Telangana High Court
Murthy Kista Reddy vs M/S.Jeltron Systems India P Ltd on 10 March, 2023
Bench: Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
M.A.C.M.A.No.2729 OF 2014
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant under
Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, aggrieved by the order
dated 04.06.2013, passed in M.V.O.P. No.410 of 2012, by the
Judge, Family Court-cum-VII Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, (for short "the Tribunal").
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter
referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a claim
petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,
claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- on account of injuries
sustained by him. It is stated that on 25.05.2012, the petitioner
was riding his TVS XL No.AP-23P-7787 from Zaheerabad to
Huggelli Village and at 2.30 p.m., when he reached near Aruna
School, within the limits of Huggeli Village, one Tata Safari Car
bearing No.AP-09-CA-3496 belonging to the first respondent came
at high speed and hit the motorcycle from behind, due to which,
he fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, he was
2 RRN,J
M.A.C.M.A.No.2729 of 2014
shifted to the Government Hospital at Zaheerabad and from there
he was taken to Remedy Hospital at Kukatpally and received
medical treatment as a inpatient. Hence, the claim petition.
4. Respondents filed their respective counter affidavits
denying the allegations in the petition.
5. To prove his case, the petitioner examined PWs.1 and 2
and got marked Exs.A1 to A15. The respondents examined RW.1
and no document was marked.
6. On appreciation of the evidence on record, the Tribunal
allowed the M.V.O.P. in part by awarding compensation of
Rs.2,76,890/- to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the present
appeal is filed by the claimant.
7. Heard both sides and perused the record.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
Tribunal erred in awarding the just compensation and also erred
in concluding that the accident was due to the contributory
negligence of the petitioner and deducted 25% of amount owing to
such negligence. Accordingly, prayed to allow the appeal by
granting the 25% the deducted compensation amount.
3 RRN,J
M.A.C.M.A.No.2729 of 2014
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent
No.2/Insurance Company submitted that the Tribunal was right
in concluding that there was contributory negligence on the part
of the petitioner and prayed to dismiss the appeal.
10. Having considered the rival contentions raised by both
parties, this Court is of the considered view that the Tribunal was
justified in concluding that the petitioner contributed 25%
negligence in causing the accident as a perusal of the record
reveals that the offending vehicle i.e. the car of respondent No.1
got damaged on its left side and further the petitioner himself
admitted that he was driving his motorcycle in the centre of the
road instead of the left side. On appreciating, inter alia, above
ground, the Tribunal rightly adjudicated the issue and granted
only 75% of the awarded amount i.e. Rs.2,76,890/- with interest
@7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization.
11. In view of the above, this Court does not find any fault in
the impugned order and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
12. Resultantly, MACMA No.2729 of 2014 is dismissed by
confirming the order dated 04.06.2013, passed in M.V.O.P.
No.410 of 2012, by the Tribunal. No order as to costs.
4 RRN,J
M.A.C.M.A.No.2729 of 2014
As a sequel of which, miscellaneous petitions, if any
pending, shall stand closed.
_____________________________________
NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J
10th day of March, 2023
PNS/BDR
