MAIDAM PUJITHA, ADILABAD DIST v. P NAGESH BABU, ADILABAD DIST AND ANOTHER

Court: High Court for State of Telangana

Bench: M.G.PRIYADARSINI

Judgment date: 2024-12-23

Case summary

High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2024-12-23. MAIDAM PUJITHA, ADILABAD DIST v. P NAGESH BABU, ADILABAD DIST AND ANOTHER. Read the judgment...

Judgment text

t [ 3253 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER I TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M. G. PRIYADARSINI MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 34 OF 2017 Appeal filed Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act,1988 against the Judgment and decree in O. P. No. '152 of 2015 dated. 20. 09. 2016 on the file of the Court of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- lll Additional District Judge, Asifabad. Between: 1. Maidam Pujitha, D/o. Ashanna, Age 14 years, Occ Student (minor), Under the guardian ship of her natural Father/guard ian. 2 Maidam Ashanna, S/o. Malliah, Age 43 years, Occ Private Employee, Rl/o. H. No. 1-13-4411 , Kapu-wada, Kaghaznagar, Adilabad District. ... AppellanUPetitioner AND 1. P Nagesh Babu, S/o- Rama Rao, Age 49 years, Occ Private Employee and Owner of Crime vehicle, Rl/o. Near Bus stand, Narayanapur Village, RIM Rebbena, Adilabad District. 2.

The Oriental lnsurance Company Limited,, Represented by its Divisional Manager, Dhanraj Plaza, llnd Floor, M. G. Road, Chandrapur-442 402 (MS) ... Respondents/Respondents Counsel for the Appellants : Sri S Surender Reddy Counsel forthe Respondent No. 2 : Ms. I Maamu Vani Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 : _ _ _ The Court delivered the following: Judgment I LE SMT CEM. G. M. A. C. M. A. N o. 34 or' 2017 JUDGIYIE NT: Aggriey,_. d by the dismissal order dated 20. Og. 2Ot6 (hereinafter will be refered as . impugned judgmentJ passed by the Chairmar:, Motor Accidents Claims Tribuna_l _ cum _ IJI Additional District Judge, Asifabad (hereinafter will be referred as Tribunal") in O. p. No. l52 of 2OtS, the appellants/claimants has Iiled the present Appeal to set aside the judgment and seeks just and reasonable compensation for tJ. e injuries sustained by the appellant No. I /claimant No. 1. tl 2.

For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter be I referred as they were arrayed before the Tribunal. I 3. ? he brief lacts of the case as can be seen from the record are as under a) The claimants have filed claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehi<:les Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs. 1,O0,OOO/-(Rupees One l,akh only) from the respondent Nos. I and 2 for thc injuries sustained by c. laimant No. I in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on O2. 03. 2013. The claimant No. I is a minor being represented by claimant No. 2, l' lr fattrer/guardian of claimant No. 1. According to the claimant No. 2, claimant No. l/injured was a school student and on O2. O3. 2Of 3 at about 4:3O pM, while she was proceeding from Arunodaya School to her house at Kagtraznagar by walk and when she reached Kapuwada, Kaghaznagar, suddenly driver of Motorcycle bearing No. Ap. O1. M.

0119 drove the said vehicle in rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed to her; as a result, the claimant No. I fell down and sustained fracture of left Radius and other injuries all over the body. Immediately she was shifted to Government Hospital, Sirpur_T and thereafter to Vijaya Hospital, Kagltaznagar, where she was treated as inpatient. b) Based on the complaint, police, the Kaghaznagar Town I registered a case in First Information Report (FIR) No. 36 of 2013 for the offence under Section 337 of the Indian penal Code; 1806 against the driver of crime vehicle bearing No. AP. O1. M. O119 and after investigation charge sheet was filed. c) According to the claimant, she is a school student and aged about l1 years at the tirne of accident and due to the said accident she suffiered fracture injuries and incurred huge medical expenses towards treatment at various private hospitals.

Further, due to the accident she could not attend classes and still having acute pain due to multiple injuries all over the body. Therefore, the claimants claimed compensation of - Rs. I ,OO,OOO/ -(Rupees One t akh on\r) under different heads against the respondent Nos. I & 2, who are the owner and insurer of the crime vehicle bearing No. Ap. 01. M. O119, for the injuries suffered by claimant No. 1. 4. Before the learned Tribunal, the respondent No. 1, owner of the crime vehicle, remained exparte and whereas, the respondent No. 2/Insurance Company frled counter denying the averments of the claim petition ald the manner in which tJle accident occurred, including ttre age and avocation. It was further contended that the driver of the alleged crime vehicle was not having a valid driving license and valid Insurance at the time of accident and it is violation of condition stipulated in the insurance policy.

