The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellant :Sri G.Raj Kumar Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : Sri Ramanjaneyulu apperaring for Sri T Surya Satish, Advocate The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD ***,k THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTTCE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR M/s. Shriram General Insurance Company Limited ...Appellant/respondent No.3 Kankanal;r Kumaraswamy and two others AND ... Respondent No. l/petitioner l. Sri Grandhi Raj Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant/ Insuranct: Company, and Sri Ramanjaneyulu, learned counsel appearin!, for sri r.surya satish, Iearned counser for the respondenv claimant and perused the record. 2. Ttre Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the Insurance Company assailing the order passed by the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal_cum_principal District Judge, Jayashankar Bhupalpally, (for short, .the Tribunal) in M.V.O.P.No.481 of ZO22 (Old MVOP No.1O35 of 2017) dated ::,J 2

05.01.2024 in allowing the claim of the claimant to the extent of Rs.22,84,800/- together with interest @7o/o per annum.

3. The parties herein are referred to as they are arrayed in the MVOP.

4. The facts leading to filing of the OP are that on 26.02.20L5 the petitioner while attending to his duties as labour and as part of his work, he along with his colleagues loaded the cement bricks in Tractor bearing No.AP 15 AS 0891 of the respondent No.2 and boarded the same for unloading, and while they were proceeding from Ghanpur (M) to Buddaram Village and when the said vehicle reached at the outskirts of Narayanagiripally Village, the respondent no.1 drove the vehicle in rash and negligent manner with high speed, meanwhile the front tyre of tractor busted and the tractor turned tuftle, due to which, the petitioner sustained severe injuries i.e. grievous diffuse axonal injury e basal SAH and other injuries atl over the body. Immediately after the accident, the petitioner was shifted to hospital and during the course of treatment, the petitioner underwent Coma foi more than one year.

5. It is further contended that the accident occurred onty due to the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle and as such a complaint was lodged at PS. Venkatapur, basing on which, a case in crime No.39 of 2015 under Section 338 IPC was registered and the charge sheet was filed for the oftence punishable under Section 338 IPC. 3

6. Due to accident, the petitioner forced to stay in his house and unable to ;rttend his duties without the aid and assistance of the attendant ernd his family members are also suffering from staruation since he is; the only person who is looking after the affairs of the house. As such, the petitioner/claimant prayed to grant compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-.

7. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 are remained ex parte.

8. The rr:spondent No.3 filed its counter-affidavit while denying the allegationr; made in the claim petition, contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the petitioner and there was no negligence by the respondent No.1. It is further contended that the respondents did not admit the age, avocation and earnings of the petitioner and that the respondent No.1 was not having a valid driving licence t,s orr the date of the accident. It is also contended that the claim is exorbitant and excessive and accordingly, prayed to dismiss the petition.

9. The learned rribunal basing on the pleadings framed the foilowing issues firr consideration : "1. Whether the accident occurred on 26.02.2015 at about 16.00 houn; at the outskirts of Narayanagiripally village, Ghanpur Mandal, warangal District, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Tractor bearing No.Ap 15 AS 0g91 causing injury to the petitioner? :2. whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation as claimed for? if so, to what extent and from whom? 4

3. To what relief)"

10. During the course of enquiry, on behalf of the petitioner/claimant, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and docuemnts-Exs.A.I to A.5 and Ex.X.1 were marked. On behalf of the respondent No.3, RW'1 was examined and marked as Ex.B.l. On behalf of the Court, CW.1 was examined and got marked Exs.C.l and C.2.

11. The learned Tribunal, having undertook elaborate discussion on issue No.l, held that the accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the tractor driver bearing No.AP 15 AS 0891 causing injury to the petitioner and arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner is entitled to compensation.

12. Accordingly, based on the evidence on record,' the Tribunal held that the petitioner was earning an amount of Rs.8,0001- per month, which comes to Rs.96,000/- per annum. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of United fndia fnsurance Company Limited v/s. Satinder Kaul,the Tribunal added 40o/o of the income towards future prospects, thereby assessing the annual income of the petitioner at Rs.1,34,4001-. Further, by applying the multiplier'17' applicable to the age group of 28 years, the Tribunal, granted compensation of Rs.22,84,800/- under all heads. Hence, the present appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company' | (2O2Ol SCC Online SC 410 5

13. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company vehemently contended that the learned Tribunal ought to have dismissed the claim petition, as the petitioner/claimant is unauthorizedly travelling in the offending vehicle.

