The High Court · 2025

Judgment

When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the appellant had represented that MACMA.Nos .222, 27 I and, 2ZS of 2015 preferred by the appellant, which are arising out of the same accident, were dismissed by the Division Bench of this court uide order dated 24.01 .2024 and that this matter is also squarely covered by the above judgment. Therefore, present Appeal is also liable to be dismissed.

2. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant, the present Appeal is dismissed by following the judgment of the Division Bench of this court in MACMA.Nos.227, 271 and 275 of 2O15, dated 24.01.2024. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if aly, shall stald closed \ To //TRUE COPY// S d/. T. TIRUMALA DEVI ASSISTTII{T REGISTRAR 0CTION OFFICER '1. The chairman, Motor Accident claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional Metrooolitan Sessions.Judge-, V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Juage, [/ahili Ciu?_ilm_ XIX Additional Chief Judg.e, City Criminal Court at Hyderibad, lWitn-CecoGl

2. One CC to SRl. KOTA SUBBA RAO, Advocate tOpUCl 3. Two CD Copies @) Pr I

HIGH COURT DATED: 1010'112025 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.411of 2015 t oR T t1 E 1 "l 24 APN (f, f' .d. o * o o * DISMISSING THE MACMA a HONOTJRABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN AND HONOI RABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA M.A.C,M.A N os.227 27I AND 275 0F 20ts COMNION .IfIDGMI.-N1': ( Per Hon'ble Sri Justice K. fakshman) Heard Mr. Kota Subba B!ao, rearned Standing counsel for the appelrant and Mr- Ananthula Ravinder, learned counser for respondent (s) - craimant (s).

2. M.A.C.M.A. No.227 of 2015 is filed by M/s. Narional Insurance Company Limired challenging the award and decree dated 07.0g.2014 in o'P'No'1998 of 2006 passed by the v Additionar Metroporitan Sessions Judge tMahila court) - cunr - XIX Additional chief Judge, ciry criminar courts ar. I{yderabad, fixing liability on the Insurance Company alone.

3. Whereas. M.A.C.M.A. No;271 of 201-5 is filetl by rhe very same Insurance Company cha,enging the award and dec.r'ee dated 07.0ri.20r4 passed in O.P. No. 1999 of 2006, while M.A.C.M.A. No.275 of 20t5 is filed challenging the award and decree dated 07.0g.20l4.passed in o.I,. No.2000 of 2006

4. Respondent No.6 and the appellant herein, owner ad Insurer of the crime vehicre i.e., Tata rndica Tax car bearing registration No.RJ 26lTo 390, --f,r+ >-t I &/ 'l KTJ & SKSJ MACMA No 227 ol20li & batch 4 are arrayed as respondent Nos.l and 2, respectively, in all the aforesaid ops, while the respondents are the claimants.

5. o.P. No.l998 of 2006 (relating to MACMA No.227 of 2015) is fired by the wife, children and parents of the deceased - yasala Naresh Kumar against the appellant and respondent No.6 herein claiming an amount of Rs.80,00,000/- towards compensation for the death caused in road accident on l6-i0.2005 at 4.30 P.M. near sikhwali vilrage, Laxmangadh, Rajasthan state. As against the said claim, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.5 1,76,5001 as compensation with interest @ 6% per annum thereon from the date of petition till its realization.

6. O.P. No.199 of 2006 (relating to MACMA No.27l of 2015) is filed by the wife of the deceased claiming an amount o1Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs only) towards compensation for the injuries she received in the aforesaid road aceident.- As.aga'inst the said-claim, the Tribunal awaitled an amount of R-s.4,00,000/- as compensation with interest @ 6% per annum thereon from the date of petition till its realization.

7. O.P. No.2000 of 2006 (relating to MACMA No.275 of 2015) is filed by the claimant - N. Sivaram @ sivaranraiah crairning an a,rounr or Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) towards compensation for the injuries Ire received in the aloresaid accidenr. As against the said claim, the Tribunal 1 KLJ & SKSJ MACMA No 227 0f20t5 & b&rc[ awarded an amount or' Rs.3,24,963/- as compensation with interest @ 6%o per annum thereon from the date of petition till its realization.

