Telangana High Court
Velpula Bhargav vs Sri Srinivasa Transport on 21 November, 2025
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2896 OF 2025
ORDER:
In this Civil Revision Petition, the petitioner is challenging the
order dt.20.06.2025 in I.A.No.8 of 2025 in M.A.T.O.P.No.526 of 2018
on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-V
Additional District Judge, at Khammam.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
3. The petitioner is claiming that he has filed M.A.T.O.P.No.526 of
2018 initially for a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- on account of
injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident which took
place on 10.04.2017. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed I.A.No.5 of
2024 seeking enhancement of claim to a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- and
the same was allowed by the trial Court. Subsequently, the
petitioner has filed I.A.No.8 of 2025 seeking enhancement of the
claim amount from Rs.15,00,000/- to Rs.71,00,000/- and the same
was opposed by respondent No 2 by filing a counter affidavit stating
that the petitioner has failed to show the circumstances for
enhancement of the claim. The trial Court, after taking into
consideration the contentions of both the parties, has dismissed the
application and against the same, the present CRP is filed.
4. Inspite of service of notice on the respondents, there is no
appearance on behalf of them. Therefore, it is presumed that they
have no objection in allowing the CRP.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the
following judgments in support of his contentions that the
Tribunal/Court is empowered to award just compensation and can
also award compensation higher than what is claimed by the
claimants. The judgments are as under:-
1. Adam Indur Muttemma and others v. Rathod Reddia and
others 1.
2. Nagappa vs. Gurudayal Singh And Others 2.
3. Jitendra Khimshankar Trivedi and others vs. Kasam Daud
Kumbhar and others 3.
4. Ramla & others vs. National Insurance Co.Ltd., & others 4,
Surekha vs. Santosha 5.
6. It is submitted that by amending the prayer itself, the
compensation is not enhanced and that the Court would consider
the facts of the case before enhancing the compensation and
therefore, there is no prejudice caused to the parties by allowing the
amendment to claim amount.
2015(4) ALD 585 (LB)
(2003) 2 Supreme Court Cases 274
2015(3) ALd 141(SC)
2020 (1) ALD pg. 231
2021 (16) SCC pg.467
7. Having regard to the above submissions of the parties and also
the judgments cited supra relied on by the learned counsel for the
petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that petitioner has already
filed an application seeking enhancement of claim amount to
Rs.15,00,000/- and subsequently, has filed I.A.No.8 of 2025 seeking
enhancement of claim amount from 15,00,000/- to Rs.71,00,000/-.
Mere allowing of the amendment of claim amount itself would not
entitle the petitioner to enhancement of claim amount. The trial
Court would be free to consider the relevant evidence before
awarding the compensation. The judgments relied upon by the
learned counsel for the petitioner are also to the effect that the Court
can consider the evidence and award more compensation than
claimed by the petitioner.
8. In view of the same, the order dt.20.06.2025 passed by the trial
Court in I.A.No.8 of 2025 in MATOP.No.526 of 2018 is set aside.
9. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. There shall
be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending
in this Petition, shall stand closed.
____________________________
JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI
Date: 21.11.2025
dv/vpt
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2896 OF 2025
Date: 21.11.2025
dv/vpt
