The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Sri Kota Subba Rao Counsel for the Respondent No.1 and 3: None appeared The Court made the following: JUDGMENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO N,O NDIKONDA M.A.C.M.A.NO.577 0F 2020 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the claimant, agc r ieved by the award and decree dated 08.05.2020 in M.V.O.P.fl r.351 of 2016 passed by the IX Additional Chief Judge, City -ivil Court at Hyderabad (for short "the Tribunal") granting a c() npensation of Rs.4,34,558/- as against the claim of Rs.10,00,00r)'-

2. For convenience and clarity, the parties here r are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The brief facts of the case are that on 04.06. 2015 at about

4.30 P.M. the claimant herein along with his son : . Gopikrishna was proceeding on a motor cycle bearing No.l P-29-BJ-44t7 from Kuntlur village towards Bandlaguda and wher they reached Shivapuri Colony bus stop, one Honda Amaze car t 3aring No.TS- 07-EC-0387 which was proceeding in opposite I rection being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manr ( r and at high speed dashed the motorcycle, as a result of whicl the claimant and his son Gopikrishna fell on the road and sustr ined grievous injuries all over the body. Immediately, both, f them were shifted to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad and wlr e undergoing treatment about 6:15 P.lY. the son of the claimar t Gopikrishna /- - 1 NNN MACMA No.577 oI 2020 succumbed to injuries, while the claimant underwent treatment as inpatient. The claimant sustained multiple fractures to his right foot and right thigh and all over the body and he underwent treatment as inpatient and surgeries were conducted on him at Citi Orthopaedic Center, Vijayawada. The police have registered a case in crime No.717 /2015 against the driver of the offending Honda Amaze car under Sections 304-4 and 337 of IPC'

4. It is further contended that claintant was running a tiffin center in Nagole, Uppal and used to earn Rs'20,000/- per month' However,duethesaidaccident,thepetitionersustainedinjuries and spent Rs.4,50,000/- towards medical expendlture and also suffered permanent disability and lost all his earnings' The claimant filed a petition seeking compensation of Rs'10,00,000/- before the Tribunal.

5. Respondent No.1 filed counter denying the material averments with regard to manner of accident, age, avocation of the injured, income of the claimant and submitted that the offending vehicle driver was not holding a valid driving license as on the date of the accident and the respondent No' 1 committed breach of terms and conditions of the policy' The Police have registered a case against the driver of the car under section 181 of the M.V.Act. J NNRT v \CMA No.577 ol 2020

6. Based on the above rival contentions, thrr Tribunal has framed the following issues: - I ) Whether the pleaded accident on 04.05 about 4:30 P.M. was occurred due to th(' negligent driving of the driver of the crirr i.e., car bearing N1.TS-07-EC-0387 and wts, injuries sustained by the petitioner in accident? 2015 at .ash and : vehicle )ther the the said Whether the petitioner is entitled to con1, Ensation and if so, to what quantum and whether he crime vehicle was owned by respondent No,1 a1l insured with respondent No.2 and what is the liabi, ty of the respondents?

3. To what relief?

7. To prove his case, the claimant got examine: pWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A1 to 46. On behalf of th(r respondents, RWs.1 and 2 were examined and got marked Exs,E, to 85.

8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribune has granted a compensation of Rs.4,34,558/-. Aggrieved by t re said order dated 08.05.2020, the present appeal is filed by the claimant.

9. Heard Sri M.Vijay Reddy, learned cou rsel for the petitioner and Sri Kota Subba Rao, learne(J counsel for respondent No.2. None appear for respondent No.l !.3 1O. Learned counsel for the appellant submit ed that the learned Tribunal has held that the said accident o: iurred due to 4 NNRJ MACMA No.S77 ol2O2O rash and negligent driving of the ofFending vehicle of the respondent and finally held that r-espondent Nos.1 to 3 are liable to pay the compensation of Rs.4,34,558/- with interest 9o/o per annurn and there being breach of conditions of the policy, as such, respondent No.2 directed to pay the amount initially and recover the same.

11. Having unsatisfied with the said compensation, the claimant has preferred the present appeal on the ground that the learned Tribunal did not choose to consider the disability and has awarded only Rs.10,000/- towards multiple injuries for right Foot and right thigh and Rs.50,000/- towards pain and sufferings and the Tribunal did not consider the evidence of pW.2 who was an orthopaedic surgeon.