8. Challcnging the liability fastened on the Insurance Company as well as the quanturn ol compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the Insurance Company filed the all rhese appeals.

9. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter- refer.red to as arraycd they werc arrayed in the OPs.

10. The case of the claimants in the aforesaid Ops is as under: i) The deceased - Yasala Naresh Kumar along with his wifc and daughter (claimants in oP Nos l998 and 1999 of 2006) and other family fi-iends, namely Mr- Shivaram lclaimanr in oP No.2000 of 2006) and Raju wenr to Jaipur from Ilydcrabatl to visit Salsrrr Hanuman Temple. After bomptetion ol'darshan, they were returning ro .larpur by engaging a local raxi car bearing registration No-RJ 26lTo i90. when they reached near sikhwali village, at about 4.30 P.M-, the driver of tlrt' said car drove the same in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed against a bus bearing regis.rration No.RJ l0/pAo l4g coming in opposite direction, due to which, the deceased - yasala Naresh Kumar, Raju and the driver of the said car died on the spot, whereas the claimants received gricvous injuries. -1 1 KI..J & SKSJ MACMA No.22? of20l5 & batrh ii) The deceased is a business .man and having M/s. Vaishnavi Traders, bunny bags and poultry feeds, Revathi Agro Farms and also getting rents from ! l.rouses and other business of paddy, mirchi and wheat etc. The deceased is an Income Tax Assessee and his annual income was. Rs.8,06,430/- for the year 2OO4-05 and Rs.3,53,6231- for the year 2005-06. Therefore, the claimants in O.P.No.1998 of 2006 being the wife, children and parents of the deceased claimed an amount of Rs.80.00 lakhs as compensation. iii) The claimant in O.P.No.l999 of 2006, the wife of the deceased, received grievous injuries in the aforesaid accident. She was given first aid and thereafter shifted to the hospital at Jaipur and thereafteq she retumed to I{yderabad by flight and admitted in KIMS Hospital, Hyderabad. Thus, she claimed an amount of Rs.20.00 lakhs as compensation. iv) The claimant in O.P. No.2000 of 2006 received grievous injuries in ihe said hospital. He was given first aid and thereafter shifted to Jaipur hospital and from there, he returned to Hyderabad by flight, went to his native placc I)hannavararn. Then went to Chennai and adrnitted in PDR l{ospital, MOIT I{ospital and spent huge amount towards flight charges and treatment. Thus, he claimed an amount of Rs.10.00 lakhs as compensation 1 l. The lnsurance Company opposed the aloresaid clhirns, mainly contendins as under: 5 KIJ & S(SJ MACMA No.227 of20r5 & barclt i) The police regisrered a case against the driver of opposite bus, which shows that due to negrigence ofbus driver only, the accident had occurred, but not due to rash and negligenr driving of the driver oithe carloffentring vehicle. The police, after conducting investigation onry registered a case against the driver of the opposite bus. Therefore, the claimants ought to have claimed the compensation against the owner and insurer of the bus, but not the car.. In view of the:same, the Insurer of the car is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants and, therefore. sought to dismiss the claims. .

12. On considcration of entire evidence, both oral and docurnentary, the Tribunal awarded the crnrpensations in favour of the clairnants in the rnanner mentioned above fastening riability on the owner ard insurer of the offending vehicle/car I3. Challenging the same, the insurance company filed the present appeals on the following grounds: l- It. The accident did not occur due to the fault ofthe driver ofthe offending vehicle/car; The Tribunal oughr to liave fixed the liabilitl, on the driver, insurer of the bus, ouner and ll1. The claimants o,ght to lrave impleaded the driver, owner anrl insu_r.er of the bus; and (r KIJ & SKS,J MACMA No.217of 2015& b.rch The Tribunal faited to appreciate the fact that.the claimants have not filed any documentary proof to show the income of the deceased as well the claimants and, therefore, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on higher side. ln view ofthe same, the appeals filed by it are liable to be allowed.

14. Whereas, leamed counsel appearing fot the claimants would contend that the Tr-ibunal awarded the compensation on consideration or the entire evidence anrl there is no error in the impugned awards.

