[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Telangana High Court
United India Insurance Co. Ltd., vs Kondal Rao Gajwada on 2 December, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
MACMA No.422 of 2019
DATE: 02.12.2025
Between:
United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Represented by its Divisional Manager,
R/o. Basheerbagh, Hyderabad
.....Appellant
AND
Kondal Rao Gajawada and another
....Respondents
JUDGMENT:
This appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is
filed by the appellant-Insurance Company challenging the award dated
15.10.2018 passed in M.V.O.P.No.1064 of 2012 by the Chairman, Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy
District at L.B. Nagar, whereby the Tribunal awarded total compensation of
Rs.4,40,000/- with interest at 7% per annum in favour of the respondent
No.2-claimant for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident.
2. The brief facts are that on 14.09.2012 at about 14:00 hours,the
claimant along with his friend Samala Shankar Rao was travelling in car
bearing No.AP 11 AE 5850 from Pillaipally Village to Hayathnagar and
whenthey reached Bandaravirala Village, Hayathnagar, a lorry bearing
registration No.AP 29 TA 0401 came from the opposite direction in a rash
and negligent manner at high speed and dashed the car, resulting in
multiple grievous injuries to the claimant, including a comminuted fracture
of the proximal shaft of the humerus with subluxation of the shoulder joint,
and grievous injuries to L1 and L2 vertebra. Stating that he took treatment
at Sunshine Hospital and other medical centres and that due to the injuries,
he was unable to continue his avocation and suffered prolonged disability,
the claimant filed the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-.
3. Before the Tribunal, the owner of the lorry remained ex parte. The
Insurance Company filed counter denying the manner of accident, the age,
occupation and income of the claimant, and further contended that the lorry
No.AP 29 PA 0401 was not insured with it and that the vehicle involved was
different. It was also pleaded that the amounts claimed were excessive and
ultimately, prayed to dismiss the petition.
4. After full-fledged trial, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred
due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry driver and that the lorry
involved was the one insured with the appellant. It then awarded total
compensation of Rs.4,40,000/- with interest @ 7% per annum. Aggrieved by
the same, the Insurance Company filed the present appeal.
5. Heard the learned counsel for both sides and perused the record.
6. The point that for consideration in this appeal is:
"Whether the compensation of Rs.4,40,000/- awarded by the Tribunal
is excessive, and whether any interference is warranted?"
7. Regarding the manner of accident, the claimant as PW1 clearly
narrated the incident. The FIR, complaint and charge sheet (Exs.A1 and A2)
support the occurrence. The 161 Cr.P.C. statements of eye-witnesses
Shankar Rao, Kondal Rao and Sugunakar Reddy (Exs.A3 to A5) are
consistent and confirm that the lorry came in a rash manner and hit their
car. The medical legal case record (Ex.A8) and the wound certificates
corroborate the injuries suffered. There is no rebuttal evidence from the
insurer. The Tribunal rightly held that the accident was occurred due to
rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry.
8. The insurer disputed the vehicle number, arguing that the policy
covered vehicle No.AP 29 TA 0401, whereas the FIR mentioned vehicle
number as AP 29 PA 0401. The Tribunal examined this aspect in detail.
Ex.A6 (scene of offence panchanama and sketch) and the statements of
witnesses show the vehicle involved was the lorry insured with the
appellant. RW1 (Insurance Company witness) admitted that the policy
covered AP 29 TA 0401 and that the discrepancy in FIR appeared to be
clerical. Ex.B1 (policy) supports coverage. The Tribunal correctly concluded
that the lorry involved in the accident is the one insured with the appellant,
and the mistaken mention of "PA" instead of "TA" in the FIR is not fatal.
9. As to the nature of injuries, the claimant suffered three grievous
injuries i.e, comminuted fracture of the proximal shaft of the humerus with
subluxation of the shoulder joint; fracture to L1 and L2 vertebrae; andother
radiologically noted spinal injuries.The claimant was hospitalized from
14.09.2012 to 24.09.2012 and underwent physiotherapy thereafter. The
absence of oral evidence of the doctor is not fatal when medical records are
clear and unchallenged. The Tribunal's assessment is based on
documentary evidence.The Tribunal awarded Rs.1,50,000/- towards pain
and suffering, Rs.10,000/- towards transportation, Rs.20,000/- towards
extra nourishment, Rs.2,00,000/- towards injuries and discomfort,
Rs.60,000/- towards loss of earnings, totalling Rs.4,40,000/-. On
reappraisal of the whole material, this Court finds that the Tribunal applied
correct principles, the amounts awarded are supported by evidence, and the
compensation is neither excessive nor disproportionate. No legal or factual
infirmity is demonstrated warranting interference. Accordingly, this appeal
is devoid of merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.
10. In the result, this appeal is dismissed. 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
SCS
