The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellants: Ms. G.JYOTHI KIRAN Counsel for the Respondents: -- M.A.C.M.A.No.1 397 of 2016 Appeal filed Under Sectron 173 of Motor Vehicles Act,1l i8 against the Order and decree in O.P.N0.838 of 2010 dated.26logl2015 on the f I of the Court of the Chairman Motor Accrdent Claims Tribunal-cum- lV Addi trnal District Judge Rangareddy District Between: Reliance General lnsurance Comp - Legal, Office at 4th floor, Sagar P any Ltd., Hyderabad 1ep. by its Manager laza, Abids, Hyderab:rr . ...Appella r URespondent No.2 AND

1. G. Sunitha, Rangareddy District, Wo Late G. Pratap I :ddy Age 33 years, Occ Housewife

2. Gaddampaly Mani Gowtham, S/o. Late G. Pratap Redc r Age 19 years, Occ Student. (R2 Declare as Major and to Oischarge the guarcii rn Vide Court Order Dt.09.08.2016 in MACMAMP.No .3282 of 20'161.

3. Gaddampaly Laxmi Prasanthi, D/o. Late G. Pratap Redri Age 18 years, Occ Student. (R3 Declare as Major and to Discharge the guardi; n Vide Court Order Ot.zO.12.2017 in MACMAMP.No.4536 of 2017).

4. Gaddampaly Advaitha, D/o. Late G. Pratap Reddy Age (r/ years, Occ Student Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are being minors Rep. by the r mother and natural guardian who is Respondent No. t herein.

5. Gaddampaly Vijayamma, W/0 Late Ramachandra Redc \ Age 60 years, Occ Housewife All R/o Flat No. 301, Venkatadrinilayam, Marg adarshni Colony, R. K. Puram, Ranga Reddy District.

6. P. Kurma Rao, Sio Mallesh, Aged Major, Occ Busrnes;, R/o Tandevalasa Village and l\ilandal. Srikakulam District -'532 185. Counsel for the Appellant: SRt A.RAMAKRTSHNA REDDy Counsel for the Respondents: MS G.JYOTHI KIRAN The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER -,Respondents IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TEL/\ IGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR RE )DY M.A.C.M.A.Nos.97 of 2019 and 1392 of 2Ol i DATE: 05.12.2O25 Between: Gaddampah. Sunitha and four others AND , ppellants Rt r pondents P. Kurma Rao and another COMMON JUDG MENT These 1wo appeals are being disposed of by this judgment, since M.A.C_M.A.No.9T of 2Ot9 ltlerl claimarrts. seekir-rg enhanccntcnl of thc compensl M.A.C. M.A. No. 1397 ol 2O16 filcd by the [nsurance ( arc directed against the v.rr). same order and dec-

26.09.2015 passcd in O.t).No.838 of 2010 by the (l Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-lV Additionr. common by the ion and ompany, e. dated rairman, District Judge, Ilanga Redciy Disrricr ([or short,,the Tribunal,,).

2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the p: .ties will be referred to as they were arraycd before the Tribunal. 2

3. The briet facts of the case are that on 19.05.2010 the deceased along with other two persons were travelling in Innova Car bearing No.Ap 2g Cts 74Zg frorn Orissa to Hyderabad and when they reached near Ampol Junction, Srikakulam Rural at about 6-00 am, the driver of a tipper bearing No.Ap 30 V 8631 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner with trigh speed and dashed thc Innova car, due to which the deccased recerved injuries and died on the spot. The police Srikakulam Rural also registered a case in Crime No.99 of 2010 undcr Scctions 304 A and 338 of IPC against the driver of the crime vehicle. Stating that the deceased was haie arrd healthy, he was practir:ing as an nd\,ocatc earning Rs.3O,0O0/- per month and he also used to get income of Rs.20,000/- per arlnum from the agricultural lands situated at Gaggalapally Village, Mahaboobnagar anC he uscd to contribute the same towards hrs family, the claimants, bcing the wife, children and mother of the deceased, filed the afor csaid claim petition before the Tribuna!, under Scction 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, lggg claiming compensation o[ Rs.4O,O0,O00/- for the death of the deceased.