15. In view of the aforesaid rival submissions, we have perused the entire material available on record i) PW.1 is the injured claimant in O.P' No-2000 of 2006; PW.2 and PW'3 is the sarre person i.e., Smt. Yasala Jyothi, wife of the deceased in O'P' No.1998. PW.4 is the claimant in o.P. No.200l of 2006, the daughter of the deceased. PWs.5 to 8 are the Medical officers who treated the claimants. t)Ws.9. l0 and 12 arcthe persons who accompanied the injured claimants and rleccased in flight from Jaipur to Hyderabad. PW.ll is the Chartered Account, who looked after the accounts of the deceased during his life time. RW.l and RW.3 is the same person i.e., J. Suresh chandra Mohan examined twice and he is the.Administrative officer of Insurance company, while RW.2 is the Sub- Inspector ol Laxmanghad Potice Station. 7 KI-J & SKSJ M,{CMA No.227 of 20 t 5 & borch ii) In this case, pws.l and 2 are the .eye-wihess to the accident. According to them. rher urong with deceased, Buvaneshwari and others went to Jaipur io visit Han.lnan Tempre on 16.10.2005 and after completion of Darshan I while they were reruming in the offending vehicle. when they reaihed near Sikhwali village at atrout 4.30 p.M., its driver drove the same in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and lost c.onhol over the car and dashed against the bus coming i, opposite direction.. As a result, they received grievous injuries apart frorn the deceased and other inmates of the offending vehicle. 'However. the driver ol'rhe offending vehicle and rhe deceased died on the spot. iii) The evidence of pws. l and 2, eye-witnessei to the accident categorically deposed that the driver of the offending vehicle drove the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner at high speed on account of which he lost control over the vehicle and dashed against the bus coming in opposite direcrion. In racr. they have arso recei*ed grievous injuries in the said .accident. PWs.3 and 4, wrro are injured clhimants in o.p. Nos.r999 of 2006 and 2001 df 2006 also <icposed in the same rines. During cross-examination, conaa wQ ericited from the said witnesses by leamed counsel appearing .nothine on behalf of Insurrrncc company. However, rearned counscr for Insurance conrpany relying o, E.x.Al and A2 - certifred copies of FIR and charge sheet and the evidence or rtw.2 - Sub-rnspector of porice, wourd contend that the 8 KIJ & SKSJ MACMA No:27 of20l5 & barcn to rash and negligent dliving ofthe driver ofthe bus' owner aod insurer of the bus alone are accident had occurred due but not the car and' therefore' the driver' liable to pay compensation and not the insurer of the car iv) ln view of the above' the offending vehicle aPart from tireY are the best Persons to sPe occumed' TheY categorical it is clear that PWs.l and 2 were travelling tn other inmates and the deceased persons' and the manner in which accident ak about the fault accident had occurred due to RW.2 is the llY dePosgd that the investigatton' corroborattotl rash and negligeirt driving on the part of the offending vehicle/car' Sub-InsP ector of Police and he reached the spot only after receiPt ofinforma[on - FIR was registered after receiPt of the infottnatton about the accident' Ex'Al charge sheet filed after comPletion of rvith regard to the accident and Ex'A2 eye witnesses ls tn of PW.l and PW 2 - Thcrefote, the evidence with each other and it is tplievable' e is not the competent witness to prove the ras driver'of either of the vehicle as he is only the would be useful with regard to Insurance ComPanY' At the most, his evidence nhined therein' Therefore' the issuance of policy and terms and conditions co Insurer that the accident had contention ol learned counsel for the appe the Part of the driver of the bus occurred due to rash and negligent drivrng on and not on the part of the driver of the car and that the driver' owner and insurer RW.2 is not an eye=wimess' h and negligent driving of the gfflss1 qf the Administrative H I ,1 l'. 9 KI-J & SKSJ MACit\ No.227of20t5 & bnch of the bus alone are riabre to pay compensation is unsustainabre. once the Tribunal on considering the ovidence, both oral .and documentary, gave a specific finding that thc,ccident was occurred due to rash and negrigent driving of the car' The said firxring is supported by reasons. It is apt to note that the Motor vehicres Act is a beneficiar piece of legisration to provide sorace of just compensation to tlre family of the victim or injured persons. Even, when hvo views are possibre. rhc view which is beneficiar to the clainrant is to be considered. Thus, the decisions relied upon by reamed counsel for the appelrant - Insurer in Machindranath Kernath.Kasar v. D.S. Mylarappai, T.O. Anthony v. Karvarnanr. apSRTC v. K. Hemalatha3, Oriental Insurance co. Ltd. v. Meena variyar a and Machindranath Kernath Kasar v. D.S.Mylarapps are inapplicable to the present case.

