Telangana High Court
United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs Samala Shankar Rao on 26 November, 2025
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
MACMA No.429 of 2019
JUDGMENT:
This appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is
preferred by the appellant-insurance company assailing the judgment and
decree dated 27.09.2018 passed in M.V.O.P.No.12 of 2013, whereby the
Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.3,28,066/- with interest at 7%
p.a. in favour of the claimant (respondent No.1 herein) for the injuries
sustained by him in a motor accident.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 14.09.2012 at about 14.00
hours the claimant-respondent No.1 herein was going along with his friend
Kondal Rao in car bearing No. AP 11 AE 5850 from Pillaipally Village to
Hayathnagar and when the car reached Bandaravirala Village, Hayathnagar,
Ranga Reddy District, one lorry bearing No.AP-29-TA-0401 coming from
Hayathnagar to Pillaipally Village driven in rash and negligent manner with
high speed dashed the car in opposite direction, resulting in multiple
grievous injuries to the claimant, including blunt injury to chest, right
orbital injury, dislocation of lens and dislocation of the right temporo-
mandibular joint. Treatment was taken at Omni Hospital and at Max
Mission Hospital. Stating that the claimant was hale and healthy before
accident but got permanently disabled due to injuries suffered in the
accident and that he was aged 49 years and earning Rs.50,000/- per month
on manufacture of water and waste water treatment plant, he filed the
aforesaid claim petition before the Tribunal, seeking compensation of
Rs.4,00,000/- against the owner and insurer of the crime lorry.
3. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.1 i.e., the owner of the lorry
remained ex parte and respondent No.2 i.e., the Insurance Company filed
counter denying the averments of the claim petition and contended that the
amount claimed is excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.
4. The Tribunal, after conducting full-fledged trial and on appreciation
both oral and documentary evidence, held that the appellant suffered
injuries in the accident occurred due to negligent driving of the said lorry
and awarded compensation of Rs.3,28,066/- under various heads with
interest at 7% per annum in favour of the claimant. The appellant-insurance
company challenges the said award in this appeal.
5. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
6. The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is, whether
the Tribunal was justified in awarding compensation of Rs.3,28,066/- and
whether any interference is warranted?
7. As regards proof of manner of accident, the record reveals that the
claimant (PW1) clearly explained the accident. Ex.A1-FIR, Ex.A2-charge
sheet and the 161 Cr.P.C. statements of Kondal Rao and Sugunakar Reddy
(Exs.A4 & A5) corroborated the occurrence of accident and fixed negligence
on the lorry driver. The insurer did not lead any evidence to rebut this
material. Thus, the Tribunal rightly accepted negligence.
8. As regards discrepancy in vehicle number, it is evident that though
the FIR initially mentioned the lorry number as AP-29-PA-0401, the eye-
witness statements (Exs.A4 & A5), and the evidence of RW1established that
the lorry actually involved in the accident is AP-29-TA-0401, which was
insured with the appellant. The Tribunal correctly held that the error in the
FIR was a clerical mistake and not fatal.
9. Insofar as nature of injuries and assessment is concerned, the record
discloses that according to Ex.A8 (MLC record),the claimant suffered
grievous blunt injury to chest, orbital injury, dislocation of lens and
dislocation of the temporo-mandibular joint. The discharge summaries
support the same. The absence of a doctor's oral evidence is not fatal in an
injury case when documentary medical evidence is clear and unchallenged,
as held in several precedents. As such, the amounts awarded by the
Tribunal i.e., Rs.1,50,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.50,000/-
towards inconvenience, Rs.25,000/- towards extra nourishment, Rs.5,000/-
towards transportation, and Rs.23,066/- towards medical bills, are
reasonable and supported by the nature of injuries and treatment
undertaken.
10. So far as the loss of earnings is concerned, though no direct proof of
income was filed, the Tribunal adopted notional income of Rs.25,000/- per
month, considering that the claimant was a businessman travelling in his
own car and required rest due to multiple grievous injuries. The amount
awarded by the Tribunal atRs.75,000/- for three months' loss of earnings
cannot be said to be excessive. Thus, the total compensation
of Rs.3,28,066/-awarded by the Tribunal is neither excessive nor arbitrary.
This Court finds no error, much less legal or factual infirmity, warranting
interference in this appeal.
11. Resultantly, this appeal is devoid of merits and is accordingly
dismissed. No order as to costs.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
________________________________
JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
Date: 26.11.2025
JSU
