Telangana High Court

A.Padma vs Nagabandi Vinay Babu And Another on 18 June, 2025

                                 1



      THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

                   M.A.C.M.A.NO.159 OF 2021

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the claimant aggrieved by the Order

and Decree dated 14.03.2016 in M.V.O.P.No.2666 of 2013 passed

by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XXIV Additional Chief

Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short "the Tribunal").

2. For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to

as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The case of the petitioner before the Tribunal was that

18.05.2013 at about 10:00 hours, the petitioner along with her

relatives were proceeding in a Car bearing No.AP-29-S-5100

towards Alair and when they reached near Ramajipeta Village, a

Maruthi Swift Car bearing No.AP-26AU-6345 coming in the

opposite direction, in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed,

lost control over the vehicle and dashed the petitioners vehicle, due

to which the petitioner and her family members sustained grievous

injuries. Immediately they were shifted to Government Hospital,

Bhongir and from there the petitioner went to Kamineni Hospital,

Hyderabad for better treatment. It is averred that the petitioner

requires further surgeries and thus, she claimed a compensation of

Rs.5,00,000/- .

ETD,J MACMA No.159_2021

4. The Respondent No.2-Insurance Company filed counter

denying all the averments of the petition with regard to the

occurrence of the accident, nature of treatment and the medical

expenses. It is further contended that the driver of the crime

vehicle did not possess valid driving license as on the date of the

accident and the Insurance Company is not liable to pay

compensation. It is further contended that the accident occurred

due to the negligence of driver of the car bearing No.AP-29S-5100

and that there is no negligence of the alleged crime vehicle and

that the owner and insurer of the car bearing No.AP-29S-5100 are

necessary parties to the proceedings.

5. Based on the above pleadings, trial Court has framed the

following issues for trial:-

1. Whether the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the Maruthi Swift Car bearing No.AP-36AU-6345 causing injuries to the petitioner?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what extent and from whom?

3. To what relief ?"

6. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PW1 to 3

and got marked Exs.A1 to A7. On behalf of the respondents RW1

and 2 were examined and Exs.B1 to B6 were marked.

ETD,J MACMA No.159_2021

7. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has dismissed

the petition. Aggrieved by the said decree of dismissal, the present

appeal is preferred by the claimant.

8. Heard the submissions of M/s C.M. Prakash, learned

counsel for the appellant and Sri A. Rama Krishna Reddy, learned

counsel for the respondent No.2-Insurance Company.

9. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the

Court below has not properly appreciated the evidence on record

and committed an error in dismissing the claim petition. He further

argued that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligence

of the driver of Maruthi Swift Car bearing No.AP-26AU-6345 and

that the Tribunal ought to have granted compensation. He further

argued that though the car number was written wrongly in the FIR

due to oversight, it was rightly mentioned in the charge sheet. That

the Tribunal ought to have observed the said fact that the

respondents have never taken any such plea in their pleadings,

they never contended that the vehicle is planted, but the Tribunal

has observed that the vehicle number is wrongly mentioned and

has erroneously dismissed the claim petition holding that the

petitioners failed to establish that the offending vehicle bears the

number AP-36-AU-6345.

ETD,J MACMA No.159_2021

10. Learned counsel for the appellant has further contended that

the petitioner suffered grievous injuries in the accident and they

need to be compensated. Therefore, he prayed to set aside the

dismissal order passed by the Tribunal and grant just

compensation in favour of the petitioner.

11. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has

submitted that there is an overwriting in the charge sheet and that

the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the petition. He further

contended that there was no eye witness examined and when there

is a discrepancy in the charge sheet, the petitioners ought to have

examined the Investigating Officer. He therefore, submitted that

the order passed by the Tribunal may be upheld by dismissing the

appeal.

12. Based on the above rival contentions, this Court frames the

following points for determination:-

1. Whether the car bearing No.AP-36AU-6345 is not involved in the accident?

2. Whether the claimants are entitled to compensation. If so, to what extent?

3. Whether the Order and Decree passed by the Tribunal need any interference ?

4. To what relief ?

13. Point No.1:

a) A perusal of Ex.A1/FIR reveals that the number of the

vehicle is AP-36-AV-6343. In the complaint annexed to the FIR ETD,J MACMA No.159_2021

which is lodged by the complainant-A Srinivas reveals the number

of the car as AP-36AU-6343 which is a handwritten complaint in

Telugu and this was interpreted in the FIR as AP-36AV-6343. It is

clearly mentioned in the charge sheet that the car bearing No.AP-

36AU-6345 was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner

and dashed against the car bearing No.AP-29S-5100 causing the

accident, as a result of which the petitioner and other inmates of

the car sustained injuries. It is visible that there are corrections

with regard to the number of car, "V" is corrected as "U" and the

last digit is corrected as "5" in the charge sheet. It is also to be

observed that in the handwritten complaint, it was mentioned as

"U", but in the FIR it is taken as "V". This also probabilizes that

the number might also have been wrongly noted as "3" by the

complainant.