16. The next conlcnrion raised bfleamed counsel for thc appellant _ Insurer that the amounts awarded by the Tribunar to the claimants are on higher side and the Tribunar has not considered the inconre of the deceased properry while computing the compcnsation. i) Coming to the compensatlon awarded in O.p.No.199g of 2006 (MACMA No.227 of 201 5), the Tribunal awarded ar amount of Rs.5 1,76,500/_ I

2. ,} 2008 ACJ 1964 (2008) 3 SCC 748 2008 (5) ALD I l6 (SC) 2007 ACt t284 (2008),13 scc re8 I l0 K!,J & SXSJ MACMA No.227 of 201' & batcb as compensation to the claimants' wife' children and parents of the deceased' In this case, it is the contention of the claimants that.during the life tirne of the deceased, he was doing business by running lv{/s' Vaishnavi Traders' Bunny Bags & Poulky feeds, Revathi Agro Farms and also getting rents from houses and other business of, paddy, mirchi and wheat etc' and thereby used to eam Rs.50,000l per month' Claimants have frled Exs'19 and 20 - lncome Tax returns for the years 2004-05 and 2005-06 and Ex'A2l - shopping complex a I o - incnme tax rehrms for the year 2004-05 shows property document. Ex'Al9 - income tax rehrms ihe annual income of the deceased as Rs'8'06'433i-' while Ex'A20 shows the annual income of the deceased as Rs'3'53'8201- for the year 2005-06' They are the authenticated documents' The claimants have. also examined PW'l1' the Chartered Accountant. who was looking after the accounts of the deceased' Learned Tribunal on consideration of the said evidence arrived the annual income of the deceased at Rs.5,80,000/- out -of which' 30% was deducteo the net income towards expenditure and rernaining amount of Rs'4'06'000/- of the deceased per annum' As per the decision in Sarla Veima r'' Delhi Traniport Corporation6, li4th o[ the annual income i'e' Rs'1'01'500/- was deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased during his life time and the remaining amount of Rs.3,04,500/- was considered as ross of .as ra[' dependencY bY the Tribunal' n. (2009) 6 scc lll I -_1,. 1I Kl-j & s(sJ MACMA No.227of20l5 & batch ii) As per the eviclence available on record, the age of the deceased was considered as 30 years as on the-.late of accident. Accordingly, multiplier '17' was taken and applying rhc same to the annual income of the deceased arrived at Rs.51,76,500/- as the loss of dependency to which the clairnants are entitled. Accordingly, the same u'as awarded to the claimants. In fact, the claimants are also entitled certain amounts under different heads u hich were not awarded by the Tribrrnal iii) Considering the entire evidence, both or al and documentary, the l'ribunal awarded the aforesaid compensation to the claimants and there is no error in it to interfere by this Court. In view ofthe sarne, there is no error in awarding the compensation of Rs.51,76,5001- to the claimants as compensation for the.death ofthe deceased and, therefore, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company vide MACMA No.227 of 2015 is liabtc to be disnrissed. . 17. Now, coming to the compensation awarded irr O.p.No.l999 of 2006 (MACMA No.27l of 2015), the Tribunat awarded iur amounr o1 Rs.4,00,000/- as against the claim of Rs.20,00,000/- towards compensation for the injuries received by the claimant. Out of Rs.20,00,000/- an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- was claimed towards pcrmanenr disabiliry. To prrlve the same, rhe claimant relied upon the evidence of PW.7 and Exs.Al,2 and 436. It is not in dispute that the claimant had received injuries in the accidcnt and rhc sarne is evident I l I2 Kt,J & SXSJ MACMA NO 227 Of20IJ & from Exs-Al and 2 and arso Ex.A27. Though the craimant preads. that she l sustained permanenr disabirity, no documentary evidence is praced to that effect PW.T, the doctor, who treated the craimant, did not speak on the said aspect. i) It is also not in dispute that immediately afler the accident. the claimant was taken to the hospital at Jaipur for treatment and from there to Indraprastha Apollo Hospitar at Derhi. Thereafter, she came back to Hyderabad and took the treatmenr in KrMS Hospital as inpatient from 1g. 10.2005 to

