Immedi,ately after the accident, the claimant was shifted to S vs Hospital, Kachiguda, where he was admitted as an inpatient.

Petition underSection 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased To Stay of all further proceedings including the execution of the Judgment and Decree, dated 02-01-2023 in MVOP NO: 28 of 2018 Passed by the MACT-XI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts at Hyderabad. ! : : -- --. Counsel for the Appellant : Sri V Sambasiva Rao Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Sri Kota Subba Rao The Court delil,ered the following: JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR M.A.C.M.A.No.9 OF 2O24 DATE: 23.L2.2O25 Between: National Insurance Company Ltd AND Afroz Bin Abubakar Dayani, Slo Abubakar, 28 years, Pvt. Employee, H.No.18-9-30/L2/S/ Alt, Chandrayanagutta, Hyderabad and two others. ...Appellant ...Respondents JUDGMENT Heard Sri V. Sambasiva Rao, learned counsel for the appellant, and Sri Kota Subba Rao, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The present appeal is filed by the appellant - National Insurance company Limited, assailing the order dated oz.oL.zoz3 passed in M.V.O.P.No.28 of 2018 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunat-cum-Xl Additiona! chief Judge, city Civil court, Hyderabad (for short, ,.the Tribunal'f), whereby the Tribunal allowed the ctaim petition and granted compensation of Rs.22,94,553/- with interest at 60/o p€,r annum from the date of filing of the petition titl realization, contending that the said award is illegal and arbitrary. t \ I \ I I i 2

3. The f,acts leading to the filing of M.V.O.P.No.2B of 2018 are that on L0.07.20L7 at about 1:30 o.ffi., the respondent/claimant left his house on his motor cycle bearing No.TS 11 EF 3523, pror:eeding towards Falaknuma. While he was taking a 'U' turn near Falaknurna Railway Bridge after observing traffic on both sides of the road, a lorry bearing No.AP 36 Y 3999 came from behind at high speed and dashed against his motorcycle. As a result, the claimant fell on the road and susl:ained grievous injuries, namely fracture of two ribs on the right side, right pelvic fracture, dislocation of right shoulder, head injury, and multiple injuries all over the body

4. Immedi,ately after the accident, the claimant was shifted to SVS Hospital, Kachiguda, where he was admitted as an inpatient. Subsequently, he was shifted to Owaisi Hospital, Kanchanbagh, and admitted in ttre NICU from 12.07.2017 to L7.O7.2018. Based on the said incident, Chandrayangutta Police Station registered a case in Crime No.176 of 2017 under Section 337 IPC against the lorry driver.

5. The claimant filed the petition before the learned Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.10,00,oo}/- under various heads for the injuries sustained in tlre accident. It was contended that prior to the accident, he was hale and healthy and was the sole breadwinner of his family. Due to the injuries, he suffered severe mental agony, financial loss, and was I i I I ; 3 -unable to work, thereby affecting his livelihood.

6. Before the Tribunal, respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained ex- parte. Respondent No.3, the appellant herein, filed a counter affidavit denying the claim. It was contended that respondent No.2 failed to furnish particulars of the policy, date, time, and place of the accident. It was fufther contended that, invoking the protection under Sections L47 and 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the appellant filed a petition under Section L7O of the Act to take all defenses available to the insured and to contest the case on all grounds apaft from those specified under Section L49(2) of the Act. Accordingly, the appellant prayed for dismissal of the petition.

7. Based on the pleadings, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues for consideration : Whether the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of crime vehicle i.e., Lorry bearing No.AP 36 Y 3999? ii. Whether the claimant is entitled for compensation? If so, to what extent and from whom? iii. To what relieP

8. On behalf of the claimant, P.W.1 to P.W.6 were examined and Exhibits A-1 to A-B were marked. In contrast, on behalf of the appellant- company, no witness was examined, and the only document produced -*'4 \ -r I I 4 was the cop'/ of the policy, marked as Ex.B-1.

9. The le:arned Tribunal, taking into consideration Ex.A-7 (original salary certil'icate) and Ex.A-4 (original disability certificate issued by P.W.5), wht:rein the disability of the claimant was assessed at 30o/o, awarded cornpensation of Rs.22, 94,5531- under various heads.

10. Learnt:d counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the claimant is rrot entitled to the compensation as awarded by the learned Tribunal anti that except the salary certificate, no other documentary evidence was produced to substantiate the income of the claimant.

11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the award passed by the learned Tribunal is just and reasonable, based on thr: evidence available on record. It was further contended that Ex.A7 is ther original salary certificate and is a relevant document, and therefore no interference is warranted. t2. Learnt:d counsel for the respondents further contended that during the cross-examination of P.w.1, suggestions were made only with regard to income and not with respect to employment or other particulars.

