Telangana High Court
Shri Ram General Insurance Co.Ltd vs Jadav Maruthi on 25 June, 2025
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
M.A.C.M.A.No.1057 of 2023
JUDGMENT:
Heard Sri C. Buchi Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant/
Insurance company and Sri A. Yadava Reddy, learned standing
counsel for respondent No.1/claimant. Perused the entire record.
2. This is an appeal preferred by the appellant/Insurance
company aggrieved by the award dated 28.02.2023 passed by the
learned Chairperson, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-
Principal District and Sessions Judge, Medak (for short 'the
Tribunal') in M.V.O.P.No.13 of 2016.
3. The claim petition was filed followed by the injuries sustained
by the respondent/claim petitioner on 22.11.2015 at 9.30 p.m. On
that day, he loaded cotton in his DCM vehicle bearing No.AP 23 U
4788 at Watpally Village and was transporting them to a cotton mill
situated in the limits of Yerraram village of Andole Mandal. When
the DCM vehicle reached the cotton mill, the driver stopped the
vehicle to take turn into the mill. At that time, one lorry bearing
No.TS 15 UA 5068 came from backside in high speed and dashed
to the backside of DCM vehicle. Due to the impact, the claimant's
DCM vehicle moved forward and dashed to another DCM vehicle
bearing No.AP 27U 6169, which was in front of it. The claimant's
DCM vehicle was totally damaged in addition to the claimant
suffering crush injury of his left leg and also injuries to right leg,
both hands, head and other parts of the body.
4. Upon examining the evidence adduced by the
respondent/claimant, the learned Tribunal awarded compensation
of Rs.14,70,000/- as against the claim of Rs.15,00,000/- and also
awarded interest @ 7.5% per annum. The appellant (Insurance
Company) and respondent Nos.2 and 3 (owner and driver of
offending lorry) were directed jointly and severally pay the
compensation. Hence, the appeal.
5. The appellant raised two grounds for challenging the award.
The first ground is that there are three vehicles involved in the
accident but the contributory negligence of the remaining two
vehicles is not considered. The second ground raised for
challenging the award is that the disability as per Ex.P9/Disability
certificate issued by the District Medical Board, Sangareddy is at
70% but the learned Tribunal has taken the same as 100%.
6. On the first count, with regard to issue of contributory
negligence, the Tribunal has discussed the same observing that as
per the police record, the lorry driver has driven in rash and
negligent manner hitting the claimant's DCM van which is in front
of the lorry causing claimant's van to dash another DCM van in
front of it. It is observed that the sequence of the vehicles in the
rough sketch and charge sheet proved the fact that the accident
occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry driver i.e.
lorry bearing No.TS 15 UA 5068. A perusal of the police records
filed before the learned Tribunal shows that the learned Tribunal
has correctly assessed the sequence of events leading to the
accident and thereby rightly held that there is negligence on the
part of the driver of the lorry but not the claimant whose DCM van
was in front of the lorry and also not the driver of another DCM
which was in front of the claimant's DCM van. All the vehicles were
going in a sequence into the rice mill at which point of time, the
rash and negligent driving on the part of the lorry driver lead to the
accident. In view of the foregoing analysis, there is no reason to
decrease the compensation awarded on the ground of contributory
negligence.
7. Coming to the aspect of percentage of disability, the learned
Tribunal discussed the same referring to Ex.A9 disability certificate
which reflects the percentage of disability at 70% and considered
the percentage of disability at 100% on account of the fact that
respondent/claimant cannot do normal activity and day to day
activity and he requires artificial limb. Primarily, the learned
Tribunal considered the evidence of PW2 who is a Member of the
District Medical Board who deposed that the claimant suffered
occupational disability of 100%. When the respondent/claimant is
an agriculturist and engaged in transport business, both activities
require that he has to do physical work with legs. Agriculture work
requires that the claimant be healthy in arms and limbs to do
agriculture work. Further, transport business requires that the
claimant be able to use the clutch, accelerator and brakes for
driving a transport vehicle. On account of crush injury of the left
leg, when the respondent/claimant is unable to do any of the
activities, taking the percentage of functional disability at 100% is
just and reasonable. As such, said ground is also not sustainable
for challenging the compensation awarded. Hence, the appeal is
liable to be dismissed.
8. In the result, this Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal
is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
_____________________
RENUKA YARA, J
Date: 25.06.2025
gvl
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
25th June, 2025
gvl
