The High Court · 2025

Judgment

Dissal.ished $,ith the compensation awarded by the Court of I\{otor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum III Additior-ral Drstrict Judge, F.T.C.II, Khammam (hereinafter referred as '[he TribunalJ in O.P.No.765 ol 2003, dated

06.12.2OOi', the petitioner/ inj ured in the said O.P. preferred the present. Appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

For tl^e sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter be referred as they were arrayed before the learned Tribunal.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the pctitioner/ injured fikrd a petition under Section 166 oI the Motor Vchicles Ar:t, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.l,50,OOO/ for the injuri,:s sustained by him in a motor accident that occurred on 28.04.2OO2. R 1 is the driver oi the ve l-ricle, R-2 is the owne r of the lorry bearing No. AIL 2850 and R-3 is the insurer of r,he said lorry and the petitioner is the cleaner of the said vehicle. It is stated by the petitioner that on

28.04.2OO2, as per the directions of R-1, he was discharging duties undcr the subject lorry for setting wires u,hen R- 1 suddenly nroved the lorry in a rash and negligent manner 2 OP,J M-4cttA No 2097 of 20 19 without taking any precautionary measures. As a result, the petitioner had sustained fracture to left leg femur and injuries to head, foot and multiple injuries all over the body' Immediately, he was shifted lo Government Head Quarters Hospital, Khammam, where he was treated for a period of two months and underwent operation on fracture part and inserted steel rods and also advised to take bed rest for one year. He was also taken treatment in a private hospital at Khammam he incurred a sum of Rs.35,O0O/ - towards medical expenses etc. Further, the petitioner was assisted by two attendants dunng the course of treatment. Due to fracture, his left leg was shortened and deformity was caused. It is stated by the petitioner that prior to accident, he used to earn a sum of Rs.2,OOO/- per month. Due to the injuries sustained, the petitioner became permanent disabled and unable to do his routine work. As the accident occurred due to rash and negiigent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No.AiL 285, as such, he hled claim petition seeking compensation of Rs' 1,50,0OO/ against the respondents. Before the Tribunal, respondent No. l/driver of the

4. lorry and respondent No.2/owner of lorry bearing No'AIL 285O remained ex-Parte. - ,. . ,, ::..;ir. 1.. - ,:, 3 LtoP,J l,lACMA.No-2O97 of 2A l9

5. Respondent No.3/lnsurance Company hled its counter clerying the averments made in the claim petition including, r,1sh and negligent driving of the driverr of crime vehicle, injuries sustained by the petitioner and the age and avocation of the injured. It is further stated that the driver of the crirne vehicle was not having valid license at the time of accidcnl and therefore, prayed to dismiss the claim against it

6. BaLseC on the abovc pleadings, the learneri Tribunal had lramed ,he following issues for conducting trial:- 0 (i4 Whether IsLauath Saida uns injuretl or a motor qccident occuned on 28.04.2002 due to -fault of diutng of lorry/ Tipper beaing No.AIL 2850 bg its d.iuer/ R.I ? Wlrcther the lorry/ tipper No.AIL 2850 is ou.tned bg R 2 and u.tas insured u-tith R-3 on the date of accident? If so, u.that is the quantum of compensation pagable to petitioner bq the re s pondents jointtg and seuerallg ? (ii4 To uhat reliej?

7. In order to substantiate his case, the petitioner,/ in jured examined himself as PW1 and got marked Exs.Al tc, lt7 on his behalf. On behalf of respondent No.3/Insurarce Company, no oral evidence u,as adduced, 4 MAP'J NtACtlA No.2O97 of 20 19 however, Ex.B1/Copy of insurance policy was marked with consent

8. After considering the evidence and documents available on record, the learned Tribunal had partly allowed the claim petition by awarding an amollnt of Rs'34,265/ - towards compensation on all heads together along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. The petition against respondents 1 & 3 is dismissed. Respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the compensation amount within a month from the date of the order. Having nol satished with the said compensation amount and also exonerating respondent No 3 from the liability, the claim petitioner/ injured preferred the present Appeal seeking enhancement of lhe same' g. Heard Sri Kadaru Prabhakar Rao, learncd counsel for the Appellant/ injured as well as Sri B Narayala Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No'3/Insurance Company. Perused the record including grounds ofAppeal'

10. The contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant/injured are that the learned Tribunal, without OJ.:.n, appreciating the evidence of PW- 1, awarded a meager amount towards compensation and failed to hx the I i t I a i I a t I I " == I i I I I i I ! 5 NIGP,J tL4a itA N. 2A97 of 2A I 9 liability fcrr payment of 666pensation on respondent No.3/lnsulance Company even though the accident occurrec[ r,.ithin the policy period. Therefore, he prays for enhanccme,nt of the compensation and seeks a direc[ion to hold respondent Nos.2 and 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay tl-e :;ame.

11. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.3/ Insurancc Company contended that the learned Tribunal, aftcr considering all relevant aspects, had rightly ztr.arded a reasonable amount of compensatlon. It was lurther conrended that the name of the driver u.as changed from Sri Maragani Sa[ranarayana to Sri Ch. Rama Rao/resF,ondent No. 1, and that respondent No. 1 did not possess r-r r alid driving license to drive the subject vehicle, the insurar ce company is not liable to pa5r c66p6nsation. Therefore , no further enhancement of compensation is rvarrante,l.

12. Now the points that emerge for determination are; 1 . \l,ttether the appellant/ injured is entitled for en h.oncement of compen-satio n? 2. Vrhether respondent No.3-insurance compang is lia ble to pag tl'Le compensotion or not? 6 MAP,J 1LACLLA Na 2097 of 2A 19 a) POINTS:-

13. Since there is no dispute about the occurrence of accident and since the hndings arrived at by the Tribunal on that aspect were no[ challenged, this Court is not inclined to discuss the said aspect. The grounds that have to be discussed in the present Appeal is with regard lo quantum of compensation and fixing of liability on respondent Nos 2 and 3 jointly and severally.

14. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the learned Tribunal failed to consider the evidence of PW 1 and awarded meager comPensation.

15. The petitioner/ injured examined himself as PW1 and deposed about the manner of accident. In order to prove the injuries sustained by him he hled Ex'A 1-A7 Ex A 1 is the certilied copy of FIR, trx.A2 is the certihed copy of charge sheet, Ex.A3 is the certified copy of medical cerlificate, Ex'A- 4 is the certifled copy of X-ray report, Exs'AS and A6 are the medical bills and Ex.A7 is the O.P. ticket' In order to disprove the evidence of PW- 1, the 16. respondent No.3/Insurance Company did not adduce any rebuttal evidence. l I I I I i I l MAC\1A No.2497.12419

17. A perusal of the judgment passed by the Tribunal shows that no material was elicited to show that the petitioner wrs deposing falsely regarding the manner and mode of zrccident. Ex.A3- wound certiflcate shows that the petitior-rer sr- ffcrcd three injuries 1) fracture of left femur, 2) contusion or-r right foot, 3) abrasion on right foot dorsum. Injury Nos,2 and 3 were shown as simple in nature and injury No.1 is shown as grievous in nature. X-ray report also refcrred in Ex. A3. It is also pertinent to state that the X Ray report fi1,^d undcr Ex.A.4 evidences that the petitioner sustaine d lrtrcture of right femur.

18. A pe'usal of quantum of compensation awarded by the Triburral discloscs that thc learned Tribunal awarded an amount of Iis. t 265/ torvards medical expenses, Rs.2,0OO/- torvards pain and suffering due to simple injuries; Rs.6,OOO7 (Rs.1500/- x 4 =Rs.6,0O0) towards loss of income for 4 mor.ths i.e., during the period of trealment; Rs.25,OOt)/ towards pain and suffering due to one grievous injury whic-r in totai arrived at a sum of Rs.34,265/-. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioncr and the period of Lreatment taken by him, this Court finis the said amounts to be on meager side and therefore inr:lined to enhance an amount of Rs.25,0OO/- MACW.No.2097 o[ 20t9 r-1 towards medrcal expenses, Rs.3O,OOO/- (Rs.5,00O/- x 6 : Rs.3O,ooo/-) towards loss of earnings and Rs. 10,000/ towards two simple injuries. Further, this Court is also inclined to award a sum of Rs.45,000/- towards pain and suffering; Rs.5,OOO/ towards extra nourishment, Rs.5,000/- towards future medical treaLment expenses and also Rs.5,0OO/- towards transportation. Thus, in a1l, the petitioner is entitled for a total compensation of Rs. 1 ,5O,OOO/ - which is calculatcd as under:- S.No. Details of Head 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 Pain suffering Loss of earnings Trarlsportatlon Medical Expenses Future Medical treatment expenses Extra Nourishment during treatment period Grievous injury simple Two injuries TOTAL COMPENSATION Awarded Tribunal Rs.6,OOO/- (Rs.15OO/- x 4 Rs.6,Ooo/ - Awarded by th.is Court Rs.45,OOO/- Rs.30,OOO/- (Rs.S,OOO x 6= Rs.3O,OOO / - l Rs.5,OOO / - Rs.1,265 / - Rs.25,OOO/- Rs.5,OOO / - Rs.5,OOO/ - Rs.25,OOO/ - Rs.2,OOO/- Rs.10,OOO/- Rs.34,2651- Rs.1,50,OOO/- i I I I t I 1 I I ! I I I I o l,1GP.l Mt\t:f,li\ lia.2Alt7 of 2A19 lg . Comir-rg to the aspect of liability of paJ"ment of compensation, ac mittedly, as seen from the record by the time of accident, the olfending vehicle was insured with the 2"d respondcnt and Dx.B.l policy was very much in forcc ln the case of third plrty risks, as per the decision in National Insurance Compang Ltd. V. Swo:ra:n Singh and othersl, the insurer hacl to indemnify the compensation amount payaLrle to the third party and the insurance company may recover the same from the insured. In the aforesaid decision, the Apex Court considerecl thc cloctrine ol " pay and recoue/' examined the liability of the rrisurance company in cases of breach of policy condition ciue to disqualihcations of the driver or invalid driving license of the dri'rer and held thaL in case of third party risks, the insurer has tc, irr<lemnify thc compensation amount to the third party and the ins;urance company may recover the same from the insured. Rcc<:ntl1', the Apex Court in the case of Shamanna v' The Divisional Manager, the Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Others2, lollowing its earlier decision in Swaran Singh (6 supral, reiterated thaL "euen if the diuer does not possess ang dri ing license, still the insurer i"s liable to pag the compensotion and that Le can recouer the award amount from tLrc ou.tner of the offitnding uehicle afier paying the amount " In view ' lzoo+1 : scc zoz ' 2ot8 ,rc; z t c: I ,t 10 'IGP,J LLACI,LA No 2A97 of 20 19 n :r of the above, the Tribunal has rightly directed the Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount at the first instance and then recover the same from the owner of the vehicle.

