Telangana High Court
Sakali Shravanthi vs A Shiva Reddy Another on 14 March, 2023
Bench: Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao
1 RRN,J
MACMA No.1399 of 2015
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
M.A.C.M.A.No.1399 OF 2015
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, aggrieved by the order and decree, dated
08.10.2012, passed in M.V.O.P.No.45 of 2012 on the file of
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IX Additional
District Judge, Kamareddy (for short "the Tribunal").
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be
hereinafter referred to as 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.1,50,000/- on account of
injuries sustained by the petitioner. It is stated that on
19.02.2009, the petitioner along with others was travelling in
the DCM van bearing No.MH-43-E-7468 from Haveli
Ghanpoor Village towards Dharmaraopet Village and when
the van reached near Mallannagutta on NH No.7, a lorry
bearing No.AP-07-TU-9819 being driven by its driver in a
2 RRN,J
M.A.C.M.A.No.1399 of 2015
rash and negligent manner and at high speed, dashed against
their van from the opposite direction, as such, she and others
suffered injuries as the DCM van turned turtle. Due the said
accident, she lost earning capacity and also suffered a loss of
income and spent about Rs.1,00,000/- towards medical
expenses. Hence, the claim petition.
4. Respondent No.1 was set ex parte and the respondent
No.2 filed counter denying the allegations in the petition.
5. To prove her case, the petitioner examined PW.1 and
got marked Ex.A1 to A3. No oral evidence was adduced on
behalf of the respondent No.2, however, got marked Ex.B1/
copy of Policy.
6. On appreciation of the evidence on record, the
Tribunal found that though the petitioner filed a copy of FIR
and charge sheet to show that the accident was due to the
sole negligence of the lorry driver, the Tribunal found that
there is negligence on the part of the driver of the DCM Van
3 RRN,J
M.A.C.M.A.No.1399 of 2015
as well. Accordingly, the claim petition was dismissed by the
Tribunal. Hence, the present appeal.
7. Heard both sides. Perused the record.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
Tribunal erred in dismissing the Original Petition on the
ground that necessary parties were not joined and the 2nd
respondent/Insurance Company is exempted from liability for
the reason that there was negligence on the part of the
petitioner also as she was travelling in the DCM Van as an
unauthorized passenger. He further contended that there is
no negligence on the part of the driver or owner of the DCM
van, as such, he restricted his claim against the present
respondents.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the 2nd
respondent/Insurance Company submitted that the Tribunal
was justified in dismissing the claim against the respondents
and reiterated the stand taken before the Tribunal.
Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the appeal.
4 RRN,J
M.A.C.M.A.No.1399 of 2015
10. Having considered the rival submissions of both
parties, this Court is of the view that the Tribunal erred in
dismissing the claim petition against the respondents on the
ground that the petitioner and 59 others were travelling in
the DCM Van as unauthorized passengers and that the owner
and driver of the DCM Van were not made parties to the
claim. It is an established fact that the offending Lorry is
insured with the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company.
11. This Court is not impressed with the views taken by
the Tribunal to dismiss the claim against the respondents.
As the evidence revealed that the accident occurred due to
the sole negligence of the driver of the lorry, resulting in
injuries sustained by the petitioner, the appeal deserves to be
allowed by holding that the respondents are jointly and
severally liable to compensate the petitioners.
12. This Court would now deal with the quantum of
compensation to be awarded to the petitioner. The petitioner
got herself examined as PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A3.
The evidence would reveal that the petitioner sustained a
5 RRN,J
M.A.C.M.A.No.1399 of 2015
fractures of the Thigh bone and a fracture of the middle
upper 3rd of the right of the shaft femur. As such, it would
be reasonable to award Rs.30,000/- for injuries including
pain and suffering. The petitioner claimed that she incurred
more than Rs.1,00,000/- towards medical expenses, however,
there is no material placed to believe the same. In such a
situation, it would be reasonable to award Rs.10,000/-
towards medical expenses. Further, it would be just to award
Rs.10,000/- towards attendant charges and extra
nourishment. In all, the petitioner is entitled to Rs.50,000/-.
13. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed by setting
aside the order and decree dated 08.10.2012 passed in
O.P.No.45 of 2012 by the Tribunal. The petitioner is awarded
Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with interest at
7.5% per annum from the date of filing of this appeal till the
date of realization payable by the respondents jointly and
severally. The respondents shall deposit the said
compensation amount together with interest within a period
of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
6 RRN,J
M.A.C.M.A.No.1399 of 2015
judgment. On such deposit, the petitioner is permitted to
withdraw the same. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
_____________________________________
NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J
22nd day of February 2023
PNS/BDR
