The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 1 s i cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, trJ Higrt court may oe preasea io Jay the order passed in o.p.No.1461/0s dated is.0;'.200s on thb fite of the v AJdr. Metropolitan Sessions Judge-Cum_(Mahila Courts) at Hyderabad, l.A. NO:4 OF 2OO8(MACMAM P. NO: 40321 O F 2008) PetitionunderSectionl5lCPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesStatedin the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. N MOHAN KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondents: None Appeared' The Court delivered the following: Judgment HONOURABLE SMT.JUSTICE M.G.PRIYAD ARSINI M.A.C.M.A. No .1405 0F 2014 JUDGMENT: Aggrieved by the order and decree dated i5.O4.2OOg (hereinafter will be referred as ,impugned orderJ passed by the learned Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal _ cum _ V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge (Mahila Court) _ cum_ XIX Additional Chief Judge, City Criminal Courts at Hyderabad (hereinafter will bc referreci as .lribunalJ in O.p.No.1461 of 2005, thc respondent No_2/ Insurance Company has filed the prcsent Appeal to set asidc thc impugned order.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred as they were srrayscl before the Tribunal. 3 The brief facts of the case as can be seen from the record are as under a) The petitioner filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act claiming compensation of Rs.2,OO,OOOl_ for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 29.O4.2OO5. As per the petitioner, the petitioner was going on a motor vehicle and when he reached near Uppal Bus Stand road, a Bajaj Chetak bearing No.Ap 9 2262 came in a rash and negiigent manner and dashed against motor cycle, as \ \ w-{.,']t \ \ 2 a result, he sustained frac ture injuries and became unconscious. It is stated by the petitioner that ht: was ri'orking as Head Cook in Chinese Restaurant and earnir-rg Rs 5,OOO/- per month. Due to the injuries, he became disabled and lost his income. Hence, he has becn claiming -compensalion Rs.2,OO,O00/-

4. Before the learned Tribunal, in reply to the above petition averments, the respondent No.2 filed counter and u'hereas respondent No.1 remained exparte. In the counter, the respondent No.2 denied the manner of the accrdent, age, occupation and incomc of the injured. lt was contendcd Lhat the policy was issued, however, the registration \r'zts expired on

04.12.2OO4 i.e., prior to the accident. Hence, respondent No.2 is noL liable to pay compensation.

5. Based on the above pteadings, the Tribunal framcd the following issues: i) Whether the accident took place on 29.O4.2005 at about 23.3O hours, due to rash and negligent diuing of Bajaj Scooter bearing No.AP 9 7262, by its diuer? i, Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation from the respondents, if so, to uhat amount and from uhom? iii) To tuhat relieft I i I I I I I I 3 vcPJ MACMA.No.l405 0I2014

6. In order to establish his clairn before the learned Tribunal, PWs. 1 and 2 were examined and Exs:Al to A9 were exhibited on behalf of the petitioner. On the other hand, the owner of the crime vehicle was examined as RW1, however, no documentary evidence was aclduced on behalf of the respondents to dcny the claim of the petitioner.

7. The learned Tribunal alter considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, passed the impugned order awarding an amount ol Rs.23,000/- with intere st @Zok per annum from the date of petition till date of deposit. Aggrieved by the same, the Appellant/ Insurance Company hled the present Appeal to set aside the impugned order.

8. Despite servicc of notice, respon<lents have not contested the case.

9. Heard Sri N.Mohan Krishna, learnecl Standing Counsel for the Appellant/ Insurance Company and perused the material available on record including the grounds ofAppeal.

10. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that there is no proper insurance policy to the crime .-,ffi*r '-ir-.,' ---. i i I I ; \ \ I \ vehicle. Hence, the Insurance Company is not liab1e to pay any compensatlon

11. A perusal of record discloses that there is no dispute regarding the manner of accidenl, since the lindings arrived at by the Tribunal on those aspects are not challenged. Therefore, there is no necessilr to once again decide the above aspect and the only point that has to be considered in the present appeal is with regard to the existing of the insurance policy. A perusal of the appendix of the evidence shorvs tha[ the respondents have not filed any document to shou'that therc is either violation of policy conditions or no proper policy to the crime vehicle. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the contention of the appcllant/ Insurance Company is unsustainable.

