Telangana High Court
M/S Ifficotokio General Insurance Co. ... vs Md. Jameel And Another on 7 November, 2025
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO
M.A.C.M.A.NO.10 OF 2022
JUDGMENT:
Heard Mr. Kondadi Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for
appellant-insurance company. None appears on behalf of the
respondent/claimant.
2. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-Insurance
Company challenging the award passed by the Chairman, Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VIII Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Medak (for short, 'Tribunal') in M.V.O.P.No.29 of
2015, dated 28.07.2021, seeking to set-aside the award passed
against the insurance company and though liability is not finally
challenged, but the main ground of challenge was the quantum of
compensation.
3. The Tribunal after due enquiry has partly allowed the above
MVOP filed by the respondent No.1/claimant, and awarded
compensation of Rs.4,64,973/- against a claim of Rs.8,00,000/-.
4. The brief factual matrix of the present appeal is as under.
4.1. On 08.10.2012 at about 1400 hours, the respondent No.2/
claimant and his friend were proceeding on their motorcycle
bearing registration No.AP-10-AS-9174 from Sangareddy towards
Parigi. When they reached near Pulimamidi village after curve
road, one auto bearing registration No.AP-28-TE-1320 (hereinafter
referred to as 'crime vehicle'), came from opposite direction in rash
and negligent manner and hit their motorcycle. Due to which, the
claimant received fracture injuries and the motorcycle was also
damaged. The claimant was shifted to Sri Laxmi Venkateswara
Hospital, later to Udai Clinic and also to Balaji Hospital,
Sangareddy for better treatment, where he was admitted as
inpatient, surgery was conducted by fixing nails to his right leg as
the injured sustained bone fracture.
4.2. The Police, Nawabpet P.S., registered a case in Crime
No.116 of 2012 under Sections 337 and 338 of IPC against the
driver of the crime vehicle and filed charge sheet and investigation
was taken up.
5. The Tribunal, on due consideration of oral evidence and
material placed on record, came to conclusion that the accident
took place due to rash and negligent driving of the Auto and
awarded compensation of Rs.4,64,973/- with interest @ 7.5% per
annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit of amount.
Aggrieved thereby, the appellant/insurance filed the present
Appeal seeking to set aside the said award and though feeble
attempt was made questioning the liability, the main ground of
challenge is to the quantum of compensation granted by the
Tribunal though effort was made to challenge the liability on their
part.
6. Learned counsel for appellant-insurance company, while
reiterating the averments made in the counter-affidavit before the
Tribunal, has mainly contended that the Tribunal has erroneously
taken 14 months period for assessing the loss of income by taking
Rs.6,000/- per month towards his earnings, without there being
any evidence produced on record. He further contended that the
Tribunal has erroneously awarded an amount of Rs.84,000/-
towards loss of future earnings and Rs.150,000/- towards future
treatment, Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.50,000/-
towards extra nourishment and medicine, Rs.20,000/ towards
transport charges and Rs.10,000/- towards damage of clothing and
article and, prayed to set aside the award passed by the Tribunal.
7. Though notice was served on respondent No.1/claimant,
none has appeared on his behalf. Therefore, this Court proceeds to
dispose of the Appeal based on the material available on record.
8. This Court, upon perusal of the record, holds that there is no
contra evidence produced by the appellant-insurance company to
dispute the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of
the driver of the crime vehicle and it is evident from Exs.P1 to P4,
which are Certified Copies of FIR, scene of offence panchanama,
injury certificate and charge sheet respectively, the accident
occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle, as
such, the Tribunal was justified in arriving at the conclusion that
the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the
crime vehicle.
9. Insofar as the income of the claimant is concerned, the
claimant has not filed any document in proof of his income, as on
the date of the accident before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, taking
into consideration, the age, avocation, date of accident, and oral
evidence of claimant, had assessed the monthly income of the
claimant as Rs.6,000/- notionally as he was working as Driver of
DCM Van. The Hon'ble Apex Court and the various High Courts
in catena of judgments held that income of the deceased/injured
cannot be assessed with arithmetic precision in the absence of
evidence and the Tribunal has to assess basing upon the facts and
circumstances. In the present case, the claimant stated that he was
working as DCM Van driver and earning Rs.15,000/- per month
and due to accident, he is not in a position to walk and do any
work and he lost past and future income and is still undergoing
treatment.
10. The claimant/injured, except examined himself as P.W.1, did
not examine any other witness or place any material in proof of his
income. However, considering the age, avocation, date of accident
of the claimant, in the considered opinion of this Court, as the
injured was stated to be working as DCM driver, Tribunal has
rightly assessed the income of the claimant as Rs.6,000/- per
month.
11. The other contention raised by the learned counsel for
appellant with regard to quantum of compensation towards
fracture injuries. A perusal of Ex.P3-injury certificate, Ex.P5-
discharge summary, Ex.P8 - X-ray film, would show that claimant
sustained fracture of femur of right leg and surgery was done to
the claimant due to non-union of right femur and the same was
evident from the evidence of P.W.2-Dr. S.Hari Kumar Goud and
P.W.3-Dr.Vikas. From the above documentary evidence, in my
considered opinion, as the claimant sustained fracture injury to
right femur and he underwent surgery by putting ipisilaterial auto
logus iliac crest bone grafting and removal of implants to right
femur and also already undergone two surgeries, and require one
more surgery, the claimant being driver cannot work for
substantial period and as such, the Tribunal is justified in taking
the loss of earnings for 14 months and awarded Rs.84,000/- which
is just and reasonable. The contention of the learned counsel for
insurance company that the Tribunal has grossly erred in taking
loss of earnings for 14 months without any evidence to that effect
is hereby rejected. As regards the other contention in respect of the
other heads of compensation, since no evidence has been
produced by the insurance company, the findings of the Tribunal
are justified and valid, the interference of the findings of the
Tribunal is unwarranted by this Court.
12. As the Appellant-insurance company failed to substantiate
their case for interference of the award by this Court and the
Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation and the Appeal is
devoid of merits and accordingly dismissed.
13. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous
applications if any shall stand closed.
_______________________________
SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO, J
Date: 07.11.2025
kkm
