[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Telangana High Court

P. Gopal Reddy R/O Rajendranagar, ... vs J. Yadaiah And 2 Others on 10 April, 2026

       THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT

                              HYDERABAD


             THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO

                           MACMA.No.3681 of 2008

                           DATED: 10th April 2026

Between:

1.Pentala Gopal Reddy
                                     ... Appellant - Petitioner
                                      And
1.J.Yadaiah and 2 others
                                     ... Respondents-Respondents


                              JUDGMENT

1. This Memorandum of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under

Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the MV Act') assailing

the order passed by the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims

Tribunal - Cum - Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court),

Rangareddy District at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad (for short, 'the Tribunal') in

O.P.No.322 of 2003, dated 03.11.2005.

2. Appellant is the petitioner and respondents are the respondents in

the O.P.

BRMR,J

3. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained ex-parte before the Tribunal

but they are contesting in the appeal.

4. Appellant - petitioner has filed claim petition under Sections 140(c)

and 166 of the MV Act and Rule 475/1B of APMV Rules, 1989 claiming

compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- along with interest at the rate of 18% per

annum for the injuries sustained by him in the accident against all the

respondents jointly and severally.

5. Respondent No.3 has filed the counter and denied the manner in

which the accident has taken place.

6. Appellant is examined as PW1, examined PW2 - Dr. Ved Prakash

and got marked Exs.A1 to A11. Respondent No.3 did not adduce any

evidence but got marked Ex.B1 - insurance policy.

7. The learned Tribunal after analyzing the evidence adduced by the

appellant - petitioner has fixed contributory negligence on the part of the

appellant - petitioner at 25% and awarded an amount of Rs.1,49,550/-

against respondent Nos.1 and 3 jointly and severally with interest at the

rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the petition i.e.,

04.06.2023 till realization and the claim against respondent No.2 is

dismissed.

BRMR,J

8. Learned counsel for the appellant - petitioner submits that the

learned Tribunal has not properly appreciated the evidence and wrongly

fastened 25% negligence on the part of the appellant - petitioner, erred

in granting compensation of Rs.1,49,550/- instead of allowing the claim

in toto, ought to have taken the income of the appellant-petitioner at

Rs.5,000/- per month but instead thereof has taken Rs.1,500/- per

month, though the Tribunal arrived at a conclusion that the medical

bills are for Rs.76,182/- but awarded Rs. 50,000/- which resulted in

miscarriage of justice. The appellant-petitioner has suffered multiple

fractures and he has taken treatment for a period of one year but the

Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards fracture injuries,

pain and suffering. Counsel to substantiate his contention has relied on

the decisions in the cases of (i) Mohammed Siddique and another vs.

National Insurance Company Limited and others 1 and (ii) Kumari K.

Pushpa Latha Vs. E. Murali Manohar Rao and another 2.

9. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 did not adduce his

arguments.

10. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that the learned

Tribunal ought to have dismissed the claim of the appellant - petitioner

in its entirety or in alternate the compensation should have been

1 AIR 2020 Supreme Court 520 2 2013 (2) ALD 659

BRMR,J

substantially reduced. Counsel submits that though insurance company

has not filed cross-appeal so far this Court can examine the correctness

of the impugned award and set aside the same in toto if it is found to be

illegal, improper or based on no evidence. Appellant - petitioner has not

proved the accident so also the income, there are serious contradictions

and discrepancies in the evidence of the appellant, there is no proof of

disability affecting the income so also the medical bills which are filed

are not proved. Counsel in support of his contention has relied on the

decision in the case of Santosh Hazari vs. Purushottam Tiwari (deceased)

by LRs 3.

11. Now the points for consideration are:

(i) Whether the appellant-petitioner was awarded just

compensation, if so?

(ii) Whether the award passed by the learned Tribunal suffers

from any perversity or illegality, if so, does it require

interference of this Court?

Point Nos. 1 and 2:

12. The learned Tribunal while answering about the rash and

negligent driving of the crime vehicle has held that apart from the

3 (2001) 3 SCC 179

BRMR,J

appellant-petitioner two other persons namely Niranjan and Narsimha

were on the scooter bearing No. AP-28-T-6231 and held that there was a

contributory negligence on the part of the appellant and fixed

contributory negligence at 25%. The evidence of the appellant -

petitioner coupled with Ex.A1 - CC of FIR and Ex.A2 - CC of charge

sheet, goes to show that it is the driver of the crime vehicle who was

negligent in driving the tractor bearing No.AP-27-D-573 in a rash and

negligent manner and caused the accident. Respondent No.3 has not

adduced any evidence to show that it is the appellant - petitioner who

contributed in the accident except taking a defence in the counter.

13. In Mohammed Siddique1 Supreme Court held that the fact that a

person was a pillion rider on a motor cycle along with the driver and one

more person on the pillion, may be a violation of law. But such violation

by itself without anything more, cannot lead to a finding of contributory

negligence, unless it is established that his very act of riding along with

two others contributed either to the accident or to the impact of the

accident upon the victim.

14. In Kumari K. Pushpa Latha2, High Court of Judicature, Andhra

Pradesh at Hyderabad held that the car driver was at fault and the

accident is the result of rash and negligent driving of the car driver solely

BRMR,J

and the motor cycle rider did not contribute any negligence for the

accident.