12. On the other hand, the petitioner has adduced both oral and documentary evidence to prove the injtrries and got examined PW.2/Doctor, who spoke about the nat.ure of injuries sustained by the petitioner. Further, Ex.A 1 / FIR discloses the manner of the accident, Ex.A2 / Dischargc Summary, trx.A3/Medical 8il1, Ex.A4 lC.T Scan Report and Ex.A5/Disability Certrhcate disclose that he has suffered a ; I ; : i 1; i I I injuries. trx.A6 is Salary Certihcate and Ex.A7 is Leave [,etter. All these documents have established that the petitioner has sustained injuries in the. accident and took treatment and suffered mental agony and loss of income. However, the learned Tribunal after considering all the aspects have awarded an amount of Rs.23,0O0/- with interest @7o/o per annum from the date of filing of the petition till date of deposit.

13. It is also pertinent to statc that the respondent/ petitioner has not preferred any appeal for enhancement of compensation and not even made any efforts before this Court to decide their case. As there are no merits in lhe appeal filed by the Appellant/ Insurance Company, this Court is of the considered opinion that the appeal is devoid of merit and substance and liable to be dismissed.

14. In the result, the Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. sD/:lil'SRIFARI; --- UTY REGISTRAR. //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER 'l . The Chairman, [Vlotor Accidents Claims Tribunal (V Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge (Mahila Court)-XIX Addl. Chief Judge City Criminal Court) at Hyderabad. (With records)

2. Two CD CoPies To, ffi,- PB i ilE o !a 1O SEP zffi (.j .J :( 2 DRAFTS HIGH COURT DATED: 1710212025 JUDGMENT+DECREE MACMA.No.1405 of 2014 DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS ( (, IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THESTATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI MOTOR AC CIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1 405 0F 2014 Between: United lndia lnsurance Co Vengalraonagar, Hyderabad-3g time Policy. Ltd, rep by its Divisional Manager,H.No.2/A. -iif; (Policy No.050 so) I 31 to 1 3t 1 6 toooroSotgir sd6 AND 1 2 ...AppellanUR-2 fajesh Kumar Rana, S/o.Kumar Chines Cook, Metro Fat Food Centre !!oL!,t_qOgt Ameen, S/o.Shaik lmam, Aged Major Not Known R/o.8-36_ 165181 5, Erragadda, Hyderabad. R2-Life for default vide co.dt.20l09i1 .1 Respondents/ Petitioner & R-1 Appeal filed Under Section 173 of [\rtotor Vehicres Act,19B8 against the order and decree in M.V-o.p.No. 14o5 of 2014 dated.15.04.2008 on the rirE oiite Cor.t ot the chalrman' Motor Accidents_ craims Tribunar (v Addr. Metroporitan s;;;", - Judge(Mahita Court)-XtX Addt. Chief Judge City Criminat Court) ,i HVJ"*L"O. . This appeal coming on,for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Tribunar and ttre materiar [rper." in tre rr,rvoflano upon hearing the arguments of SRr N.rvoHANKRrsHNA, Advocate toi tn" npp"rirnt and NONE APPERAED, Advocate for the Respondent No.1. This court doth Order and Decree as follows: 1'ThattheNilotorAccidentCivilMiscellaneousappealbeandherebyis dismissed.

2. rhal save as aforesaid, the decree of the Tribunal Shall stands confirmed in all other resPects; and

3. That there be no order as to costs in this appeal' SD/- N SRIHARI, DEPUW REGISTRAR, //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Chairman, ,4otor Accidents Claims Tribunal (V Addl Metropolitan sessions Judge (tr/ahila court)-XlX Addl. chief Judge city criminal court) at Hyderabad. 2. Two CD Copies PB uy / HIGH COURT DATED: 1710212025 JUDGMENT+DECREE MACMA.No.1405 ot 2014 2 DRAFTS DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS 0r) t,