United India Insurancc Co. Ltei., Hyc.lerabad., Branch Manager, Insurance Company Limiterl, Crv.ruf v. S. Shyam Rao

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased stay alr further proceedings including the execution of decree and award d1.23.6.05 in o.P.No.1933 of 02 on the file of xIV Additional Chief Judge, city civil Judge, at Hyderabad. Counsel for the Appellant: SRI. A MALATHI Counsel for the Respondents: None appeared The Court made the following: JUDGMENT THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G'SRI DEVI A.C NO. 01 oF 201 JUDG TheUnitedlndialnsuranceCompanyLimited,preferredthe present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act' 1988 (for short "the Act"), questioning the award and decree' dated 2I.06.2005 passed in O.P.No'1933 of 2OO2 on the file of the XiV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderatrad (Past Track Court) (for short "the Tribunal"), wherein a sum of Rs'94'558/- with interest @ 9oh p.a. from 30.11'2004, from the date when the ciaimantwasexaminedasP.W.ltillrealization,wasawardedas the claimant as against the claim of compensation to Rs.1,8O,O0O/ -. The facts in issue are as under: The first respondent/ claimant herein fi1ed a claim-petition under Section 166 of the Act claiming compensation of Rs.1,80,000/- on account of injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 22.04.2002 at 2.00 pm. It is stated that on that day the first respondent herein was proceeding on his scooter bearing No.AHU-43O9 on official duty to Asifnagar and when he was passing through Vijayanagar Colony and reached Deendhar Anjuman Circle, the driver of Tata Indica Car bearing No.AP-13-D-2313 suddenly stopped the car and opened the driver's side door without taking any precautions and in a negligent manner and the door hit the first respondent due to which he fell down along with the scooter, suffered serious injuries to his left and right hands and other parts of the body. He took 2 Hospital. treatmen t in Vijayanagar Colony Nursing Home and Medicit., He suffered permanent disabiiity. ?he second respondent herein is the owner of the car and he insured the car with the appellant herdin. The first respondent claimed compensation of Rs. 1,80,OO0/_ comprising Rs.38,533/_ towards loss of earnings, Rs.5,000/_ towards transport to hospital, Rs.60,000/- towards extra nourishment and medicines and Rs. 1,000/- towards damage to clothing and articles, Rs.2S,0O0/_ towards compensation for pain and suffering, Rs.2S,OOO/- under no fault liability and Rs.25,467/_ towards permanent disability. In the claim petition, the second respondent herein filed counter denying the allegations made in the petition. The second respondent contended in the counter that the claimant has to prove that the scooter driven by him was roadworthy and that the claimant has driving license and that the claim is excessive and the claimant himself has to pay the compensation to the second respondent for the damage caused to the car. The appellant herein filed counter contending that the claimant did not observe the traffic rules while driving the scooter and hence, the appellant is not liable to pay the compensation to the claimant and that the claim is imaginary and prayed the Tribunal to dismiss the petition with costs. After considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle and awarded total compensation of Rs.95,558/- with interest @ 9Yo per annum from 30.11.20O4 on which date the J claimant was examined as P'W' 1 till the date of realization' Aggrieved by the said order' the appellant-Insurance Company filed the Present aPPeal' Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and learned Counselforthefirstrespondentandperusedtherecord. I A perusal of the order reveals that the Tribunal passed a well considered order by taking into consideration all the aspects and as against the claim of Rs' 1,8O,0OO/ -' the Tribunal awarded an ! amorl.ntofRs.94,558/-withinterest@'gokperannumfrom 30.1 1.2004 on which date the claimant was examined as P'W' 1 till the date of reaiization. The Tribunal has framed Issue No'l as to whether the claimant sustained injuries due to the rash and respondent's car negligent driving of the driver of the ,second bearing No.AP-13-D-2313, to which the Tribunal has categorically stated that the accident took place drie to the negligence of the driver of the car i.e. the second respondent herein and has answered in favour of the first respondent herein and against the second respondent. With regard to Issue No'2 as to whether the claimant is entitled for compensation, il so, to what amount and from whom, in the light of the decided case laws of the Apex Court' under the heads of conventional charges and future prospects, the Iirst respondent/ claimant is entitled for more compensation, however, since this is an appeal filed by the insurance company' this court is not inclined to go into the other issues and this court finds that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable. Therefore, I see no reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal and the appea-l is liable to be dismissed' 4 Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand dismissed. //TRUECOPy// sD/_K.AMMAIT ASSISTANT REGISTRAh t9- \ To, SECTION OFFICER 1. The MACT-ctim- XIV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Judge, at Hyderabad 2. One CC to Sri. A Malathi, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CD Copies 4. One Spare Copy " CHG TR HIGH COURT . DATED:2317U2021 $E S1,A Y a) L) 17IEB E?2 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.3014 of 2012 DISMISSING THE MACMA , n^ ,/U HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA THURSDAY, THE TWENry THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND rWrrV-rVO"N;-"'"' PRESENT , THE HONOURABLE IUSTICE G.SRI DEVI MOTORACCTDENT CIVILMI SCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO:3014 oF 20'12 Between: United tndia lnsurance Co. Ltd., Hyderabad., Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Limired, C.yrtif pliir, b.dX, 'tvrasautant<, AND ...APPELLANT {ESpONDENT No.2

1. S. Shyam Rao, S/o Dhanaiah Inspector of police R/o Shanthinagar police - Quarters, Q.No. 42, Hyderabad.

2. Chitada_Dhananjayarao, S/o Rama Gopala Rao, Owner of Vehicle R/o MF-2, p.S .Nagar, Vijayanagar Colony, ...RESPONDENTATESPONDENT No.1 Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V. Act;, against the award and decree dated 23-06-2005 in OP No.1933 of 2002 on the file of the Chairman MACT-Cum- XIV Additional Chief ludge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. This Appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the Memorandum of Appeal, the orders of the Lower Court and the material papers in the case and upon hearing the arguments Smt. A.Malathi, Advocate for the Appellant and Respondent No.1 & 2 is not appearing in person or by Advocate. THIS COURT DOTH ORDER AND DECREE AS FOLLOWS:

1. That the Appeal be and hereby is dismissed, and 2. That there be no order as to costs in this appeal. / /TRUECOPY/ / SD/-K.AMMAJI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR \-.- SECTION OFFICER The Chairman MACT-cum- XIV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad Two CD Copies One Spare Copy To, 1

2. 3. CHG TR HIGH COURT DATE Dt23fi21202L I DECREE MACMA.No.301.4 of 2012 DISMISSING THE MACMA 4