4. Before the Tribunal, rcspondent No. 1 i.e., owner of the crime vehicle, remained ex parte. Respondent No.2-lnsurance Company contested the claim, stating that the driver of the I crime vehiclc lvas r-lot holding valicl driving licence at t re time o[ :rccident and as such the insurance company is noI lir )]e to pay compensation. lt was contended that the accident oc: rrred duc to head on collision and as such the petition is birc for non- joinder of orvner and insurance company of the Inn( /a car. It was further pleaded that lhc anlount claimed was ex( ( ;sive and praycd to dismiss the claim petition.

5. The Trrbunal, after considering the oral eviderrcc of PWs.1 to 4 and RW. 1 and the documentary evidence i.e, Exs Al to A7 and Ex.B I , held thal the dcceascd died in the accid(.r r occurred due to the rash and neglig(-.nt driving of the tippcr I -iver and accordingly, awarded Rs.22,50,0OO/- towards conr ensation wilh interest at 7.5% per annLlm payable by resporl,l nt No.2 insurancc compiiny.

6. Learned counsel for the claimants conten(l( c that the compensation awarded by thc Tribunal is grossly ir rdequate and in particular, the amounts grarnted under the h,.,r, s of loss oI love and alfectlon, consorttum, and loss of estatc ar ' meagre and insufhcicnt and as such, lcarned counsel s:: rght for enhancement oI the compensation- E_ \ 1 7 On the other hand, the lean:red Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company contended that the Tribunal tailed to consider contributory negligence the part of both drivers, and accordingly did not award any compensation agarnst the owner or insurer of the Innova car. Learned Standing Counsel further contended that the Tribunal did not properly appreciate the evidence on record while ixing compensation, and that the amount awarded is excessive and as such prayed to set aside the impugncd award passed by lhe Tribunal.

8. On a careful examination oi ihc material on record, it is evident that the Tribunal has passed a well_reasoned judgment after due consideration of both oral and documentary evidence. In the absence ,o[ a.,y material produced by the Insurancc compa,y to disprove the porice investigation or to establish that the vehicre was falsely implicated, the finding of the Tribunar fixing liability on respondent No.2-insurance company cannot be faulted. The quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is bascd on sound reasoning and does not caLI for enhancement or reduction Hence, there are no valid grounds to interferc with the tmpugned award passed by the Tribunal. the appeals filcd by the clarmants and the Accordingly, both Insu3ncg company are liable to bc dismisseci --7 I 5 9 In thc result, both the :lppeals are dismissed. i{ order as to costs Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, s1r 11 stand dismissed. ASSII SD/-M.NAGAMANI ISTRAR ----< //TRUE COPY// ,[:, FFICER To, 1 J 4 The Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal_cum_ l/ Additional Drstrict Judge Rangareddy District. One CC to Ms G JYOTHI KIRAN Advocate [OpUC] One CC to SRI A.RAMAKRTSHNA REDDY, Advocate [Or JC] Two CD Copies NVB/PSL HIGH COURT DATED:0S t121ZO2S - i: : -,-:: -::':. .' ...\1: " o ? tlti tntt ,-\' ' ; jl ,,-." :j COMMON oRDER+ DECREE fUACMA.No.97 of 2019 and 1397 of,201G \ -f. ,, ,- . ,',/ \1' ,' "'' " DISMISS|NG THE BOTH THE M.A.C.M.tr S t d16 l [ 32s6 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY M.A.C.M.A.Nos. 97 OF 2019 and 1397 of 2016 M.A.C.M.A.N o.97 ot 2019 Between:

1. Gaaddampaly Sunitha, Wo. Late G.Pratap Reddy Aged 33 years, Occ Housewife R/o. SLN Arcade-ll, Flat No. 401, 4th Floor, Haripuri Colony, NTR Nagar, Hyderabad.

2. Gaddampaly Mani Gowtham, S/o Late G.Pratap Reddy Aged 2'l years, Occ Student R/o SLN Arcade-ll, Flat No. 401, 4lh Floor, Haripuri Colony, NTR Nagar, Hyderabad.

