High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRI M RAIIIA KRISHNA The Gourt delivered the following: Judgment THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA M.A.C. M.A. No.1 670F20 23 JUDGMENT This is an appeal preferred by the appellant/petitioner aggrieved by the ordeq dated 23.08.2022 passed in M.v.o.p.No.26B of 2or7 by the learned chairman, Motor Accident craims Tribunar-cum-principar District Judge at Nalgonda (for short, .the Tribunal,), M.V.O.P. was dismissed with costs in a claim petition filed seeking compensation of Rs.9,00,000/_ from the respondents jointly and wherein the severa lly.

2. Heard both sides. perused the record. 3' The brief facts of the case are that the craim petition was fired by the appellant on account of the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident. The accident occurred on 03.05.2015 at 7:30 A.NI. near Vemururivaagu at the outskirts of chennaiparem vilrage, Mattampally Mandal, Suryapet District. When the appellant was going on motorcycle bearing No.Ap_24_AS_7SOl, respondent No.1, who is the driver cum owner of a tractor has driven the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed his motorcycle. Thereby, the appellant ferr down from the motorcycre and sustained crosed fracture M/3 L/3 right femur, head injury and murtipre injuries ail over his body. The appellant was first treated at Government Area Hospitar, 2 H-uzurnagar and then treated at Mamatha General Super Specialty Hospltal,Khqrnmamforbettertreatment.onaccountoftheloss sustained cjue to the injuries in the accident, the claim petition under appeal has ber:n filed.

4.TheappellantgotexaminedP.Ws.lto4andgotmarkedExs.Pl toPlO.ResprlndentNo.2gotexaminedR.W.landgotmarkedExs.Rl and R2. Upon examining the oral and documentary evidence on record, the k:arned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition leading to filing of the Present aPPeal' In grournds of appeal, it is pleaded that the Tribunal failed to 5. appreciate the oral and documentary evidence in correct perspective' that Ex.P6 discharge summary is issued by New Life Hospital where the appellant got treated from 03.05.2015 to o5'05'2015 wherein it is mentioned tfrat the appellant met with RTA at hls v!u.9ggr.Igf[9n tne medical record shows that the appellant sustbined two grievous and two simple injuries and was treated as inpatient from 03'05'2015 to 28.05.2015, 29.03.2016 to 04.o4.2016, L7.O5'2016 to 27'05'20t6', 25.04.2017 to 28.04.2017 and t7.04.2018 to 28'04'2018' Further', the appellant underwent surgeries on 31.03.2016 and 17'04'2018 for removal of implants. The appellant underwent another surgery for cranioplasty surgery on 20.05.2016 and physiotherapy during the period from 25.04.2017 to 28.04.20t7. This entire process warrants 3 compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- under the head of .pain and suffering,. There is loss of earnings for about 4 to 6 months period taken for healing of fracture wherein considerable amounts are spent for transportation, attendant charges and extra nourishment estimated at Rs.75,000/-. Lastly, it is pleaded that there is an error in holding that the appellant cannot have sustained injuries in an accident in RTA on

03.05.2015 near Vemulurivaagu and that Ex.p7-wound certificate issued by Mamatha General and Super Specialty Hospitals, Khammam, is not taken into consideration which mentions about the appellant sustained two grievous injuries and two simple injuries in a road traffic accident.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the medical record and oral evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4 would prove that the appellant sustained injuries in the road traffic accident which occurred on 03.05.2015 at 7:30 A.M. whereas the Tribunal has erroneously concluded that the accident occurred at 11:00 P.M. on 02.05.2015 and in that regard held that the accident is not proven and thereby dismissed the claim petition. Further; it is argued that as per Ex.A2, respondent No.1 was charge sheeted for not poosessing valid driving licence and he did not appear in spite of being served with summons. fuis neta that there is a breach of drivers' clause and therefore, the claim petition has been dismissed. 4

7. Learned counsel for the respondent argued that there is suspicion about the occurrence of accident as stated by the appeiiant at 7:30 A.M. on 03.05.2015 as the medical record shows that the aeeident oecurred cn 02.05.2015 at !" 1:00 P.M. and there is no connection be:tween the said accident and the accident pleaded by the appellant. Also, it is alleged that there is driving licence violation and therefore, the responsibility has to be fastened on the owner cum driver alone but not the insurance company.

