The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI A.RAMAKRISHNA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 3: None Appeared The Court made the following: JUDGMENT THE HON'BLE SRI WSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO MACMA NO. 5.26 0F 2022 JUDGMENT: When the matter was taken up for hearing on

28.08.2025, learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company reported ready to argue the matter. Though, notice to respondent Nos. 1 to 3 was served, there was no representation and that to give one more opportunity to respondents, the matter was posted to today.

2. This Court heard Mr.A.Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel for appellant-insurance Company ald none appears for respondent Nos.1 to 3 despite service ofnotice.

3. This appeal is hled by the appellant _ Insurance compary aggrieved by the award and decree dated L7.O2.2O22 passed in M.V.O.p.No.33O of 2Ot5 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short "The Tribunal,,) (V Additional District Judge), Medak at Sangareddy. 2 4 The respondent No.1 - claimant frled a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming an amount of Rs.50,00,O00/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by her in a motor vehicle accident. The case of the claimant was that she and her husband while returning from Hyderabad in their Maruthi Swift Car bearing No.AP-27-AG-O754, at about 11.30 hours, the driver of lorry bearing No.KA-39-7290 drove the said vehicle in wrong direction and dashed their car resulting grievous injuries to respondent No.l-claimant and the injuries (a) abrasion over both knee joints, Abrasion over right frontal region of scalp (b) fracture of right side of leg, both bones and ankle fracture. Further, the husband of respondent No.1 also received fracture of right side 66 rib.

5. Respondent No.l-claimant hled MVOP No.33O of 2015 before the Tribunal clairning a compensation of Rs.50,O0,000/- under various heads along with interest of @ l8o/o per annum. It was contended that she is a medical practitioner and she did M.Sc., Gynecolory and was attending operations by standing hours together. Due to the said accident, she could not work for five months and has also incurred huge expenditure for the treatment.

6. The trial Court after appreciating evidence on record and considering all the aspects ln respect of injuries sustained by respondent No.l-claimant and taking into consideration of Ex.A1 to Ex.All has categorically held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of lorry bearing No.KA-39-7290. The trial Court after examining the various heads with regard to pecuniary damages, medical expenses, loss of earnings and aLso on other heads has granted a sum of Rs.8,68,6LOl- (Rs.3,18,6 10/- towards medical expenses + Rs.6O,O00/- + Rs.50,000/- Rs.2,00,000/- + + Rs.50,000/- + Rs. 1,O0,000/- + Rs.75,000/- + Rs.15,000/- on varlous heacls) and awarded interest @ 9Yo per annum on the compensation of Rs.8,68,61O1- from the date of filing of the petition till the date of deposit.

7. Learned counsel for the appetlant contends that the Court below without there being any oral and documentar5z 4 /r evidence with regard to the expenditure incurred by the petitioner towards attendant charges has erroneously awarded a sum of Rs. 1,0O,O0O/- ald also erred in awarding a lump sum of Rs.2,O0,O0O/- under the head of Future Medical Expenses without discussing as to how it arrived at such amount. The learned counsel for the appellant also contends that respondent No.l-claimant is Doctor in Government hospital and being Government Employee, she would get medical reimbursement, but tJle Tribunal without inquiring, erroneously awarded a sum of Rs.3,18,610/- under the head of medical expenditure and further submitted that the interest awarded @ 9o/o per annum is contrar5r.

8. Respondent No. t has sustained two grievous fractures and, being a womarr, she would definitely require the assistance of a medical attendant. As such, the lump sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under the head of medical attendant charges is justffied and valid. So far as granting a lump sum of Rs.2,O0,OO0/- towards future medical expenditure, the Court below has 5 categorically held that in the nature of fracture injuries, respondent No.1/claimant would need future medical attention. Hence, the said amount granted by the Tribunal is also justified. In so far as, the further contention of the appellant that a sum of Rs.3,18,610/- has been granted under the medical expenses inspite of respondent No.l- claimant being Doctor in Government hospital, as no evidence has been produced by the appellant-insurance company to show that respondent No.l-claimant has received medical reimbursement from the State Government, the said contention is also rejected. \

9. Further, the contention of granting interest @ 9o/o per annum is very high, is also not justified in view of the recent judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court The l Oriental Insl.trqnce Co. Ltd as I,littt @ Ifrhariko. and othersl.

10. In view of the above findings, this Court is of the view that the appellant-insurarlce compaly has not made any '2025 rr'tsc 822 6 {.{ grounds for interlbrence of this Court and thus, the findings arrived by the Tribunal are just and proper and the appeal is devoid of any merits and is liable to be dismissed. I 1. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed by conhrming the award a4d decree dated 17.02.2022 passed in M.V.O.P.No.330 of 2015 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal tV Additional District Judge), Medak at Sangareddy. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. 7/TRUE COPY// SD/. M. JAWAHAR REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR G SECTION OFFICER To, l.TheChairmanMotorAccidentClaimsTribunal-cum.VAdditionalDistrict& Sessions Judge, Sangareddy,sangareddy District'

2. One CC to SRI A.RAMAKRISHNA REDDY Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CD CoPies ' spa KVR/nvb o-. / HIGH COURT DATED:1 210912025 to$ -( itE sI4 tJ (- 2 5 I'tAfl 20ffi z (,) n * ... + Pt;: i '.*" JUDGMENT+DECREE MACMA.No.526 of 2022 DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS pq 0 >L t a [ 3485 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 5260F 2022 Between: Shri Ram General lnsurance Co. Ltd, Represented by its Divisional Manager, 4th Floor, Sai Datta Arcade, Road No.6, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad ...AppellanURespondent No.2 AND 1 Matle Sarada, Wo Bandaru Vijaya Bhaskar Rao, Aged about 39 years, Occ Government Doctor, Government Hospital., Patancheru, Rio Plot No.101, Athithi Heights, Near PSR Garden, Pothireddypally Village, Sangareddy Mandal, Medak Diskict.

2. Mohd. lsmail, S/o Mohd. Hasan Sahab, Aged about 30 years, Occ. Owner of Lorry bearing No. KA 39 7290, R/o H.No.4-51, Rajeshwar Village, Basawakalyan Tq. Bidar District. ...Respondent No.1/Claim Petitioner

3. Balbheem, S/o Eranna Etkala, Age. 26 years, Occ. Driver, R/o H.No.336, Rajeshwar Viilage, Baswakalyan Mandal, Bidar District ...Respondent No.2/Respondent No.1 ...Respondent No.3/Respondent No.3 Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the order and decree in M.V.O.P.No.330 of 2015 dated 17.02.2022 on the file of the Court of the Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District & Sessions Judge, Sangareddy,Sangareddy District. 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 argument of M/s.A.Ramakrishna Reddy, Advocate for the Appellant and none Appeared for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby Dismissed.

2. That save as aforesaid, the decree of the Tribunal shall stands confirmed in all other respects; and

3. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. //TRUE COPY// SDI- M. JAWAHAR REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR .... SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Chairman Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District & Sessions Judge, Sangareddy,Sangareddy District. ^,4otor

2. Two CD Copies Spare KVR/nvb e HIGH COURT DATED:1 210912025 DECREE MACMA.No.526 of 2022 DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS Jq a