor, Vinayaka agar, nager, Branch Nizamabad. (lnsurer.of q.{g_No !p._Zj|t^V.2213 vide cover note No. 111001139735 valid from30/0312012to2910312013)' ...RE''.NDENT'/RES'.NDENTS Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V.Act, against OrdEr and Decree dated 17.07.2020 passed in M.V.O.P.No. 533 of 2014 on the file of the court of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Addl-District Judge at Nizamabad. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the malterial papers in the case and upon hearing the argument of SRI KULDEEP JADAM, Advocate for the Appellant and none appeared for Respondent No.1 to 3 and SRI T. TVIAHENDER RAO, Advocate appeared for Respondent No.4. I I This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That tl're ft{otor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and is hereby dismissed.

2. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal lfirue Copyll SD'- M.OSMAN ALI BAIG ASSISTANT REGISTRAR G SECTION OFFICER To 1 2 The Mor:or Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Addl-District Judge at Nizamalrad.(with records, if any) Two CD Copies. E/PSL a - ":*. -;.r ".. "{''$tr?F* .1 d' B i t-t!. I a HIGH COURT DATED:021091i2025 DECREE MACMA.No.S0O o12020 DISMISSING TI{E MACMA WITHOUT COSTS t&