The High Court · 2025

Aggrieved by the Award and decree dated 11.05.2016 (hereinafter will be referred as 'impugned award) passed by the learned Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (hereinafter will be referred as 'Tribunal) in M.V.O.P.No.2679 of 2013, the appellant/ injured preferred the present Appeal seeking enhancement of compen sation.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herefuiafter are referred as they qrere arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The brief facts of the case as can be seen from the record are as under: a) The petitioner hled claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act claiming compensation of Rs.8,0O,OO0/- against the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for the injuries sustained by him in the road trallic accident. The reason assigned by the petitioner for sustaining injuries is that on O4. lO.2Ol2 the injured along with his friend lf,.as proceeding on motorcycle bearing registration 2 No.AP 22 M 4157 from Thondupally Village to Peddashapur, a DCM bearing registration No.AP 29 T 9599 r:ing driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner at lr gh speerl and dashed the vehicle of the petitioner. As a resul: the petitioner suffered head injury and other multipie injurics b) A case in Crime No. 213 of 2012 of Shtrrr shabad Police Station was registered for the ofTence under :j.ctions 337 of the Indial Penal Code. The injured was ti I en to 'I'ndent Hospital arrd thereafter to SVS HospitiLl Kachiguda, Hyderabad c) As on the date of accident, the petition,' u.as aged 21 years and earning Rs.1O,OOO/- per mont r a_s private employee. The petitioner suffered lracture o[ lr ad injury and injury to left forearm and '"r.rist. d) The acciclent occurred due to rash and ne 3ligent driving of the crime vehicle by its driver and thus. the petitioner claimed compensation of Rs.8,00,00O/, from t re respondent Nos.J- and 2, who are the owner and insurt:r of the crime vehicle respectively. \ 3 uAcM^No.273s ot r r6

4. Before the learned Tribunal, in reply to the above petition averments, the respondent No. 1 remained exparte and whereas respondent No.2 frled counter denying the petition averments including the age, occupation and income of the injured and also denied the injuries sustained by him; the driver of the crime vehicle was not holding valid, effective driving license and prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. [n order to establish the claim before the learned Tribunal, the petitioners examined PWs I to 4 and Exs.Al to A8 were marked on their behalf. On the other hand, no oral evidence u'as adduced on behalf of respondent No.2, however, Ex.B i copy of the insurance policy was marked

6. The learned Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, passed the impugned award holding that the petitioner is entitled for Rs.4,O0,258/- as compensation but awarded Rs.2,8O, 18O/- on the ground that there was contributory negligence on the part of petitioner. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the 4 learned Tribunal, the petitioner preferred the ,resent Appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

7. Heard Sri A.S.Narayana, learned cr r nsel for the claimant, Sri T. Sanjay K. Singh, learned Strr rding Counsel for the respondent No.2/lnsurance Compan.,' an<l perused the material available on record including . re grounds of Appeal.

8. Nou,, the point for determination is t'hether the petitioner is entitled for enhancement of comp,t rsatior-r?

9. Point: It is to be seen that t it rr:spondent No.2/lnsurance Company did not prefer anv Appeal to set aside the impugrred award. There is no disp: c u ith regard to the subsistence of Ex.Bl insurance policl rt the time of accident.

10. The first and foremost contention of the l< arncd counsel for the petitioner is that the learned Tribunzrl :rred in fixing the negligence on the part of the driver I rCM and the petitioner in ratio of 7O:30 respectivelv J 5 RY,J M^crtrl-r\o 27J5 of2016

11. A perusal of impugned ar,r.ard discloses that the learned Tribunal while answering issue No. I at paragraph No.9 observed that the police investigation under charge sheet support the claim of the petitioner that the driver of the DCM Van came in the opposite direction at high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motorcycle of the injured, however, the sketch of scene which is forming in part of charge sheet under Ex. ,\2 clearly demonstrate that the accident occurred completely left side of DCM van. It was further observed that the vehicle completely went right side of the road and that the sketch clearly demonstrate that there was contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner.

12. The learned Tribunal attributed contributory negligence on the petitioner to the extent of 3Oo/o for causing the accident only based on the rough sketch. It is pertinent to note that a rot.rgh sketch of a crime scene, w'hile useful for documentation and investigation, is not conclusive evidence in and of itself to establish a crime. It serves as a visual aid and supplemental information alongside other evidence like photographs, witness testimonies and physical evidence. 6 A perusal of the counter frled by tlr : respondent No.2 / Insurance Company also does not dis.< lose any acts committed by the petitioner that lead to ac,; dent. Except contending in the counter that there is contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner ir causing the accident, there is no '.vhisper as to how and i:r r.,,hat manner- the acts of the petitioner constitute contribtrrr n'negligence. The respondent No.2/Insurance Company ci 1 not adcluce anv evidence either oral or documentary to sul itan tiate their contention that there was contributory negliger le on the part of the petitioner in causing the accident. In vi: i- of the above circumstances, the learned Tribunal oughr not to have reduced the compensation entitled by the pet tioner for the alleged contributory negligence by solely relf ini on the rough sketch.