29.10.2005 as per Fxs.Al 3 anrr 27 to 30, medicar bills. The claimanr travelled ail the way.from Jaipur to Hyderabad by flight for which certainry she must have incurred certain amounts towards transportation. The Tribunal considering the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, awarded an amount of Rs'1,50,000/- towards pain and suffering; Rs.1,00,000/- towards extra nourishment and medicines and Rs-1,50,000/- towards transpelulion charges including flight charges of ouc attendanr making a totar amount of Rs.4,00,000/- i as compensation. The claimanrs did not file any appeal challenging the said award. 'ii) As discussed above, the Tribunal has rightly awarded the aforesaid amount of Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation to the claimant for the injuries, she sustained in the aforesaid accident, a.d there is no error in it to interfere by this { I i I t 1l xl.,J & sKs.J IIACMA No ,, of20l5 & barch Court. Thus, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company vide MACIvIA No.27l of 2015 is liable to be dismissed.

18. With regard to O P. No.2000 of 2006 (MACIMA No.275 oi 2015), as stated above,, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.3,24,963/- as cornpensation as against the claim of Rs.i0,00,000/- for the injuries he received in the aforesaid accident. i) To prove the claim, the claimant himself exarnined as pW. l It is also not in dispute that the claimant received injuries in the accidcnt. The claimant ' also examined PWs.5 and (r. the doctors, who treated hirn at Chennai. pWs.5 I and 6 deposed with regard to the injuries sustained by the claimant and the treatment which they have given to the claimant. Hor.r,evcr, they did not depose about .the disability suflered by the claimant. During cross-exarninarion, pw.5 spccifically admitted that there is no affect to the vision due to the injury and fu.riher adsltted that he has notmeationed any disability in -ExA)O. pW.6, 'another doctor also did not depose with regard to the disability suft-ered by the claimant. Thus, on perusal of the said evidence, it is clear that the clairnant did not suffer any disability. ii) However, as per the evidence ofpWs.l, 5 and 6 and Exs.A l0 to Al3, the claimant received grie'ous injuries and that he had raken treatnlent as in patient in Governmenr Irospital at Jaipur for the period tiom 17.10.2005 to [-- I,I Kl-.,& sKs,, MACMA No ?2, of20!5 & baLh 18 i0.2005 and also taken treatment as in-patient in Santokba Duriabhiji E Memorial-cum-Medical Research Institute, Jaipur from tS.IO.ZOOS to

25.10.2005 and later he had taken treatment in MOIT Hospital, Chennai from

28.10.2005 to 03.11.2005 and thereafter again he has taken treatment as in patient in PDR Orthopedic Hospital at T.Nagar, Chennai from 03.11.2005 to

09.11.2005 and also fiom 03.10.2006 to 05.10.2006 in Shanker Netralaya IJospital, Chennai, the Tribunal considered the pain and suffering and accordingly, an amount of Rs. I ,00,000/- was awarded towards pain and sulfering and an amount of Rs. 1,52,893/- towards extra nourishment and nteclicines. iii) The Tribunal also considered the lact that after the accident, the clainrant was shifted to nearby local Govemment Hospital, later admitted in a private hospital in Jaipur and thereafter he tvas shifted to Delhi and again from Delhi to Hyderabad by flight. Ex.A35 shows that he spent an ar.nount of Rs.21,035/- towards flight charges fiom Jaipur to Hyderabad. The.claimant needs assistance of one attendant in order to shift him.from the place of incident to Hyderabad and thereafter to Chennai and accordingly granted an amount of Rs.42,07 0l - towards hansport charges. iv) The Tribunal also considered the loss of income observing that the claimant was working as employee in Bida Institute of Scientific Research at I5 KI,,J & SKSJ MAC\IA No 227 0f20t5 & bar.h Jaipur on a monthly salary of Rs.r5,2g0l- and due to the accide,r he was constrained to take bed rest for a period of six months for which he rost his eamings. Trrough the pctitioner deposed in his evidence that he was gctting monthly salary of Rs.15,280/-, he himserf averred in the claim petition that he was getting rnonthly salary of Rs.10,000/-, which is contrary to his evidence and, therefore, considering the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant, the Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.30,000A towards Ioss of earnings for a period of three (03) months (r! Rs. 10,000/- per monrh Thus, the Tribunal in all awarded an amount ol Rs.3,24,g35l- as compensation as againsr the irainr of 10,00,000/- for the injuries he sustained in the aforesaid road accident. v) considering the evidence of.pws.l,5 and 6 and Exs.ArO to Al3, medical bills' the Tribunar has rightly awarded the aforesaid amount of Rs.3'24,9351- as compensation and there is no error in it to int.rfere by this court' Thus, the appear fired by the Insurance comilany vide MACMA No.275 of 2015 is liable to be dismissed.