Therefore, the Insurance Company assailed the liability to pay any compensation amount. It was also contended that the amount claimed is excessive ald exorbitant and prayed for dismissal of the case against them. 5. Based on the above pleadings, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues: a) Whether tlrcre utas ang accident on O2. O3. 2O13 at abotLt 16:30 hours near Kaputaad. a, Kaghoznagar, as allegsfl bg the petitioner due to rash ind_ negligent driuing bg the driuer of Motor Cgcle beaing No AP. 01. M. O119, respondent or whether there was any contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner? b) WletLer tte petitioner suffered injuies and disabititg a. s alleged? c) Wlrether tlere was ang insurane <nuerage tlte rider for of Motor Cgcle beaing . iVo. AP. OI. M. 0119 and is so, does the policy cover the risk of petitioner and If so, was there any breach of policy condition alleged by the respondent No. 2?

d) WLtetlrcr the petitioner is entitled to ang ampensotion if so to rohat extent and against uham? e) To uhat relief 6. On behalf of the claimants, claimant No. 2 got examined himself as PW1 and got marked Exs. Al to A8. On behalf of the respondent No. 2, none were examined and no documents were marked. 7 . The learned Tribunal after considering the rival contentions dismissed the claim petition. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment, ttre appellants/claimants preferred the present Appeal to set aside the impugned judgment and grant just and reasonable compensation. 8. Heard both sides and perused the entire material available on record including the grounds of Appeal. 9. The main contention of the learned counsel is that though claimants proved their case by adducing evidence apart from re\ring on the documents under A-8, the learned Tribunal without considering the erroneously dismissed the claim petition.

It contended that in absence of any objection or adducing rebuttal evidence on behalf of respondent No. 2 to contents of the claim petition, the learned Tribunal ought have considered the evidence of tJle petitioner holding that the petitioners failed to establish tie accident an<l injuries susfained by the petitioner. Hence, prayed to grant just ald reasonabl<! compensation by considering injuries sustained by the claimant No. l and medical incurred by the claimant No. 2 due to the said accident. 10. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for No. 2/lnsurance Company has contended that Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim petition ancl needs no interference by this Court. 1 I . Now tlre point for consideration is that: 1) WLether tlw impugned Judgment and Decree the leamed Tibunat calls for interference bg this court? C 2) Whetler tte appellants/ claimants are entitl. ed ang for cnmpensation? 12. Point No. l: The claimant No.

2, who was examined as PW- I has reiterated the contents of the claim petition and the manner in which the accident occurred by relying upon Ex. Al (FIR), ,{2 (Charge-sheet) to prove that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle bearing No. AP. O 1. M. O 1 19 and the injuries sustained by his minor daughter. Admittedly, there is no dispute ttrat the insurance policy under Ex. A-6 was subsisling as on the date of accident ald respondent No. 2 has also not disputed while marking the document. There is aldo no dispute with regard to the relationship between the injured i. e. , claimant No. l and claimant No. 2, who is the father/guardian of the minor child. 13. The learned Tribunal disregarded Ex. A_l FIR copy and A_ 2 Ch. arge Sheet and drawn an inference that claimants failed to prove the manner of accident as these documents won't suffice to prove the case.

It is quite clear and settled principles of law that First Information Report is often reported and lodged by police authorities immediately after a incident occurs and plays a pivotal role in the chain of investigation and the police authorities after thorough investigation file Charge sheet, which I ( rs per se a crucia1 evidence to establish that the alleged crime vehicle was involved in the accident or not. On perusal of documents rrnder Exs. A_ I and, A_2, it is clear that the accident occurred due to rash and negligence of the crime vehicle ald respondent No. 1 owner of the crime vehicle also admitted the manner of accident and involvement of his vehicle. Furthermore, in the absence of any rebuttal evidence on behalf of respondent No. r ad 2 to disprove the version of appellants/claimants ald since nothing much was ericited in the cross-examination pW1, of the testimony of pWl cannot be brushed aside in toto.

Therefore, merely because there is no eyewitness to the inciderrt or lack of evidence to prove rash and negligent riding of motor cycle, it cannot be construed that accident has not occurred. Thus, ttris Court is of the considered opinion that the accident ()ccurred due to rash and negligence of the crirne vehicle, hence, this point is answered accordingly in favour of appellants / claimants. 14. Point No. 2: Now comlng to the quantum of compensation. claimant No. I sustained left radius level third fracture injurv, which is grievous in nature as per Ex. A_3 wound certificate. On perusal of above documents and considering thc injuries sustained by the claimant, this court is i (. - of the considered opinion that an amount of Rs. 25,0OO/_ towards one fracture injury seems to be just and reasonable. Considering the age and injured being a minor, a sum of Rs. 2O,OOO/- is awarded towards pain and sufferings.