8. Learnerl counsel for the appellant relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Sup'eme Court of India in Pappu anci othets v. Vinod Kumar Lamba and anotherl, wherein it is held that even if the offending vehicle is driven by an unauthorized person or th-at peison driving vehicle dicj not have vaiid clriving iicence, the burden of proof is on.the clainrant. Howeveri as per the legal ratio laid in National Insurance company v- Swaran Singh2, learned counsel for the appellant arr;ued that there is a need to order pay and recovery from the owner of the vehicle. Further, learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Sunitha and others v. Rajasthan Sfate Road Transport Corporation and anothef, wherein it is held that the evidence in a /_ \. 1 zorels; scc zoa 'zoo+1z1eo ae 3 zozolrsl scc +ao 5 motor vehicle accident has to be examined on the touchstone of preponderance of probability but not on the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt for the purpose of ascertaining the occurrence of accident due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. In the instant case, learned counsel for the appellant argued that the driver is also the owner who is involved in the accident and therefore, liable to pay compensation along with the insurance company.

9. A perusal of the record shows that the evidence of the appellant and the pillion rider (P.W.2) is that when they were going on a motorcycle on 03.05.2015 at 7:30 A.M. they were struck by the tractor bearing No.AP24 AN 6103 driven by respondent No.1 who is the owner cum driver. The entire police record marked under Ex.P1-FIR-cum- complaint, Ex.P2-charge sheet and Ex.P3-accident information report support the oral version of P.Ws.1 and 2 about the occurrence of the Village. The only document that causes suspicion accident on 03.05.2015 at 7:30 A.M. at the outskirts of Chennaipalem ut the by the occurrence of accident on the date and time mentio , abo L appellant is Ex.P6- discharge summary issued by New Life Emergency and Multi Specialty Hospital. The said document contains that the RTA allegedly occurred on the preceding night i.e. on 02'05.2015 at 11:00 P.M. at his village. Except the contents of Ex.P6, the rest of the -.'1.,..., 6 evidence i.e. oral evidence of P.Ws.l and 2 who were involved in the accident and the police record consistently presented the version of occurrence of accident on 03.05.2015 at 7:30 A.M. at the village outskirts of l:hennaipalem. In this regard, the legal ratio laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Sunitha's case (supra 3) is applicable i.e., the evidence in a motor vehicle case has to be examined on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. The Tribunal need not seek proof beyonci reasonabie doubt by comparing the oral eviclence of eye witnesses and the police record as vis-a-vis the contents of Ex.P6 whose contents are written by some person in a hospital whc is not concerned with the accident. Therefore, it is held that since the oral and documentary evidence weights heavily in favour of the appellant, issue No.1 about the occurrence of accident is held against respondent No.1 owner-cum-driver of the tractor for causing the accident with+ash and negligent driving.

10. Coming to the aspect of liability, the insurance company got examined R.W.1 to depose about driving licence violation, whereas while filing counter, the insurance company apart from taking the defence of driving licence violation pleaded that they have not issued the insurance policy in question and that the same pertains to some other vehicL:. However, at the time of adducing oral evidence, -R:W.1 got marked Ex.R2-copy of insurance policy which proves that the 7 tractor which was involved in the accident was insured wlth respondent No.2. The said poricy shows that the tractor which was invorved in the accident was valid from 31.08.2014 to 30.09.2015 i.e. the policy was in force as on the date of accident. Therefore, as per the legal ratio laid down in Pappu's case(supra 1) which is based on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Swaran Singh,s case (supra 2),the insurance company has to pay the compensation at the first instance and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle on account of driving licence violation which can be inferred from the fact that charge sheet was filed under section 1g1 of Motor vehicles Act and there was no response from respondent No.1 when insurance company made attempts to secure the details of the driving licence.