19. As far as rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal @ 6,,/oper annum on .the respective arnounts is concerned, the same is also in tune with the pronouflcements of thc Hon'bre Supreme court and docs nor warrant any interlerence by this court. Therefore, the rate of interest @t 6?,o per annum is also confimred. I I t ': _-.....j...!-.:: .:t*! __ - l6 u K-LJ & SKS'j MAClvtA No 227 of20t5 & barch

20. In the light of the aforesaid discussion' all these appeals fail and accordingly the same are dismissed confirming the awards and decrees dated g98' 1999 and 2000 of 2006 passed by leamed V ()7.08.2014 in O.P'Nos'1! Adrlitional Metropolitan Sessions Judge (Mahila Court) - cum - XIX Additional Chief Judge, City Criminal Courts at Hyderabad' The appellant - lnsurance Company shall pay balance amount awarded by the Tribunal within one (01) .ronth from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. However, there shall bc no order as to costs' As a sequel, miscellaneous applications' if any' pending in the appeals ' shall sland closed' K. I,AKSHI\{AN' J K. SUJANA, J 24th JantarY,2024 Mgr l IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO:411 OF 2015 Between: National lnsurance Co. Ltd., Rep by its Regional Manager, 7th floor, Moghul Courts, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. ...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT No.2 AND

1. Yasala Bhuvaneshwari , D/o. Late. Naresh Kumar, Minor, Aged 12 yrs, Occ: Student, Rep.by next Mother. Yasala Jyothi Wo.Late.Naresh Kumar, Aged 36 Yrs, Occ Business, R/o. H.No.16-09 -817132, Saraswathi Nilayam, Sarojini Nagar Colony, Old Malakpet, Hyderabad. RESPONDENT/PETITIONER 2. Sh.Shambhu Sisngh, S/o.Ganapathi, Aged Major, Occ: Car Owner, R/o. Villa Rohit, Post Jhundwa, Tq Uniasa, Dist Tonk, State Rajasthan ...RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor vehicles Act., against the Judgment and decree, O.P.No.2001 of 2006 dated 07.08.2014 on the file of the chairman, Motor Accident claims Tribunal-cum- V Additional Metropolitan sessions Judge (Mahila Court)-cum-XlX Additional Chief Judge City Criminal Courts at Hyderabad. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Court below and the material papers in the MVOP and upon hearing the arguments of SRI. KOTA SUBBA RAO, Advocate for the appellant and None Appeared for the Respondents. l 7 This Court Doth Order and Decree as follows: '1. That the MACMA be and hereby is dismissed, 2. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal //TRUE COPY// Sd/- T. TIRUMALA DEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR To E rION OFFICER -.--2

1. The chairman, Motor Accident graims Tribunar-cum-V Additionar Metroooritan sessions Judoe. V Additionar Metropotitan- sessiJnJ ir,ig'",'il;hirl'a;ffi ;? - XtX AdditionalCrrief Luage, City Crifii,i"r'C6r.t J'rlyderabad. 2. Two CD Copies Pr I I / I' B'f+39,'.T'1 tzozs DECREE MACMA.N o'411 of 2015 DISMISSING THE MACMA ^