[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Telangana High Court
Bakka Papamma, vs Khaja Najeebuddin Ahmed, on 2 December, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
M.A.C.M.A.No.707 of 2019
DATE:02.12.2025
Between:
Bakka Papamma
.....Appellant
AND
Khaja Najeebuddin Ahmed and two others
....Respondents
JUDGMENT:
The appellant-claimant filed the present appeal, aggrieved by
the judgment and decree dated 22-01-2019 passed by the Chairman,
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Special Sessions Judge For
Trial of S.Cs/S.Ts (POA) Cases-cum-Additional District Judge,
Nalgona (for short "the Tribunal") in O.P.No.46 of 2016, whereby the
Tribunal awarded a lump-sum compensation of Rs.50,000/- for the
injuries sustained by her in a motor accident.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 6-11-2015 at about 6-15
p.m., the appellant and her family members and one Kandula Ilaiah
were travelling in an auto rickshaw bearing No.AP-24-TC-3914 from
Jangaon to Raghavapuram Village and when the said auto rickshaw
reached the outskirts of Pembarthy Village, near BMR garden,
Jangaon Mandal at about 6-30 p.m., the driver of a DCM van bearing
No.AP-36-TB-1645 coming from Hyderabad side towards Jangaon
side drove the same in a rash and negligent manner at high speed
and dashed to the said auto from the opposite direction, due to which
the appellantsustained fracture of both bones of right leg Tibia and
Fibula, fracture of right radius, grievous injury on forehead, chest
and all over her body. Immediately, the appellant was shifted to
Government Area hospital, Jangaon in 108 Ambulance for treatment
and Kandula Ilaiah died and her son also sustained injuries in the
said accident. On receipt of the complaint,the Police Jangaon of
Warangal District registered a case in Crime No.308 of 2015, under
Sections 304-A, 337, 338 IPC, against the driver of the DCM van
bearing No.AP-36-TB-1645. Stating that prior to the accident the
appellant was quite hale and healthy and she was earning an amount
of Rs.8,000/- per month as sweeper/coolie and on account of the
accident the appellant sustained grievous injuries and now she is
unable to do any work and became permanently disabled due to the
injuries suffered in the accident, the appellant filed the aforesaid
claim petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation of
Rs.3,50,000/- for the injuries sustained by her in the accidentagainst
respondent No.1 to 3 being the owner, insurer and driver of the
offending vehicle.
3. Before the Tribunal, respondent Nos.1 and 3 i.e., owner and
driver of the crime vehicle, while denying the averments of the claim
petition, contended that the vehicle was insured with respondent
No.2 and the insurance policy was in force on the date of the accident
and in view of the contractual obligations between the owner and
insurer and the in-force insurance policy, the petition against
Respondents No.1 and 3 should be dismissed. Respondent No.2-
insurer also denied all the averments of the claim petition and
contended that at the time of accident, the driver of the DCM van
(vehicle No. AP-36-TB-1645) held only a non-transport licence, which
was not qualified to drive a transport vehicle; therefore, he was not
legally authorised to drive that vehicle; the owner knowingly handed
over the DCM van to an unqualified driver, which constitutes breach
of the policy conditions and statutory requirements under the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 (M.V. Act) and thus, the insurer is not liable to
pay any compensation to the appellant under the insurance policy
and accordingly sought for dismissal of the claim petition.
4. After considering the oral and documentary evidence on record,
the Tribunal awarded lump-sum compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the
appellant-claimant for the injuries sustained by her in the motor
accident, as against the claim of Rs.3,50,000/- under various heads,
with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filling of
the petition till the date of realization payable by respondent No.2-
insruance company. Being aggrieved by the quantum awarded as
grossly inadequate, the appellant preferred this appeal, seeking
enhancement of compensation.
5. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record.
6. On a careful review of all evidence,such as medical report,
disability certificate, the nature of injury, the age and occupation of
the claimant (sweeper/coolie), her monthly income of Rs.8,000/- per
month as pleaded, and the substantial permanent impairment of her
right lower limb, this Court holds that the amount awarded by the
Tribunal is wholly inadequate to compensate for her loss. Having
regard to the permanent disability of 45% and the impact on her
ability to work, loss of future earning capacity must be recognized.
The Tribunal's failure to grant any amount towards "permanent
disability," "future earnings," "future prospects," "pain and suffering"
and "loss of amenities" was unsustainable in law. Therefore,
considering the totality of circumstances and in the interest of justice
and fair compensation, this Court finds that the compensation of
Rs.1,50,000/- is just and reasonable.
7. Coming to the rate of interest, as the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the cased of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Mannat Johal
and others 1 and in several subsequent decisions held that the
reasonable rate of interest to be awarded in motor accident claim
cases shall be 7.5% per annum, this Court is of the opinion that the
rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal, in the instant case, is on the
lower side and requires modification.
8. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed enhancing the
compensation from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.1,50,000/- with interest @
7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.
The rest of the terms and conditions imposed by the Tribunal shall
remain unaltered. No order as to costs.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall
stand closed.
________________________________
JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
Date:02.12.2025
JSU
1 AIR 2019 SC 2079
