Telangana High Court
Gountur Anand vs S.Sathya Reddy And Anr on 26 June, 2025
HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
M.A.C.M.A.No.2735 OF 2016
JUDGMENT:
Aggrieved by the Award and decree dated 11.05.2016
(hereinafter will be referred as 'impugned award') passed by
the learned Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-
X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad
(hereinafter will be referred as 'Tribunal') in M.V.O.P.No.2679
of 2013, the appellant/injured preferred the present Appeal
seeking enhancement of compensation.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are
referred as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. The brief facts of the case as can be seen from the
record are as under:
a) The petitioner filed claim petition under Section 166 of
the Motor Vehicle Act claiming compensation of
Rs.8,00,000/- against the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 for the
injuries sustained by him in the road traffic accident. The
reason assigned by the petitioner for sustaining injuries
is that on 04.10.2012 the injured along with his friend
was proceeding on motorcycle bearing registration
RY,J
No.AP 22 M 4157 from Thondupally Village to Peddashapur,
a DCM bearing registration No.AP 29 T 9599 being driven by
its driver in rash and negligent manner at high speed and
dashed the vehicle of the petitioner. As a result, the petitioner
suffered head injury and other multiple injuries.
b) A case in Crime No. 213 of 2012 of Shamshabad Police
Station was registered for the offence under Sections 337 of
the Indian Penal Code. The injured was taken to Trident
Hospital and thereafter to SVS Hospital, Kachiguda,
Hyderabad.
c) As on the date of accident, the petitioner was aged 21
years and earning Rs.10,000/- per month as private
employee. The petitioner suffered fracture of head injury and
injury to left forearm and wrist.
d) The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving
of the crime vehicle by its driver and thus, the petitioner
claimed compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- from the respondent
Nos.1 and 2, who are the owner and insurer of the crime
vehicle respectively.
RY,J
4. Before the learned Tribunal, in reply to the above
petition averments, the respondent No.1 remained exparte
and whereas respondent No.2 filed counter denying the
petition averments including the age, occupation and income
of the injured and also denied the injuries sustained by him;
the driver of the crime vehicle was not holding valid, effective
driving license and prayed to dismiss the petition.
5. In order to establish the claim before the learned
Tribunal, the petitioners examined PWs 1 to 4 and Exs.A1 to
A8 were marked on their behalf. On the other hand, no oral
evidence was adduced on behalf of respondent No.2, however,
Ex.B1 copy of the insurance policy was marked.
6. The learned Tribunal after considering the oral and
documentary evidence on record, passed the impugned award
holding that the petitioner is entitled for Rs.4,00,258/- as
compensation but awarded Rs.2,80,180/- on the ground that
there was contributory negligence on the part of petitioner.
Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the
RY,J
learned Tribunal, the petitioner preferred the present Appeal
seeking enhancement of compensation.
7. Heard Sri A.S.Narayana, learned counsel for the
claimant, Sri T. Sanjay K. Singh, learned Standing Counsel
for the respondent No.2/Insurance Company, and perused
the material available on record including the grounds of
Appeal.
8. Now the point for determination is whether the
petitioner is entitled for enhancement of compensation?
9. Point: It is to be seen that the respondent
No.2/Insurance Company did not prefer any Appeal to set
aside the impugned award. There is no dispute with regard
to the subsistence of Ex.B1 insurance policy at the time of
accident.
10. The first and foremost contention of the learned counsel
for the petitioner is that the learned Tribunal erred in fixing
the negligence on the part of the driver DCM and the
petitioner in ratio of 70:30 respectively.
RY,J
11. A perusal of impugned award discloses that the learned
Tribunal while answering issue No.1 at paragraph No.9
observed that the police investigation under charge sheet
support the claim of the petitioner that the driver of the DCM
Van came in the opposite direction at high speed in a rash
and negligent manner and dashed the motorcycle of the
injured, however, the sketch of scene which is forming in part
of charge sheet under Ex.A2 clearly demonstrate that the
accident occurred completely left side of DCM van. It was
further observed that the vehicle completely went right side of
the road and that the sketch clearly demonstrate that there
was contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner.
12. The learned Tribunal attributed contributory negligence
on the petitioner to the extent of 30% for causing the accident
only based on the rough sketch. It is pertinent to note that a
rough sketch of a crime scene, while useful for
documentation and investigation, is not conclusive evidence
in and of itself to establish a crime. It serves as a visual aid
and supplemental information alongside other evidence like
photographs, witness testimonies and physical evidence.
RY,J
A perusal of the counter filed by the respondent
No.2/Insurance Company also does not disclose any acts
committed by the petitioner that lead to accident. Except
contending in the counter that there is contributory
negligence on the part of the petitioner in causing the
accident, there is no whisper as to how and in what manner
the acts of the petitioner constitute contributory negligence.
The respondent No.2/Insurance Company did not adduce
any evidence either oral or documentary to substantiate their
contention that there was contributory negligence on the part
of the petitioner in causing the accident. In view of the above
circumstances, the learned Tribunal ought not to have
reduced the compensation entitled by the petitioner for the
alleged contributory negligence by solely relying on the rough
sketch.
13. The learned counsel for the claimant further contended
that the learned Tribunal awarded less compensation amount
for the grievous injuries sustained by the petitioner. It is
further contended that the learned Tribunal failed to award
any compensation under the head 'attendant charges'.
RY,J
14. The learned Tribunal awarded Rs.2,64,258/- towards
hospital and medical expenses by considering the oral
evidence of PWs 2 and 3 coupled with Exs.A4 and A6 to A8.
Further, the petitioner was awarded Rs.21,000/- towards loss
of earnings. Hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere
with the said findings.
15. The learned Tribunal awarded Rs.70,000/- towards
pain and suffering, loss of amenities and expectation of life.
When it is a case of head injury and evidence on record
shows that there cannot be complete recovery from head
injury, grant of Rs.70,000/- only would not meet the ends of
justice and hence, increased to Rs.2,00,000/-.
16. Further, the petitioner was awarded an amount of
Rs.30,000/- towards future medical expenses, Rs.15,000/-
towards transport and other miscellaneous expenses.
Though the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that
no compensation was awarded under the head 'attendant
charges', the learned Tribunal awarded Rs.15,000/- towards
transportation and other miscellaneous expenses, which
includes the attendant charges.
RY,J
17. It is pertinent to note that though the petitioner
sustained head injury and fracture of left radius, the learned
Tribunal failed to award any compensation for the said
injuries. Thus, this Court is inclined to award an amount of
Rs.50,000/- for the said two grievous injuries sustained by
the petitioner. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that
the compensation arrived by the learned Tribunal is liable to
be enhanced from Rs.2,80,180/- to Rs.5,80,258/-.
18. In view of the above facts and circumstances, this
Court is of the firm opinion that the impugned award passed
by the learned Tribunal is liable to be modified only to the
extent of above observations.
19. In the result, the Appeal is partly allowed by enhancing
the compensation amount from Rs.2,80,180/- to
Rs.5,80,258/-, which shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum
from the date of filing the claim application till the date of
realization. The respondents are jointly and severally liable
to deposit the compensation amount within one month from
the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. On such deposit,
the petitioner is entitled to withdraw the entire amount
RY,J
awarded to him without furnishing any security. There shall
be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand
closed.
_____________________
RENUKA YARA, J
Date:26.06.2025
gvl
