Telangana High Court
Bestha Narsavva Pochavva vs A Shiva Reddy Another on 15 March, 2023
Bench: Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao
1 RRN,J
MACMA No.2100 of 2014
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
M.A.C.M.A.No.2100 OF 2014
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is filed by the appellant/petitioner under
Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, aggrieved by the order
and decree, dated 10.10.2012, passed in O.P.No.47 of 2012 on
the file of the Chairman, 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 her. It is stated that on 19.02.2009,
she 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
2 RRN,J
M.A.C.M.A.No.2100 of 2014
being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner 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.1,00,000/- 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.2100 of 2014
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.2100 of 2014
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
5 RRN,J
M.A.C.M.A.No.2100 of 2014
multiple fractures of Pubic Pelvis region both sides, fracture of
Skull, fracture of Ribs. 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 10.10.2012 passed in O.P.No.47 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 judgment. On such deposit,
6 RRN,J
M.A.C.M.A.No.2100 of 2014
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
15th March, 2023
PNS/BDR