14. Learned counsel further contended that the Tribunal had erroneously considered the income of the petitioner/claimant without there beingr any evidence and added future prospects @40olo and awarded huge amount towards compensation and prays to allow the appeal by setting the award passed by the Tribunal.

15. Learnerj counsel further contended the Tribunal awarded the interest at 7o/o p.a. which is more than lending and prevailing rates of Reserue Bank of India and the same is liable to be set aside.

16. I have given my earnest consideration to the submissions made and perused the record.

17. The Tribunal, taking into consideration the evidence on record held that due tc accident, the petitioner/claimant sustained paftial memory loss to hi:; entire life which cannot be compensated with monetarily and the legislation provided the insurance policy for protecting the injured/de:cedsed family who sustained damages in road traffic accident. The main ambit of the legislation is to provide financial assistance: to the person, who sustained injuries/loss to their life in road traffic accident. 6

18. The Tribunal further based on the evidence of PWs.l and 2 and CS.l coupled with Ex.A.4 and Exs.X.l, held that the petitioner remained unconscious for one year, was unable to speak properly and lost his memory, as a result of the accident. Upon appreciation of the evidence on;ecord, the Tribunal held that the petitioner/claimant was aged about,28 years at the time of accident and would be incapable of engaging in any work for the rest of his lifetime. Accordingly, granted just and reasona'ble compensation by applying relevant multiplier for the age group of 28 years.

19. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, and upon careful appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on re@rd, the learned Tribunal has rightly come to conclusion that the claimant is entitled for compensation under various heads to the extent of Rs.22,84,800/-. The said compensation is just, fair and reasonable, having regard to the nature of injuries sustained, the permanent disability suffered by the claimant, his age, ldss of earning capacity and the Settled principles governing assessment of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, this court finds no illegality, peruersity or material irregularity in the award passed by the Tribunal warranting interference. 7

20. Accordingly, the Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed, subject to the principle of 'pay and recovery'. No costs.

21. Pencling miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. IVASA REDDY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY/ SECTION OFFICER 1 i To,

1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-Cum-Principal District Judge, Jayasha'nkar Bhupalpally.(with records if any) 2. One CC, to SRl. G Rajkumar, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRl. T Surya Satish, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies :.;.,1 HIGH COURT DATED'.2A1U2Ct25 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.1074 ot 2024 --: iHE S () ,J 0 g [88 282$ * DISMISSED .rHE M.A.C.M.A. W,IHOUT COSTS ab/" IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD MONDAY THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR Between M/s. Shriram General lnsurance Co. Ltd., H.No.3-6-517, Sai Datta Arcade, 4th Floor, Flat No.401,402 and 403, Street No.6, Himayath Nagar, Hyderabad - 500029. ...AppellanVRespondent No.3 AND

1. Kankanala Kumaraswamy, S/o. Komuraiah, Aged 25 years, Occ. Labour, Fl/o. Ghanpur Village and Mandal, Warrangal District.

1. Deva Mahender, S/o. Gattaiah, Aged 50 Years, Occ. Tractor Driver, Ri/o. Ghanpur Village and Mandal, Warangal District.

2. Ramadugu Suresh, S/o. lylaiah, Aged 35 years, Occ. Mason, Fl/o. Ghanpur Village and Mandal, Warrangal District. ... Respondentsr/ResPondents AppealU/Sec.lT3ofMotorVehiclesAct.againsttheorderanddecreein f, .V.O.plfro.+e7 ot 2022 dated.05/01//2024 on the file of the Court of the Motor A""iOentCuirs Tribunal-Cum-Principal District Judge, Jayashankar Bhupalpally. ORDER: This appeal coming on for hearing and upon p"ry:iry-l["-9loil9".,"f the court below and the material papers rn rne ot s-ri I3"i Kumar' Advocale for the ror Srir"Surya Satish' Advocate ror appeat, tne Juogment'dnd decree MVOP and upon heanng ii;;il;;t" At;}o,5f-"??ft:i$'"{;ffi"H"vli'i'i'ppii'ing -of This Cou( doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the I\4ACMA be and hereby is dismissed: 2. That there shall be no order as io cosi" in ttrd appeaf. SD/- A SREENIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGI //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal_Cum_principal District Judge, Jayashankar Bhupalpally.(with recorOs if an

2. Two CD Copies / , HIGH COURT DATED:2211212025 DECREE MACMA.N o.1074 ot 2024 DISMISSED THE M.A.C.M.A. WITHOUT COSTS