Further, the appellants/claimants also filed medical prescriptions and bunch of medical bills under Exs. A-4 and A_S. Considering the same, a sum of Rs. 1O,0OO/-is granted towards medical expenses. Under the head of transportation, attendant charges and extra nourishment a sum ofRs. 1O,OOO/- is awarded. 15. Thus, in all, the appellant/claimant No. I is entitled for the compensation under various heads, as follows: Sl. No. Name of the head Compensation I entitled by the I chimant I 1 Fracture Injury 2s,ooo/- 2. Pain and sufferance 2O,OOO /- Medical expenses and hospital 10,0oo/- charges 4. Transportation, extra nourishment 10,ooo/- and attendant charges Total 65,0Oo/- 16. In the result, the Appeal is allowed in part by awarding compensation of Rs. 65,OOO/- which shall carryr interest at Z. So/o per €rnnurn from the date of hling of the petition till the date of realization payable by the respondents jointly and severally.

The respondents are directed to deposit the compensation amount within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. on such deposit, since the claimant No. I is minor, the compensation awarded to her shall be deposited in any nationalized bank until she attains the age of majority. The claimant No. 2 being the natural guardian (father) of claimalt No. 2 is entitled to withdraw the interest accrued on the deposited amount to meet the day to day expenses of the minor. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. SD/. T TIRUMALA DEVI, ASSISTA. NT REGISTRAR. \ //TRUE COPY// ,I\ v ECTION OFFICER To, lll Additional District 1. The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- Judge, Asifabad(with records, if any) 2. One CC to Sri S Surender Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Ms. I Maamu Vani' [OPUC] 4. Two CD CoPies A b t t HIGH COURT DATED:2311212024 E S rAn€ 1t\ i $ { trs ]l d sE D59r,,' " ,i.

' JUDGMENT+DECREE 2 DRAFTS MACMA. No. 34 of 2017 PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS 0 ,b{ \ 9D t \ IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M. G. PRIYADARSINI MOTOR ACCIDENT clvll MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 34 OF 2017 Between: 1. Maidam Pujitha, Dio. Ashanna, Age 14 years, Occ Student (minor), Under the guardian ship of her natural Father/guardian. 2 Maidam Ashanna, Sio. Malliah, Age 43 years, Occ Private Employee, Fi,/o. H. No. t-13-4411, Kapu-wada, Kaghaznagar, Adilabad District. ... Appe lla nUPetitione r AND 1 P Nagesh Babu, S/o. Rama Rao, Age 49 years, Occ Private Employee and Owner of Crime vehicle, Rl/o. Near Bus stand, Narayanapur Village, RIM Rebbena, Adilabad District. 2 The Oriental lnsurance Company Limited,, Represented by its Divisional Manager, Dhanraj Plaza, llnd Floor, M. G. Road, Chandrapur-442 402 (MS) ...

Respondents/Respondents Appeal filed Under Section 1 73 of Motor Vehicles Act,1 988 against the Judgment and decree in O. P. No. 152 of 2015 dated. 20. 09. 2016 on the file of the Court of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- lll Additional District Judge, Asifabad. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the Case and upon hearing the arguments of Sd S Surender Reddy, Advocate for the Appellants and of Ms. I Maamu Vani, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2 and none appeared for the respondent No. 'l . This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: 1. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is Partly allowed by awarding compensation of Rs. 65,0001 which shall carry interest at 7.

5o/o p$ annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization payable by the respondents jointly and severally; 2' That the respondents are directed to deposit the compensation amount within a period of tvyo months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment; 3. That on such deposit, since the claimant No. l is minor, the cornpensation awarded to her shafi be deposited in any narionarized bank untir she attains the age of majority: 4' That the craimant No. 2 being the narurar guardian (father) of craimant No. 2 is entitred to withdraw the interest accrued on the deposited amount to meet the day to day expenses of the minor; 5. That save as aforesaid, the decree of the Lower court shafl stands confirmed in all other respects; and 6. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. SD/. T TIRUMALA DEVI. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR. //TRUE COPY// SI-CTION OFFICER To, 1.

The chairman, Motor Accident craims Tribunar-cum-ilr Additionar District Judge, Asifabad 2. Two CD Copies ADK @j I I HIGH COURT I DATED:2311212024 i DECREE MACMA. No. 34 of 2017 PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS ,A W

Source: High Court for State of Telangana. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.