Telangana High Court
Sakali Indira vs A.Shiva Reddy Another on 14 March, 2023
Bench: Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao
1 RRN,J
MACMA No.1005 of 2015
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
M.A.C.M.A.No.1005 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.1,00,000/- 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 rash and
2 RRN,J
M.A.C.M.A.No.1005 of 2015
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 to the said
accident, she lost earning capacity and also suffered the loss of
income and spent more than Rs.75,000/- towards medical
expenses. Hence, the claim petition.
4. Respondent No.1 set ex parte and respondent No.2 filed
counter denying the allegations in the petition.
5. To prove her case, the petitioner got herself examined as
PW.1 and 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 as well. Accordingly,
3 RRN,J
M.A.C.M.A.No.1005 of 2015
the claim petition was dismissed by the Tribunal. Hence, the
present appeal.
7. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned
Counsel for the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company. There is
no appearance on behalf of the 1st respondent despite notice
was sent through court and was received by the 1st respondent
on 06.07.2015. 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.
4 RRN,J
M.A.C.M.A.No.1005 of 2015
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.
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
5 RRN,J
M.A.C.M.A.No.1005 of 2015
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 fracture
of the bilateral superior and inferior Pubic Rami. As such, it
would be reasonable to award Rs.20,000/- for injuries
including pain and suffering. The petitioner claimed that she
incurred more than Rs.75,000/- towards medical expenses,
however, there is no material placed to believe the same. In
such a situation, it would be reasonable to award Rs.5,000/-
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.35,000/-.
13. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed by setting aside
the order and decree dated 08.10.2012 in M.V.O.P.No.45 of
2012 passed by the Tribunal. The petitioner is awarded
Rs.35,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Thousand Only) with interest
6 RRN,J
M.A.C.M.A.No.1005 of 2015
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 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 February 2023
PNS/BDR