11. Coming to the quantum of compensation, the appellant sustained two grievous injuries for which Rs.SO,OOO/- is to be awarded towards pain and suffering and Rs.2O,OOO/- towards two simple injuries. The evidence of p.W.2 confirms the payment of Rs.37$691- to New Life Hospital and therefore, the same is awarded. Further, Rs.IO,OOO/- is awarded towards extra nourishment and Rs.1O,OOO/- towards transportation as the appellant had to travel to Khammam to take treatment. No compensation is awarded for the injuries deposed by P.W.4 as they do not seem to be connected with the injuries sustained by the appellant in the accident that occurred on 8

03.05.2015. According to the appellant, he was earning Rs.10,000/- per month by doing agriculture and being a milk vendor. There is no proof of .income of the appellant as agriculturist and milk vendor. Therefore, th() notional income in the year 2015 is taken at Rs.5,000/- per month and an amount of Rs.3OrOOO/- is awarded towards loss of earnings. Therre is no proof of disability, therefore, no compensation is awarded on the said count. The appellant underwent treatment for considerable point of time as an inpatient. Therefore, an amount of Rs.SO,OOO/-. is awarded towards the discomfort experienced on accoiji'it of ti-auma. Thus, the appellant is entltled to payment of total compensatio 1 of Rs.2rO7,669 I - t2. In the result, M.A.C.M.A. is partly allowed by settlng aside the order dated 23.08.2022 passed in M.V.O.P.No.206B of 2017 by the Tribunal and compensation of Rs.2,O7,669/- is awarded with interest @ 7.5o/o per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization payable by the respondent No.3/insurance company at first instance and then recover the same from respondent No.Uowner of the offending vr:hicle. The aforesaid amount shall be deposited within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this ludgment. On such deposit, the appellant is entitled to withdraw the entire amount, without furnishing any security. There shall be . no order as to costs. 9 Miscellaneous Petltlons, lf any, pending in this appeal, shall stand (. closed srx- u. / ,/TRUE COPY/T SECTION OFFICER District Judge To,

1. ?. 3. 4. Two CD CoPies AS/ADK M, HIGH COIJRT DATED:.2AWNOaS JUDGMENT+DECREE MACMA.No.1267 of 2423 'l' o o ? 1 lhl\ 8?t l- * PARTLY ALLOW|NG THE MACMA WITHOU]T COSTS b I t ; \ IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF Jt'LY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE RENUKA YARA MOTOR AGGIDENT GIVIL MISCELIANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1267 OF 2023 Bet*""n, Gugulothu Pandu, S/o. Kotiya, Age. 32 years, Occ. Agriculture and Milk Vendor, Presenfly Nil, FUo. Somla Thanda, H/o. Kalmala Cheruvu Mllage, Palakeedu Mandal, Suryapet District. Presently residing at Gollaguda Locality of Nalgonda Town and District. ...Appel lanUPetitioner AND 1 Singarapu Kotaiah, S/o. Mutyalu, Major Mattampally Mandal, Nalgonda District. No. AP-24-AN-6103) RL/o. Main Road, ChoMapally Village, (Owner cum Driver of Tractor bearing

2. United lndra lnsurance Company Ltd. Divisional Office Bhavan, 2nd Floor, P.B.No. 144, Tilak Road, Ramkoti, Rep. by its Divisional Manager. (Policy No. 150704311 trom 31 lO8l2O1 4 to 30/081201 5l [n'FItJB) Posneet Hyderabad- 500 007. 4P103589364 valid ... Respondents/Respondents Appeal filed Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act,'t988 against the fuer and desee in M.V.O.PNo.268 of 2017 dated. 23l$8ln22 m the file of the Court of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum Principal District Judge at Nalgonda. 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 SMT. ANNAPURNA SREERAM, Advocate for the Appellant and d SRt M RAilrlA KRISHNA, Achrocate tor ths Respondent No.2 and none appeared for the respondent No.1. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is partly allowed by sefting aside the order dated 23.08.2022 passed in M.V.O.P:No.2068 at nfl'by the Tribunal and compensation of Rs.2,07,669/- is awarded with interest @7.5Yo per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization payable by the respondent No.3/insuran@ company at first instance' and then recover the same from respondent No.1/owner of the oflbrnding vehicle;

2. That the aforesaid amount shall be deposited within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment;

3. That on such deposit, the appellant is entifled to withdraw the entire amount, without ltmishing any security; 4- Ttd satre as aM; the Judgrnent and decree of the Triburral shatt stands confirmerd in all other respects; and

5. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. SD'. M. OSMAN ALI BAIG STANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII N OFFICER To, 1- The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum Principal District Judge at Nalgonda 2. Two CD Copies AS/ADK M, t I IGH COURT IIATED:2U0712U25 EI=GIII-{= MACI/|A. N o,1267 ot 2023 OWING THE MACMA I 6