Telangana High Court
Shriram. General Insurance. Co.Ltd., vs Smt.Adama Padmaja And 2 Others on 29 August, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
M.A.C.M.A.No.382 of 2023
and
Cross-Objections No.29 of 2023
COMMON JUDGMENT:
Heard Sri Kondadi Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant
and Sri Palle Sriharinath, learned counsel for respondent No.1/cross-
objectioner. Perused the entire record.
2. This appeal is preferred by the appellant/insurance company
aggrieved by the award passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal-cum-III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sangareddy, in
M.V.O.P.No.491 of 2013, dated 14.11.2022, wherein an amount of
Rs.15,37,104/- was awarded in a claim petition filed seeking compensation
of Rs.50,00,000/- by respondent No.1/claim petitioner/cross-objectioner.
Challenging the said award and opposing the appeal, the claim petitioner
filed cross-objections.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are arrayed as they were
arrayed in the appeal.
4. The claim petition arose on account of occurrence of accident
involving respondent No.1. On 21.06.2013 at about 08:00 PM, when
RY,J
MACMA_382_2023 &
X-OBJ_29_2023
respondent No.1 was traveling in auto bearing No.AP 23 Y 9068 to
Jharasangham for having darshan of Lord Sangameshwara Swamy, when
the auto reached the limits of Lingampally village on National Highway
No.65, one TATA Ace Auto bearing No.AP 23 Y 2303 came in opposite
direction and dashed the auto, as a result, respondent No.1 fell out of the
auto and sustained injuries. Respondent No.1 sustained head injury,
compound fracture to distal radius, fracture to shaft of humorous, second
finger of complete avulsion of pinna and dislocation of PIP and other
injuries all over the body. She was shifted to Government Hospital
Sadasivapet, from there to Lalitha Gayathri Hospital, Miyapur and from
there to Sunshine Hospital, Secunderabad, for better treatment. She is
unable to eat food and was supplied food through PEG tube every one
hour. She has intermittent febrile spikes, went into coma and has to suffer
throughout her life. In the circumstances, claim petition is filed seeking
compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- towards medical expenses and physical
suffering.
5. Respondent No.1 got examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and got exhibited Exs.A-
1 to A-8. Appellant got examined R.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked Ex.C-1.
Upon examining the evidence on record, the Tribunal passed the impugned
RY,J
MACMA_382_2023 &
X-OBJ_29_2023
award leading to filing of the present appeal by the appellant and cross-
objections by respondent No.1.
6. In the grounds of appeal, it is pleaded by the appellant that there was
six days delay in lodging FIR and the same was lodged by implicating the
vehicle of respondent No.2 herein. The accident occurred on 21.06.2013
and the FIR is dated 26.06.2013. The driver of the auto wherein
respondent No.1 was traveling also sustained injuries and his medical
record of NIMS Hospital, shows that he was in intoxicated condition when
the accident took place and the record shows that the accident occurred
when the auto was hit by a bus. The Tribunal did not consider the medical
record which shows that the auto in which respondent No.1 was traveling
was hit by a lorry and there is inconsistency in the evidence about the
involvement of vehicle. Further, the Tribunal has considered the income of
respondent No.1 as Rs.6,000/- per month though there was no supporting
evidence. Lastly, the Tribunal has awarded 9% interest on the
compensation awarded and the same is against the judgments of Supreme
Court. On the basis of the aforementioned grounds, the appellant prayed to
set aside the impugned award.
RY,J
MACMA_382_2023 &
X-OBJ_29_2023
7. Respondent No.1 filed her cross-objections alleging that she was
aged about 44 years and was working as a private teacher with monthly
income of Rs.8,000/- at the time of the accident. Due to the accident, she is
bedridden and has incurred huge expenses and therefore, sought
Rs.50,00,000/- towards compensation. The Tribunal did not consider the
injuries and also the monthly income of respondent No.1. The Tribunal did
not consider the disability certificate marked under Ex.A-8 and the oral
evidence of P.W.2, while awarding compensation. Respondent No.1 was
admitted in hospital on 22.06.2013 with injuries of polytrauma, diffuse
axonal injury, compound fracture of right distal radius and she was in coma
on ventilator. At the time of discharge, respondent No.1 was on PBG tube
feeds and was discharged with tracheotomy and she underwent closed
reduction and external fixation, with K-wire done for compound fracture of
right distal radius. Respondent No.1 is dependent on others for her day to
day activities and therefore, the Tribunal ought to have considered her
disability at 100% and awarded compensation as she is unable to lead her
full life and enjoy normal amenities. Hence, sought for enhancement of
compensation.
RY,J
MACMA_382_2023 &
X-OBJ_29_2023
8. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that there was malicious
implication of the insured vehicle on the basis of delay in lodging the FIR
on 26.06.2013, when the accident actually occurred on 21.06.2013.
Further, the Tribunal failed to consider the fact that the medico legal record
at NIMS, Hospital, shows that the driver of the auto was in intoxicated
condition when the auto was hit by a bus. Hence, prayed to set aside the
impugned award.
