The High Court · 2025

: Sri K. Jagathpal Reddy Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 : Sri N. J. Sunil Kumar The Court delivered the following: I' HON,BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA lI;ISHETTY M.A.C.M.A.No. 188 of 20l5 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed aggrieved b1, the avgard dr ed 3O.08.2014, passed in O.P.No.44 I of 2072 by the Motor Ve 'ricle Accidents Claims Tribunal cum - X Additional Chief Judge , ,)ity Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short, 'the Tribunal').

2. Heard Sri K.Jagathpal Reddy, learned cc -rnse1 for the appellant/claimant an cl Sri N.J.Sunil Kumar, lear r ed counsel for the respondent No.2/lnsurance Compary. Perused r I e rt-.cord

3. Brief facts leadirrg to filing of the present apl):al are that on

22.O1.2OI2 at about O8.00 p.m., while the claimar I u,as travelling as piilion rider on a motor cycle bearing No.AP 1 AJ 3067 from Ghatkesar to Hvderaberd and u'hen the", reached ll rilr,r'av Gate in front of Gurukul College, one Bajaj Pulsar bearing N( .AP 3 AT 5522 (herein after referred to as 'offending vehicle'), carr: in rash and negligent manner u'ith high speed in opposite directi, .n and dashed the motorcycle, AS a result. the claimant fell dou - and received grievous bleeding injuries to his right leg and oth I parts of the body. The claimant shifted to Gandhi Hospital, Sec-l rderabad and thdreafter, he was admitted ir-r L. K. Hospital, Malkzr-ig iri ior further I ) u'o'c'tt'''"'trt 'flit'ts treatment and underu'ent several surgeries including ORIF with interlocking nail Rt Tibia fixation and cancellous bone grafting'

4. The police, Ghatkesar, Rangareddy District registered a case in Crime No.2 I of 2072 for the offence uncler Section 337 of IPC agarnst the offending vehicle'

5.Theclaimanthasfiledo.P.No.44lof2ol2beforetheTribunal seeking Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the accident.

6. Respondent No.1/ou'ner of the oflendirrg vehicle remained ex- parte before the Tribunal. Respondent No'2/lnsurance Company has filed counter denying the averments made in the claim petition' including age, avocation and earnings of the claimant' It is contended that driver of the offending vehicle did not possess valid and effective driving licence as on the date of accident and therefore, the Insurance Company, is not liable to pay any compensation and that the accident has taken place due to negligence of the claimant and he finally prayed to dismiss the petition' 7 Based on the aforesaid pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues: /_.\-1. J , 1.('.r1. l.\'o.188 ol 2015 " a) Whethcr the plended accident hod occurred rcs I ting in iniuies to lhe petitioner Ch.Santosh due to rash and neglirlt't t drit'ing of tlte molor uehicle (Pulsar bcaring registration No.AP O3 ,. 5522) bg its diuer? b) so, ot what qu entum and uhat is the liabitit!, ol the re's1 < tclents? c) Whether the petitioner is entitled to anA com[),' satton artd, if To what relief.t

8. Belbre the Tribunal, to substantiate the clain on behalf of the claimant PWl to PW4 were examined and Exs I trr Al() marked. On behalf of respondent No.2/lnsuranct Oompanl , no ne '{'as examined, hor.r.ever, Ex.B 1/cop5' of insurit lce polic]' was marked

9. Thc Tribunal. on due appreciation ol oral . r cl clocumentarv evidence placed on record, uide order dated 30-08 i 014. l-ras partl-r allowed the claim petition and awarded a surl Rs. 1,57,200/ along n'ith interest at the rate of 7.5'% per annum. , .ggrieved by the same, the claimant has filed the present appeal for :nhancement of compen satlon

10. Learned counsel for the claimant had con t 'nded that the Tribunal erred in reducing disability from 3004, o 1O%, though PW3/doctor has issued Ex.A8/disability certili ilte; that the Tribunal was failed to award compensation toward I transportation, pain and sufferings, attendant charges etc; that thc nterest granted :l LN.7' J Irl..,l. C.,tt-.,|-.\: o. I ll8 of 2 0 I 5 by the Tribunal is meager and the Tribunal ought to have granted interest at the rate of 11 to l2ok. He specifically contended that the Tribunal ought to have considered the certificate issued by the doctor, though he did not treated the claimant' contra, learned Standing Counsel