3. Gaddampaly Gaddampaly Laxmi Prasanthi, @ Annanya Sri D/o Late G Prat?p Reddy Aged 19 years, Occ Student R/o SLN Arcade-ll, Flat No. 401,4"'Floor, Haripuri Colony, NTR Nagar, Hyderabad.

4. Gaddampaly Advaitha, D/o Late G.Pratap fleddy Aged 10 years, Occ - Student R/o SLN Arcade-ll, Flat.No. 401, 4"' Floor, Haripuri Colony, NTR Nagar, Hyderabad.

5. Gaddampaly Vijayamma, Wo Late Rarnchandra Reddy Aged 60 years, Occ- Housewiie Rlo'SLru Arcade-ll, FIat No. 401, 4th Floor,'Haiipuri C-otony, rutn Nagar, Hyderabad. Petitioner No.4 is being minor rep by her mother and natural guardian who is Petitioner No.1 herein (Petitioners 2 & 3 are declared as Major and discharged from their guardianship vide Court order dt.14.10.2019 in l.A.No.3 of 2019) ...APPELLANT(S) AND '1. P Kurma Rao, S/o Mallesh Aged Major, Occ- Business R/o Tandevalasa Village and Mandal, Srikakulam District - 532185.

2. Reliance General lnsurance Company Ltd.,, Rep. by its Manager- Legal, Office at 4th floor, Sagar Plaza Abids, Hyderabad. ...Respondents M.A.C.M.A.No.1397 of 2016 Between: Reliance General lnsurance Company Ltd., Hyderabad. lep. by its l\/anager - Legal, Office at 4th floor, Sagar Plaz'a, Abids, ilyderaba: ...Appellarr /Respondent No.2 AND

1. G. Sunitha, Rangareddy District, W/o Late G. Pratap Flr ddy Age 33 years, Occ Housewife.

2. Gaddampaly t\/ani Gowtham, S/o. Late G. Pratap Reddy Age 19 years, Occ Student. (R2 Declare as Major and to Discharge the guard: n Vide Court Order Dt.09.08.2016 in MAcMAMP.No.3282 of 2016).

3. Gaddampaly Laxmi Prasanthi, D/o. Late G Student. Pratap Redd! Age 18 years, Occ (R3 Declare as Major and to Discharge the guardir I Vide Court Order Dt.zO.'12.2017 in MACMAMP.No.4536 of 2017). 4 Gaddampaly Advaitha, D/o Late G. Pratap Reddy Age O 1 Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are being minors Rep. by thei guardian who is Respondent No. t herein. Gaddampaly Vijayamma, W0 Late Ramachandra Redd'r Housewife AII R/o Flat No. 301, Venkatadrinilayam, tV: R. K. Puram, Ranga Reddy District. years, Occ Student nother and natural Age 60 years, Occ 'gadarshni Colony, b P. Kurma Rao, S/o Mallesh, Aged Major, Occ Busines r Village and Mandal, Srikakulam District - 532 185. R/o Tandevalasa ...Respondents Appeal filed Under Sectron 173 of Motor Vehicles Act,193 l against the Order and decree in O.P.No.838 of 2010 dated.2610912015 on the fil() of the Court of the Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- lV Additi,) ral District Judge Rangareddy Drstrict in both Cases. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing thr) grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material rapers in the Case and upon hearing the arguments of Ms. G.JYOTHI KIRAN, Advocate for the Appellant in MACMA.No.97 of 2019 and Respondent Counsel in I IACMA.No .l397 2016 and of SRI A.RAMAKRTSHNA REDDY, Advocate fc r the Appeltant in MACI/A.No-1397 of 2016, and none appeared for the respondents in MACMA.No.97 of 2019. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are hereby Dismissed 2. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. SD/.M,NAGAMANI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR /ffRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- lV Additional District Judge Rangareddy District.

2. Two CD Copies NVB/PSL \ I HIGH COURT DATED:0511212025 DECREE MACMA.No.97 of 2019 and 1397 of 2016 DISMISSING THE BOTH THE M.A.C.M.A'[; o ,h v