13. Learnr:d counsel for the respondents placed reliance on the judgments in Rahul v. National rnsurance co. Ltd. and anothef, | 2024 [5) ALD 1:t4 [SC) 444' \ -b 5 niiri Oi v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and othets,2 K. Ramya and others v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and anothef , Mohd, Afsar v' N. Laxmi Narayana and anothel and Afrin Begum @ Afreen and others v, Panratham and anothef ." L4. Learned counsel for the respondents further relied upon Rule 476 of the A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, which reads as follows: (6) "@ The ctaims Tribunat shalt obtain whatever information necessary from the Police, Medical and other authorities and proceed to award the ctaim whether the parties who were given notice to appear or not on the appointed date. The Ctaims Tribunal shatt proceed to award the claim on the basis of: (v) The nature of the treatment given by the Medical Officer who has examined the victim." \ \

15. I have given my earnest consideration to the pleadings, the I.. submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, and perused the entire record. 2 2023 ACI 595 3 2022 (6,) ALD 213 (SC) 4202s (r) ALD 164 (TS) s 2020 [6) ALD 619 (TS) 6

16. Admittedly, the occurrence of the accident is not in dispute. The learned Tribunal, based on the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 6 and Exs.A-1 to A- 8, particularly Ex.A-7 (salary certificate), awarded compensation of Rs.22,94,55=i/-.

17. In vievl of the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents, and considering that the Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial and social lruelfare legislation intended to provide just and reasonable compensatiorr to victims of road accidents, the provisions of the Act are required to be interpreted liberally to advance the object of the legislation raLher than to defeat it on technica! grounds.

18. Therefclre, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the award passed by the learned Tribunal and accordingly, the MACMA is dismissed. Tlrere shall be no order as to costs. Miscell:rneous applications, if any, pending in this Appeal shall stand closed. ANT //TRUE COPYI/ SECTION OFFICER To. l.TheCl.rairman,MotorAccidentClaimsTribunalcumXlAdditional Judge,citvtwii'Courtiatr-rvoeraoad(withrecords'ifany)

2. one c'l to' j'i v L*n'"iu3 huo' Advocate toPUCl 3. One CC to S"'i'fiot' S'OU" Rao' Advocate IOPUCI 4. Two CD CoPies Chief AS/SAw ; 7 I I :,,\il ' : :: =:l$r,:::&-4i i$.,* 'li: --l HIGH COURT DATED:2311212025 JUDGMENT MACMANo.9 of 2024 I \ ( c.TATE r \ tt$ lst C)o + r.--.1.1,,IiI DISMISSIl{G THE APPEAL G,e h* ': : .r: [ 3487 I IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 9 OF 2024 Between National lnsurance Company Ltd., Rep. by lt's Manager, T.P.HUB,5-8-568, 1st Floor, Jubilee Building, Abids, Nampally Station Road, Hyderabad. .AppellanURespt. No.3 in O.P., AND

1. Afroz Bin Abubakar Dayani, S/o. Abubakar, 28 years, Pvt. Employee, H.No 1 8-9-30/1 2l5l N 1, Chandrayanagutta, Hyderabad.

2. Md. Shareef, S/o. Mohd. Bawaudddin,55 lndiranagar, Hasannagar, Rajendranagar years, Driver, HNO. 7-6-1521114, (M), Rangareddy District. ...RespondenUPetitioner in O.P., a rJ Shaik Khaja, S/o. Shaik Abdul Khadeer, Major, Business, H.No. 19-4-2981111, Mir Sajar, Bahadurpura, Hyderabad. (Owner of Lorry NO. AP 36 Y 3999). ...RespondenURespt-l in O.P., ...RespondenURespt-2 in O.P., ...Respondents. Appea! filed under Section 173 of M.V.Act, against the Order and Decree dated 02-01-2023 passed in MVOP.No. 28 of 2O1B on the file of the court of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum Xl Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts at Hyderabad. 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 Sri V Sambasiva Rao, Advocate forlhe Appellant and Sri Kota Subba Rao for Respondent No.1 This Court dotlr Order and Decree as follows:

1. That thr> Motor Accident Civil [Vliscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is Dismissr;d; and

2. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. s SD/. A. SREENIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR /TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum Xl Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts at Hyderabad.

2. Two CD,3opies ASlSA \q- n HIGH COURT DATED:2311211r-025 DECREE MACMA.No.9 of 2024 DISMISSIING THE APPEAL u."{'h &6'