b) The respondents have not taken such a plea in their counter

disputing the involvement of the vehicle bearing No.AP-36AU-6345

in the accident. On the other hand, they have filed

Ex.B1/Insurance Policy issued to the said vehicle-Maruthi Swift

Desire bearing No. AP-36AU-6345. Their only contention is that the

driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid driving

license. To that effect, they have let-in their evidence by examining

RW1 and 2. But nowhere they have taken a plea that the said

vehicle was not involved in the accident. The complainant is listed ETD,J MACMA No.159_2021

as LW1 in the charge sheet and he is a relative of the injured and

he is not an eye witness to the accident. On the narration of the

inmates, he must have lodged a complaint based on which the FIR

was registered under Ex.A1. However, after thorough investigation

the charge sheet under Ex.A2 is filed.

c) PW1 is the injured-petitioner. Her evidence reveals that she

sustained injuries in the accident. she deposed with regard to the

manner in which the accident has occurred, while the petitioner

was travelling in a car bearing No.AP-29S-5100 along with her

relatives towards Alair from Hyderabad, one Maruthi Swift Car

bearing No.AP-36AU-6345 coming in the opposite direction, driven

by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed,

dashed against the car in which the petitioner was travelling,

resulting in fracture injuries to the inmates of the car.

Immediately, the petitioner was admitted in Kamineni Hospital. It

is pertinent to be observed in this regard that PW1 is the injured

witness and has clearly narrated the manner in which the accident

has occurred.

d) In her cross examinations, she admitted that the car number

is mentioned as AP-36AV-6343 in the FIR, while it is mentioned as

AP36AU6345 in charge sheet by overwriting. Based on this ETD,J MACMA No.159_2021

admission and the overwriting in the charge sheet, the Tribunal

has dismissed the petition.

e) The charge sheet being a public document, and when it is

not disputed by the respondents in their pleadings with regard to

the involvement of the vehicle bearing No.AP-36AU-6345 in the

accident, this Court is inclined to hold that the car bearing No. AP-

36AU-6345 was involved in the accident. As per the averments of

the charge sheet and as per the assertion made by PW1, it is held

that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligence of the

driver of the car bearing No. AP-36AU-6345.

Point No.1 is answered accordingly.

14. Point No.2:-

a) Ex.A3 and A5 are the discharge summaries pertaining to the

petitioner. Ex.A3 is issued by Kamineni Hospital. The petitioner

was admitted on 18.05.2013 and she was diagnosed with Type S

proximal tibia fracture right, distal radius fracture left and also

multiple injuries all over the body and that she was treated for the

said injuries in their hospital with ORIF and closed reduction of

the fracture injuries by fixing implants and was discharged by

observing that the patient requires autofocus bone marrow

injection at the fracture site after one month from surgery and she

was also advised with medication and physiotherapy.

ETD,J MACMA No.159_2021

b) Another discharge summary is at Ex.A5 which shows that

she was admitted on 05.05.2014 and discharged on 07.05.2014

and that she was treated for implant removal. Thus, it is revealed

that the petitioner has sustained fracture injuries in the accident.

It is elicited that she sustained Type S proximal tibia fracture distal

radius fracture and also other multiple injuries all over the body.

Thus an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded towards pain and

suffering.

c) PW1 asserted that she used to work as a tailor and used to

earn Rs.6,000/- per month. The record discloses that she is aged

around '40' years. No proof can be expected with regard to her

income. She underwent treatment for three months during the first

spell and one month during the second spell, considering a total

treatment period of four months, the loss of earnings comes to

Rs.12,000/- (Rs.3,000 x 4).

d) It is the common observation in the society that many ladies

do undertake tailoring work at home, apart from attending to

household works. In the absence of any proof, some amount of

guess work is required in assessing the income of the deceased.

Hence, an amount of Rs.3,000/- per month can be assessed as

monthly income.

ETD,J MACMA No.159_2021

e) The petitioner has also filed bills under Ex.A6 to an extent of

Rs.29,412.34/-. Further a set of Pharmacy bills are also produced

which comes to a total of Rs.1,117/-. In addition to that the

petitioner must have incurred expenses towards extra

nourishment, attendant and Incidental Expenditure. Therefore, an

additional amount of Rs.25,000/- is awarded towards the said

expenses and thus an amount of Rs.55,529/- is awarded under

the head "hospital, medical expenses, transport, extra nourishment

and other incidental expenses etc., and the same is rounded up to

Rs.55,530/-."

f) In all, the petitioner is entitled to the following compensation

amounts:

1. Compensation under the head 'injuries, Rs.1,00,000/-

shock, Pain and suffering

2. Loss of earnings 12,000/-

3. Compensation under the head of hospital, 55,530/-

Medical Expenses, transport, extra-

nourishment and other incidental expenses Total Rs.1,67,530/-

g) Therefore, the compensation to which the petitioner is

entitled is calculated as Rs.1,67,530/-.

Hence, point No.2 is answered accordingly.

15. POINT NO.3:-

In view of the findings arrived at Point Nos.1 and 2, the order

and decree passed by the Tribunal need to be set aside.

Point No.3 is answered accordingly.

ETD,J MACMA No.159_2021

16. POINT NO.4:

In the result, the MACMA filed by the claimant is allowed,

setting aside the Order and Decree dated 14.03.2016 in

M.V.O.P.No.2666 of 2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal-cum-XXIV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court,

Hyderabad and the petitioner is entitled for compensation of

Rs.1,67,530/- and the compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5%

per annum from the date of claim petition till realization. However,

the interest for the period of delay, if any, is forfeited. Respondents

are directed to deposit the compensation amount with accrued

interest within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a

copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the appellant is entitled to

withdraw the said amount without furnishing any security. No

costs.