15. When Ex.A2 charge sheet is staring against the driver of the crime

vehicle, the Tribunal has erred in fixing contributory negligence on the

appellant-petitioner at 25%. The decisions cited by the learned counsel

for the appellant stated supra are squarely applicable to the case on

hand.

16. Insofar as the income of the appellant - petitioner is concerned

though the appellant-petitioner stated that he was earning Rs.5,000/-

per month by doing business and agriculture but the Tribunal has taken

the income of the appellant at Rs.1,500/- per month, arrived annual

income at Rs.18,000/- [1,500 x 12], applied multiplier '17' and arrived at

Rs.3,06,000/- [18,000 x 17], taken disability at 40% under Ex.A9 and

arrived at Rs.1,22,400/-. Further, the learned Tribunal has awarded

Rs.20,000/- towards fracture to both bones of right leg, Rs.2,000/-

towards attendant charges, Rs.2,000/- for transport charges, Rs.3,000/-

for extra nourishment, Rs.50,000/- for treatment and medicines and all

together arrived at Rs. Rs.1,99,400/-, deducted 25% towards

contributory negligence and arrived at Rs.1,49,550/- [1,99,400 - (25% of

1,99,400 = 1,49,550)].

BRMR,J

17. The evidence of the appellant - petitioner is that he is earning an

amount of Rs.5,000/- per month on doing business in flats and on

agriculture. Though PW1 was cross-examined by the learned counsel for

respondent No.3 nothing incriminating is elicited to destroy the evidence

of PW1. As on the date of accident, appellant-petitioner is aged about 22

years and appropriate multiplier would be '18' but not '17' as per the

decision of the Supreme Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi

Transport Corporation 4 . The Tribunal has taken the disability of the

appellant at 40% by considering Ex.A9 - Disability Certificate. The

evidence of PW2 is material to show that the appellant-petitioner is able

to climb steps with some difficulty. This Court fixes the disability of the

appellant-petitioner at 20% in view of the Three Judge Bench judgment

of the Supreme Court in Pappu Deo Yadav vs. Naresh Kumar and

others 5 . As the appellant-petitioner has not examined any person to

prove the injuries, the learned Tribunal has awarded less amount

towards fracture to both bones of right leg, attendant charges,

transportation charges, extra nourishment charges and also reduced the

medical bills without any justification. As Ex.A8 - medical bills are for

Rs. 76,182.44, the appellant - petitioner is entitled for Rs.76,182/-

towards medical bills. Appellant-petitioner is entitled for future

prospects as per the decision of the Supreme Court in National 4 (2009) 6 SCC 121 5 AIR 2020 SC 4424

BRMR,J

Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others6. This Court

fixes the income of the appellant at Rs.4,000/- per month which will

meet the ends of justice.

18. Insofar as the contention of learned counsel for respondent No.3

that in absence of any appeal from the insurance company, the appeal

filed by the appellant-petitioner can be dismissed by setting aside the

award and contended that the appellate Court has jurisdiction to reverse

or affirm the findings of the Trial Court. The first appeal is a valuable

right of the parties and unless restricted by law, the whole case therein

is open for re-hearing both on question of fact and law.

19. Respondent No.3 without filing any cross-appeal cannot challenge

the award in the appeal filed by the appellant-petitioner. The decision

cited by learned counsel for respondent No.3 in Santosh Hazari3 is not

applicable to the case on hand.

20. Appellant-petitioner is entitled for the following amount:

            Sl.No.             Name of the Head          Compensation
                                                        awarded by this
                                                              Court
            1.          Income                         Rs.4,000/- per month
            2.          Add 40% future prospects       Rs.5,600/-
                                                       4,000 + 1,600
                                                       40% of 4,000 = 1,600/-
            3.          Annual income                  Rs.67,200/-
                                                       5,600 x 12



    (2017) 16 SCC 680

                                                                                           BRMR,J





      4.       Multiplier '18'                                    Rs.12,09,600/-
                                                                  67,200 x 18
      5.       Disability 20%                                     Rs.2,41,920/-
                                                                  12,09,600 x 20%
      6.       Loss of earnings for six months                    Rs.24,000/-
               Rs.4,000/- per month                               4,000 x 6
      7.       Medical expenses                                   Rs.76,200/-
               Rs.76,182/- rounded off to Rs.76,200/-
      8.       Pain and suffering and fracture                    Rs.50,000/-
               injuries
      9.       Attendant charges                                  Rs.10,000/-
      10.      Extra nourishment                                  Rs.10,000/-
      11.      Loss     of    amenities   and                     Rs.20,000/-
               transportation charges
               Total                                              Rs.4,32,120/-

21. The learned Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 7.5% per

annum, this Court is not disturbing the same.

22. In the result, MACMA.No.3681 of 2008 is allowed and the

compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced as under:

a) The impugned award dated 03.11.2005, passed in

O.P.No.322 of 2003, stands modified.

b) The compensation awarded by the Tribunal i.e.,

Rs.1,49,550/- is enhanced to Rs.4,32,120/- together with

costs and interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the

date of filing the petition till payment.