13. The learned counsel for the claimant furt rer contended that the learned Tribunal awarded less comper I ation amount for the grievous injuries sustained by the pcr itioner. It is further contended that the learned Tribunal 1a ilecl to arr.ard any compensation under the head 'attendant c't rrges'. 7 RYJ UACI'{A ri6 2735 ol 20 l6

14. The learned Tribunal awarded Rs.2,64,2581- towards hospital and medical expenses by considering the ora-l evidence of PWs 2 and 3 coupled with Exs.A4 and ,4.6 to A8. Further, the petitioner was awarded Rs.21,OO0/- towards loss of earnings. Hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the said frndings.

15. The learned Tribunal au'arded Rs.7O,OOO/- towards pain and suffering, loss of amenities and expectation of life' When it is a case of head injury and evidence on record shows that there cannot be complete recovery from head injury, grant of Rs.7O,O0O/- oniy would not meet the ends of justice and hence, increased to Rs.2,OO,OOO/ .

16. Further, the petitioner was awarded an amount of Rs.3O,OOO/- towards future medical expenses, Rs' 15,OOO/- towards transport and other miscellaneous expenses' Though the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that no compensation was awarded under the head 'attendant charges', the learned Tribunal au'arded Rs' 15,O0O/- towards transportation and other miscellaneous expenses' which includes the attendant charges. 8 &Y,J 17 . It is pertinent to note that though the petitioner sustained head injury and fracture of left racl i Tribunal failed to award any compensatio : injuries. Thus, this Court is inclined to awar,l rs, the learned for the said an amount of Rs.SO,OOO/- for the said two grievous injurie.: the petitioner. Therefore, this Court is of t: the compensation arrived by the learned Tribr,t be enhanced *b- R".z,so, 180/- to Rs.5,go,25i sustained by : opinion that 'ral is liable to

18. In vierv of the above facts arrd circur stances, thrs Court is o[ the firm opinion that the impugnecl au,ard passed b], the learned Tribunal is liabie to i.re modif < ci onlr. to the exrenl of above observations.

19. In the result, the Appeal is partly allovvecL the compensation amount from Rs.2 i Rs.5.8O,258/-, which sha-ll carry interest @ 7.li from the date of frling the claim application ri realization. The respondents are jointly ancl srr to deposit the compensation amount within ont b,y enhancing ro, 180/- to (, per annUm I the date of verally liab le month fror-I1 the date oi receipt of copy of this judgment. On the petitioner is entitled to withdraw the er ;uch deposi t, tirc amount 9 awarded to him without furnishing any security. There sha_[ be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. To, //TRUE COPY// SD/. M.OSMAN ALI AAIG ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 6 SECTION OFFICER

1. The Chairman Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XVl Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad.

2. One CC to Sri A.S.Narayana, Advocate [OPUCI 3. One CC to SRI T.Sanjay Singh, Advocate [OPUC] 4 Two CD Copies KttniVB W HIGH COURT RY,J DATED:2610612025 JUDGMENT +DECREE MACMA.No.2735 of 2016 !. qTj (A ( i 1 H. o() ,, \. l-'ei' - . - 'v ->1r!' ,/ ,../,, PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA I a II w $ 134421 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE RENUKA YARA MOTOR ACCIDENT GIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO:2735 OF 2016 Between: Gountur Anand, S/o.Sathaiah, Occ Nil R/o.H.No.1-101, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Ootpally Village, ...Appellant AND

1. S.Sathya Reddy, S/o.Ram Reddy, Aged lrla.jor, Occ Business R/o.H.No.8- '15l2, Bollaram, Jinnaram, Medak Dishict.

2. The New lndia Assurance Company Ltd, rep by its Divisional Manager O/o Above JD Electronics, Besides Ramakrishna Theatre, Abids, Hydeabad. ...Respondents Appeal filed under section 173 of M.V.Act., against the Judgment and Decree dated 11.05.2016 passed in M.V.O.P No.2679 of 2013 on the file of the court of the Chairman Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad- 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 arguments of Sri A.S.Narayana, Advocate for the Appellant and Sri T.Sanjay Singh, Advocate for Respondent No.2, and none appeared for respondent No.'l . This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the MACMA be and hereby is partly allowed. 2. That the compensation amount from Rs.2,80, 180/- to Rs.5,80,258/- which shall carry interest @ 7.5o/o pet annum from the date of filing the claim application till the date of realization.

3. That the respondents are jointly and severally compensation amount within one month from the dat able to deposit the : of reeeipt of copy of this Judgment.

4. On such deposit, that the petitioner be and hereby : entire amount awarded to him without furnishing any se 5. That save as aforesaid, the decree of the Tribunal sr ttitled to withdraw the :urity. rll stands confirmed in all other respects; and

6. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. SDI, M.OSMAN ALI BAIG ASS ISTANT REGISTRAR /ffRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, '1 . The Chairman Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cun -XVl Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad.

2. Two CD Copies KI{ATVB W HIGH COURT DATED:2610612025 DECREE MACMA.No.2735 of 2016 PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA \.1 I 1D