J.Sahithi vs Nagabandi Vinay Babu
2025 Latest Caselaw 4025 Tel

Telangana High Court

J.Sahithi vs Nagabandi Vinay Babu on 18 June, 2025

                                 1




      THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

                   M.A.C.M.A.NO.158 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.2192 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-36AU-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.158_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.158_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 Maruti Swift Car bearing No.AP-36AU-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.158_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.158_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 ETD,J MACMA No.158_2021

vehicle was not involved in the accident. The complainant is listed

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

he is not an eye witness to the accident. At the time of accident,

the injured was travelling in a car bearing No.AP-29S-5100. On the

narration of the inmates of the car, 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 father of the petitioner. His evidence reveals that

his daughter is a minor who sustained injuries in the accident. He

deposed with regard to the injuries sustained by his minor

daughter in the accident and that he is not an eye witness to the

accident. In his cross examinations, he 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 admission and the overwriting in the charge sheet, the

Tribunal has dismissed the petition. However, one A. Padma who is

the relative of PW1 was travelling along with the minor girl and

other relatives in the car bearing No.AP-29S-5100 which met with

the accident and she has filed M.V.O.P.No.2666 of 2013 before the

Tribunal and against the award of the Tribunal she approached

this Court through MACMA.No.159 of 2021. Since both the appeals ETD,J MACMA No.158_2021

are connected, both these matters were heard together. In

MACMA.No.159 of 2021 it is held that the injured-petitioner has

deposed with regard to the occurrence of the accident stating that

the accident occurred due to the driver of the Maruthi Swift Car

bearing No.AP-26AU-6345 driven by its driver in a rash and

negligent manner at a high speed.

d) Considering her evidence and the contents of charge sheet, it

is held in MACMA.No.159 of 2021 filed by A. Padma that the

accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the

driver of the vehicle bearing No.AP-26AU-6345. The present appeal

also arises out of the same accident and the petitioner was

travelling along with A. Padma in the car bearing No.AP-29-S-5100.

Therefore, it is held that the accident occurred due to the rash and

negligence of the driver of the car bearing No.AP-26AU-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 Open

Grade III fracture shaft femur right with bone loss, closed fracture

shaft tibia left, closed both forearm fracture, left distal fourth

quadriceps tear, and that she was treated for the said injuries in ETD,J MACMA No.158_2021

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.

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

she was admitted on 05.05.2014 and discharged on 06.05.2014

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

that the petitioner has sustained fracture injuries in the accident

as discussed supra and that the girl being 10 year old must have

underwent acute pain and suffering during the period of treatment

and recovery. It is also elicited that she was again admitted after

one year for implant removal which also involves further pain and

suffering. Thus, a total amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded

towards pain and suffering.

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

Rs.22,710/-. Further a set of Pharmacy bills are also produced

which comes to a total of Rs.23,895/-. In addition to that the

petitioner must have sustained 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.71,605/- is awarded under ETD,J MACMA No.158_2021

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

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

Rs.72,000/-."

d) Since the child is minor, no amount can be awarded towards

loss of earnings.

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

amounts:

1. Compensation under the head 1,00,000/-

'injuries, shock, Pain and suffering

2. Loss of earnings -Nil-

4. Compensation under the head of 72,000/-

hospital, Medical Expenses, transport, extra-nourishment and other incidental expenses Total 1,72,000/-

f) Therefore, the compensation to which the petitioner is

entitled is calculated as Rs.1,72,000/-.

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.158_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.2192 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.1,72,000/- 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.

Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appeal, shall

stand closed.

_________________________________ JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA Date: 18.06.2025 ds ETD,J MACMA No.158_2021

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

M.A.C.M.A.NO.158 OF 2021 Date: .06.2025.

ds