9. In response, learned counsel for respondent No.1 argued that the
Tribunal failed to considered the evidence adduced by respondent No.1 in
right perspective and awarded meagre compensation and therefore, prayed
to dismiss the appeal and enhance the compensation by allowing the cross-
objections.
10. Coming to the first ground i.e., delay in lodging the FIR, after
accident respondent No.1 was taken to Lalitha Gayatri Hospital at Miyapur
and from there to Sunshine Hospital, Secunderabad. When respondent
No.1 and her husband have come to Hyderabad for treatment, then the FIR
was lodged. In the circumstances, there has been delay of six days in
lodging FIR. The grievous injuries suffered by respondent No.1 warrants
RY,J
MACMA_382_2023 &
X-OBJ_29_2023
immediate attention towards treatment. In all probabilities, delay can be
caused.
11. The appellant got examined R.W.1 Dr. Arvind, Superintendent of
NIMS Hospital and marked Ex.C-1 with respect to discharge record of
patient Rajeshwar Reddy, who sustained injuries in an accident hit by bus
while he was driving auto after consuming alcohol at 10:00 PM on
21.06.2013. The Tribunal compared the contents of the Ex.C-1 with
Ex.A-1 FIR, wherein the accident took place at Lingampally village
outskirts mandal of munipally on National Highway 65. Therefore, held
that the version of respondent No.1 is supported by police records under
Exs.A-1 to A-4, whereas the contents of Ex.C-1 are not supported by any
evidence. Therefore, did not consider the contents of Ex.C-1 with respect
to involvement of the vehicle. At this juncture, on the basis of evidence
available on record it is not possible to arrive at any conclusion about false
implication of vehicle solely on the basis of delay in lodging FIR or the
contents of Ex.C-1. Therefore, this Court does not see any reason to
interfere with the findings of the Tribunal, with respect to false implication
and therefore, cannot exonerate the appellant from liability to pay the
compensation to respondent No.1.
RY,J
MACMA_382_2023 &
X-OBJ_29_2023
12. Coming to the notional income of respondent No.1, it is considered
by the Tribunal at Rs.6,000/- per month, the same is disputed as there is no
supporting evidence. On the same aspect respondent No.1 filed her cross-
objections stating that she was hale and healthy before accident was
earning an amount of Rs.8,000/- per month by working as teacher in a
private school. Except self-serving oral evidence of respondent No.1 as
P.W.1., the entire police record shows that respondent No.1 was housewife.
The said factum is reflected in Ex.A-1 FIR-cum-complaint and Ex.A-3
charge sheet as well. Since there can be no proof of income of housewife,
the Tribunal has taken the notional income of respondent No.1 as
Rs.6,000/-. The same seems appropriate in the circumstances and
therefore, need not be interfered with.
13. A perusal of the Ex.A-8 disability certificate shows that respondent
No.1 suffered 57% of the physical disability with respect to post traumatic
sequel limbs of right upper limb and left lower limb. These injuries may
not lead to 100% functional disability. Therefore, this Court is not inclined
to consider the functional disability at 100% and the percentage of
disability can be taken as per Ex.A-8 at 57%. The Tribunal while
computing the compensation on account of disability committed two errors.
RY,J
MACMA_382_2023 &
X-OBJ_29_2023
One is the percentage of future prospects and the other is with respect to
deduction of personal expenses. Respondent No.1 was housewife,
therefore, the future prospects shall be taken at 40% and not 50% as
considered by the Tribunal. No amount can be deducted towards personal
expenses in cases of injuries. The notional income of respondent No.1
shall be taken at Rs.6,000/- and adding 40% of future prospects makes the
monthly income as Rs.8,400/-. Since respondent No.1 was 44 years, the
multiplier applicable as per the judgment in the case of Sarla Varma v.
Delhi Transport Corporation and another 1, is 14. The loss of income
due to disability is calculated as: Rs.8,400/- X 12 X 14 X 57/100=
Rs. 8,04,384/-.
14. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.20,000/- towards transportation
charges, Rs.30,000/- towards extra nourishment, Rs.9,20,000/- towards
medical expenses and Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering, as such this
Court sees no reason to interfere with the same.
15. Respondent No.1 is also entitled for Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of
amenities and Rs.10,000/- towards simple injuries sustained by her in the
2009 (6) SCC 121
RY,J
MACMA_382_2023 &
X-OBJ_29_2023
accident. In total, respondent No.1 is entitled to an amount of Rs.
19,34,384/- in all respects.
16. Coming to the interest awarded by the Tribunal, on the basis of the
recent judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the interest awarded by
the Tribunal requires no interference.
17. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed and the cross-objections
is partly allowed by enhancing the amount granted by the Tribunal from
Rs.15,37,104/- to Rs.19,34,384/- with interest at 9% per annum on the
enhanced compensation from the date of petition till the date of realization.
The enhanced compensation amount shall be deposited by the appellant
and respondent Nos.2 and 3 jointly and severally within a period of two
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. On such
deposit, respondent No.1 herein is entitled to withdraw the entire amount as
apportioned by the Tribunal, without furnishing any security. Respondent
No.1 shall deposit deficit Court fee, if any. There shall be no order as to
costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this appeal, shall stand
closed.
_________________
RENUKA YARA, J
Date: 29.08.2025
GVR