20. In the result, the Appeal is allowed by enhancing quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.34,265/ to Rs. 1 ,5O,00O/ - which shall carry interest @7 .Soh per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. It is made clear that, following the doctrine 'pag ond recouer', the tribunal has rightly directed the lnsurance Company-3'd respondent to pay the compensation amounl to the claimants, at the first instance and thereafter recover lhe same frorl the owner of the offending vehicle i.e., the 2"d respondent without initiating any separate proceedings. Upon such payment, the appellant/ injured is cntitled to withdraw the same. There shall be no order as lo

21. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed- I I I i I I //TRUE COPYII Sd/. A.V.S. PRASAD DEPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To, L The chairman Motor Accident claims Tribunal-cum-lll Addl. District Judge (FTC-ll) Khammam.

2. One CC to SRl. KADARU PRABHAKAR RAO Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRl. S VENKATESHAI\r1, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies MKN (A HIGH COURT NBK,J DATED:0410412025 ,ti-' ti() 11 fJti N15 JUDGMENT MACMA.N o.2A97 of 2O19 ALLOWING THE M.A.G.M.A (* o .) (> 1 1 3 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA FRIDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 2097 OF 2019 Between: (CT Vide Separate Sheet Attached) lslavath Saida, S/o Eriya, Aged about 21 years, Cleaner Nto.ntf ZASO, Tanikella village, Konijerla [\rlandal, Khammam District' -ol L9!ry bearing AND

1. Chebrolu Rama Rao and 2 others, S/o Venkaiah, Aged about. 35 .years, Orlr"tofTipper/LorryNo.AlL2850,Vepakuntlavillage,KonijerlaMandal' Khammam District. ,..APPELLANT

2. Guniganti Paramaiah, S/o.Dargaiah, Aged about 30 - years' .Owner of f,ppirlL"t.V f.to.ntf- ZbSo, Vepa-kuntla village' Konijerla Mandal' Khammam District. - - 3.TheNewlndiaAssuranceCo.Ltd.,rep.byitsBranchlt/anager'Khammam' o.No.g j-r+3, old Clrb Road, NearViriod Mahal Road, Khammam - 507 001' ...RESPONDENTS (AppealUnderSection1T3ofl\ilotorVehiclesActagainsttheorderandDecree made in M.V.O.P. No. 765 0f 2003 dated 06.12.2007 0n the file of the court of the chairman Motor Accident claims Tribunal -cum-lll Addl. District Judge (Fast Track Court-ll), Khammam. ORDER: 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 anduponhearingtheargumentsofSRl.KPRABHAKARRAo,Advocateforthe Appellant and of the Respondent No.3 Advocate SRI S VENKATESHAM and of the Respondent Nos.1& 2 none appeared either in person or by Advocate 't "D' This Court both Order and Decree as follows: 1. That the fi,/.A.C.M.A., be and hereby is allowed enhancing quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.34,2651 to Rs.1,50,000/- which shall carry interest @ 7 .so/c'P .A., from the date of petition till the date of realization. 3. That the following the doctrine "Pay and Recovery" the Tribunal has righfly directed the lnsurance company-3'd Respondent to pay the compensation amount to the claimants at thr: first instance and thereafter recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle i.e., the 2nd Respondent without initiating on separate proceedings. 4. That upon such p;ryments, the Appellants/ lnsured is be and hereby entifled to Withdrawn the same 5. That save as aiort..said, the decree of the Tribunal shall stands confirmed in all other respects; ancl

6. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. //TRUE COPY// - sd/- A.v.s. ,'\,.deeuw ne i I \ ll-=- ! 'ls=.rro* PRASAD GISTRAR OFFICER To, 1 2 MKN The chairman Motor Accident claims Tribunal-cum-lll Addl. District Judge (FTC-Il) Khammam. Two CD Copies; gt\ HIGH COURT NBK,J DATED:0410412025 DECREE MACMA.No.2097 of 2019 ALLOWING THE M.A.C.M.A (F q1 (>.) 1)