12. Perused the entire material placed on record

13. The main grievance of the appellant in the present appeal is that the learned Tribunal did not consider the injuries sustained by the claimant for right foot, right thigh, soft tissue injuries and fractures and the learned Tribunal has only considered one fracture injury to mid shaft right. He also contended that the injury of soft tissue though mentioned by PW.1, the learned Tribunal did not choose to consider the same ) t ACMA No.577 oI 2020 -a and failed to award the compensation under the hr: rd of pain and sufferance L4. Learned counsel For the appellant relied upor the evidence of PW.2 who stated that the soft tissue injury wtr cleared with antibiotics and debridement and skin grafting wa:; also done For the same and it is evident from the evidence of F,\,1 .2 that even in cross examination, it was elicited that there vr rs fracture of the right toot and soft tissue injury of right thigh. --hough it was not denied by the respondent, there is nothing el r ited from the cross examination of pW.2 to dispute the same. As; such, learned Tribunal ought to have considered the other injuri:s as per the injury certiFicate. Considering the same, the le;: ned Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards pain ,l rd sufferance which appears to be proper and does not need any rrterference. 15, The other grievance that learned counsel for :he appellant has raised is that rearned rribunar did not choose tc consider the disability which is spoken by the pW.2 contend rg that even though PW.2 is the Doctor, who has treated the :laimant and deposed before the Court that the craimant has sust rined 30olo of the disability, the learned Tribunal in page No.6 hE s referred to the same and having discussed by considering thr evidence of PWs.1 and 2. The learned Tribunal has held thatrt rtugh pWs.1 !r 1 6 NNR] MACMA No.577 of 2020 and 2 have deposed that the claimant suffered permanent disability only by way of oral testimony as there was no documentary evidence produced by the claimant to prove that the claimant suffered permanent disability and that caused severe loss and the learned Tribunal did not choose to believe the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 in respect of said disability which is said to have been suffered by the claimant.

16. This Court having perused the evidence of PW.2 and the other evidence placed by the claimant and PW.2 who contended that the claimant has sustained 30o/o of disability, nothing has been placed before this Court to show that the said disability is permanent or partial. Though the PW.2 as stated about the permanent disability but he did not state before the learned Tribunal as to what is the basis to assess the disability of 30o/o' Whether there is any deformity/shorten ing of any leg so as to facilitate this court to come to such conclusion and to assess the functional disability oF the claimant. In the absence of any such evidence except basing on the oral testimony of PWs l and 2, thisCourtiSoftheopinionthatthefunctionaldisabilityofthe claimant cannot be assessed, so as to award the compensation under the head of the loss of earnings' / , 1 NNRJ vtacMA No.577 of 2O2O Ll . As such, this Court is of the opinion that ti: claimant has not made out any ground in respect of seekin 3 compensation under the head of loss of earnings and compe I sation for the disability.

10. Considering the entire material placed bet tre this Court and also rival contentions of both the parties and or the reaSons stated above this Court do not see any grounds ..r interfere with award and decree dated 08.05.2020 in M.V.O.p.t o.351 of 2016 passed by the IX Additionat Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad and the compensation awarded tr, the learned Tribunal does not need any interference of enlr, ncement. The MACMA deserves to be dismissed.

19. In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirr ring the award and Decree dated 08.05.2020 in M.v.o.p.No.351 r f 2Ot6 passed by learned IX Additional Chief ludge, City r ivil Court at Hyderabad. No costs. 20 Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in ilr s appeal, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/. II OSMAN ASSIS TANT RE ALI BAIG GISTRA SECTION OFFICER To, 1 The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Curr lX Additional Chief Judoe, City Civil Court' at Hyderabad (With records rf rnY) "!. Gfr'-- I 7 Advocate [OPUCI 2. One CC to Sri Kota Subba Rao ' 3 One CC to SRl. M Vijay Reddy Advocate IOPUC] 4. Two CD CoPies KFI/gh (1/ HIGH COURT DATED:0410412025 \ I /1,' i.*r ,,.,]\ /.'st l;C l: c> tr /.6 ''I .'", \{ \ 6 ,: L I,: Drc _i= z o * JUDGMENT+DECREE [ 2 Draftsl MACMA.No.577 ot 2020 DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS. ,."eL-'9rr C IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 577 OF 2020 Between: S.Pullarao, S/o.Venkateshwar Rao, aged 55 years, Occ. Nil R/o. 6-2-2111, lstakameshwari Nagar, Hayathnagar, Hyderabad. ...AppellanUPetitioner AND

1. K. Narendar Reddy and 2 Others, S/o, Shankar Reddy K, Owner Honda Amaze car No. TS 07EC 0387 R/o Flat. No.203, Srinivasa Residency, Near Spark Hotel, Medipally Road, Uppal, R.R.District

2. M/s HDFC ERGO General lnsurance Co. Ltd, Rep.by its Manager, |nd floor, 6-3-346/1 Opp. Jalagam Vengalrao Park, Road No.1, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad

3. K. Abhinav Reddy, S/o. Narendar Reddy , Aged Major, Driver of Honda Amaze car No. TS 07EC 0387 R/o. Flat No,203, Srinivasa Residency, Near Spark Hotel, Medipally Road, Uppal, R.R.District ...Respondenb/Respondents Appeal filed Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the Judgment and decree in M.V.O.P.No.351 Of 2016 dated. 81512020 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Cum lX 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 M Vijay Reddy, Advocate for the Appellant and of Sri Kota Subba Rao Advocate for the Respondent No.2 and none appeared for the respondent no.'l and 3. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appe; be and hereby is dismissed,

2. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. //TRUE COPY// SD/ !I. OSMAN ALI BAIG ASIJ STANT REGISTRAR ir\ 'J* -u-'- =--- CTION OFFICER To,

1. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal CL t r lX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad. (With records. i any) 2 fwo CD Copies KH/gh \qr HIGH COURT DATED:0410412025 DECREE MACMA.N0.577 ot 2020 DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS. L\ ,ntd Y63\'' ),