11. Per respondent/ Insurance Company had contended that on due consideration of oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the Tribunal has rightly au'arded just and proper compensation of Rs.1,57,200/-andthesameistiabletobedismissed.Itisfurther contendedthatthedisabilitycertificatehasnotbeenissuedbythe Medical Board and it has been issued by the Doctor, \'ho has not treated the claimant. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly considered only 1O% disability as against 307o given by the doctor' He finally contendedthattheappellantfailedtopointoutanyillegalityor irregularity in the award passed by the Tribunai' Therefore' the present appeal is liable to be dismissed' Consideration: 72. It is admitted fact that the claimant met with accident on 22.01.2012 while proceeding on motorcycle bearing No'AP 11 AJ 3o67. According to the claimant, the rider of the olfending vehicle came in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the LNA, J | ..1.C.lI.A.,No.l88 ttf 2015 claimant, because of which, he has sustained fr a ;ture injuries on ) his right leg. He has unciergone treatment inciudi rg surgery in the private hospitals and thereby, he has also lost earr ing capacity. The Tribunal, taking into consideration the material I laced on record, came to a conclusion that the accident occurred ('1 account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending r ehicle.

13. A perusai of the record discloses that the pt:' itioner placed on record the disability certificate/Ex.A8 issued by tht doctor, r'i,ho was examined as PW3 and as per which, the disabili:' ' of the claimant \vas assessed at 30%. However, the Tribur al, taking into consideration the fact that the certificate was not i ;sued by Medical Board and also considering the fact that the samt' nas given by the Doctor, u,ho has treated the claimant only as oll o ut patient, has considered only l0% as disability. The TribuntL has considered income of the petitioner as Rs.6,OO0/- per montll based on salary certificate issued by the employer of the claimar t, rvho u'as also examined as PW4. PW2/doctor, who treated th petitioner, has categorically stated in his evidence that the petitior er has sustained one fracture injury to right leg. The Tribunal, 1u11' takrng into consideration the oral and documentary evidence >Laced on record, has come to a conclusion that the claimant is etl - tled to total sum of Rs. I ,57,2OO l'. \ \ \I \ - 6 I-,\A, J | 1.,-1.C.It 1.,.1. l'o. I 88 0f 2015 11. With regard to specific contention raised by the claimant that the Tribunal ought to have consiclered the disability certificate issued by PW3 / doctor in entirety and ough t to have considered disability at 3oo/o instead of rovo, it is an admitted fact that the doctor, who issued disability certificate has not treated the claimant and therefore, the Tribunal has rightly considered the disability at 10% instead of 3o%o given by the doctor. It is also admitted fact that entire treatment was covered under Arograsree.

15. On perusal of the record and the contentions put forth by learned counsel for the appellant, in consiriered opinion of this court, the appeal is devoid of a,y merits and rurther the appelrant lailed to point out any illegality or irregurarity in the au'ard passed by the Tribunal. Thus, the appeal fails and accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending misceilaneous petitions, if anr., shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/- N. SRIHARI DEPUTY REGISTRAR @ SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Cum-X Additionat Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. (With records) 2. One CC to Sri K. Jagathpal Reddy, Advocate IOPUC] 3. One CC to Sri N. J. Sunil Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies BGV/DL k- HIGH COURT DATED:10/01/2025 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.188 of 2015 -- -: '-:-''-- .. $E:,, zi. ) .,.-) ,C .-i r / 1 '1)51;i,5r{"'l- \i .}l .' ,.| 't'; )' DISMISSING THE APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS v IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 188 OF 2015 Between: Ch. Santosh, S/o Ramulu, Aged 37 years, Occ Private Service, R/o Block No. 19, Qtr No. 6, I\ilCH Colony Amberpet, Hyderabad. ...AppellanUPetitioner AND

1. T.Bhanu Teja, S/o T. Prudhvi Raj, Aged fvlajor, Occ Service, R/o H.No. 13-6-600144lFOl1, PK Layout TIRUPATI-5'17501, Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh State.

2. National lnsurance Company Limited, Rep by its Divisional Manager DO No. lll, lV Floor Suryalok Complex, SD Road, Secunderabad-5O00O.3 ... Respondents/Respdts Appeal filed under Section 173 of [,4otor Vehicle Act, against the Order and Decree dated 30.08.2014 in O.P. No. 441 of 2012 on the file of the court of the Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Cum-X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, 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 K. Jagathpal Reddy, Advocate for the appellant and Sri N. J. Sunil Kumar, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the appeal be and hereby is dismissed; 2. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal //TRUE COPY// Sd/. N, SRIHARI ]:PUTY REGISTRAR c SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Chairman l/otor Accident Claims Tribunal CL r r-X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. (With records)

2. Two CD Copies BGV/DL g HIGH COURT DATED:10/01/202s DECREE MACMA.No.188 of 2015 DISMISSING THE APPEAL WTHOUT COSTS !.