Chola Mandalam Ms General Insurance Company Limited Vs Pattela Uma Devi @ Yadlapalli Uma Devi

PATTELA UMA D EVI YADLAPALLI UMA DEVI, W/O.PATTELA PUTTANNA, HIND U , AGED 30 YEARS, EXECUTIVE I N NUZIVEEDU SEEDS PRIVATE LIMITED, PRESENTLY RESIDI N G AT PLOT NO.148, VIS H NU PURAM COLONY,PORAN K I VILLAGE, PENAMALURU M A NDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. R E SPONDENT / CLAIMANT

¶16

BASAVA RAJ, S/O.SHARANAPPA, HINDU, AGED AB O UT 42 YEARS, DRIVER OF TATA ACE BEARING NO. AP 25 X 4898, R/O.KOTGAL VILLAGE, BIDAR D ISTRICT, KARNATAKA STATE.

¶17

S S TRANSPO R T, REPRESENTED BY ITS P ROPRIETORSRINIVASULU, O W NER OF TATA ACE BEARING NO. AP 25 X 4898, RESIDENT OF DO O R NO.45-101, UPPARI GUDA, MO U LALI, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

¶18

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶19

2

¶20

Counsel for the Appellant:

¶21

1.GUDI SRINIVASU

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶23

1.CHALLA AJAY KUMAR

¶24

The Court made the following:

¶25

3

¶26

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 498 OF 2022

¶27

AND

¶28

CROSS OBJECTIONS No. 12 of 2023

¶29

COMMON JUDGMENT:-

¶30

The Respondent No.3/ Insurance Company filed the present Appeal, challenging the order and decree, dated 21.03.2022, passed in M.V.O.P.No.416 of 2016 on the file the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunalcum-II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada (in short ‘the Tribunal), whereby and whereunder the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.21,51,000/- to the Claimant/Respondent No.1 herein, as against the claim of Rs.46,25,000/-, for the injuries sustained by her in a motor accident that occurred on 28.01.2016.

¶31

The Respondent No.1/ Claimant filed Cross Objections No.12 of 2023 under Order 41, Rule 22 of Civil Procedure Code against the order and decree dated 21.03.2022, passed in M.V.O.P.No.416 of 2016 on the file the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada (in short ‘the Tribunal).

¶32

Since both the appeals are preferred aggrieved by the same award, this Court feels it appropriate to dispose of the same by way of a Common Judgment.

¶33

For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.

¶34

The brief facts in the Appeal is as follows:

¶35

4

¶36

On 28.01.2016 at 5.30 a.m, when she was waiting on road side

¶37

margin near Prashanth Nagar bus stop and when she was about to board TATA Ace auto rickshaw bearing No. AP 28 TV 3270 to go to her residence situated at Suchitra Colony, at that time TATA Ace No. AP 25 X 4898 driven by Respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner at high speed without blowing horn, while proceeding at the same direction came behind her and dashed TATA Ace bearing No. AP 28 TV 3270 and in turn the said vehicle dashed her, as a result of which she fell down and sustained grievous injuries all over the body. A Case was registered under Section 337 of IPC. The Petitioner was working as an Executive in Nuziveedu Seeds Private Limited, Gundla Pochampalli Village, Medchal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and getting Rs. 34,500/- per month. The Petitioner spent more than Rs. 20,00,000/- towards medical treatment and pharmacy expenditure. Hence, the injured filed claim petition.

¶38

The Respondent Nos.1 and 2 i.e driver and owner of the offending vehicle bearing registration No. AP 25 X 4898 remained exparte.

¶39

The Respondent No.3/ Insurance Company filed counter denying

¶40

the allegations made in the Claim Petition, inter alia contended that the Petitioner said to be sustained injuries in the motor vehicle accident when she was about to board an auto rickshaw which dashed her, which itself shows that the said auto rickshaw directly responsible for the accident, as driver of the said auto rickshaw not applied any hand brake and due to

¶41

5

¶42

negligence on the part of said auto rickshaw driver, the accident occurred. Therefore, the owner, driver and insurer of the said auto rickshaw are proper and necessary parties to the claim petition. The amount as claimed by the Claimant is excessive and exorbitant.

¶43

Basing on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial in M.V.O.P.No.416 of 2016.

¶44

“1. Whether the accident occurred was on account of rash and negligent driving of the 1^st respondent in driving the TATA Ace bearing No. AP 25 X 4898 and whether the injuries are received by the petitioner in the accident?

¶45

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation and if so to what extent and from whom?

¶46

3. To what relief?”

¶47

On behalf of the Claimants, P.Ws.1 to 7 were examined and Exs.A1 to A16 and Exs. X1 to X9 were marked. On behalf of Respondent No.3, R.W.1 was examined and marked Ex.B1.

¶48

After hearing both parties and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal partly allowed the Claim Petition against Respondents awarding compensation of Rs.21,51,000/- in M.V.O.P.No. 416 of 2016 with subsequent interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the Petition till the date of realization and directed Respondents jointly and severally liable to pay the said amount within one month from the date of the order.

¶49

6

¶50

Aggrieved by the said award, the Respondents No.3 /Insurance Company preferred this Appeal contending that the Tribunal failed to consider that there was no rash and negligence on the part of driver of the TATA Ace Auto bearing No. AP 25 X 4898 and the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the TATA Ace auto rickshaw bearing No. AP 28 TV 3270. Further the TATA Ace auto bearing No. AP 25 X 4898 not directly hit the Petitioner and in fact the claimant was hit by Auto bearing No. AP 28 TV 3270. It is further contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is exorbitant and excessive, therefore, prayed to allow the appeal.

¶51

On the other hand, learned counsel for the Claimant/Respondent No.1 have supported the impugned Award and prayed to dismiss the appeal.

¶52

Now the point for consideration is: Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference?

¶53

POINT:

¶54

On perusal of the Award, it can be observed that PW-1 who is an eye witness to the accident, who categorically stated that at the time of accident, she was standing nearby Prasanth Nagar bus stop, Kukatpally, Hyderabad City, at that time auto rickshaw bearing No. AP 28 TV 3270 came and in the meanwhile, TATA Ace van i.e offending vehicle baring No. AP 25 X 4989 came behind the auto and hit the auto, due to that impact the auto which she was about to board fell on her and she sustained injuries. The Tribunal coupled with Ex.A1-FIR and Ex.A5 Charge Sheet which was filed after due

¶55

7

¶56

investigation as against the Respondent No.1, the Tribunal came to a conclusion that there was negligence on the part of Respondent No.1 for the cause of accident, wherein Claimant sustained grievous injuries and answered the issue No.1 in favour of the Claimant.

¶57

So far as the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is concerned, relying on Ex.A2 copy of Wound Certificate and taken into consideration of evidence of PW-2, PW-3 coupled with Exs. X1, X4 and X5, which would show that the Petitioner sustained multiple fracture injuries and she was inpatient on two occasions for a period of three months, a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- was awarded as compensation under the head of pain and suffering. However, learned counsel for the Claimant/ Respondent No.1 vehemently disputed the amount awarded under head of pain and suffering on the ground that the Claimant/ Respondent No.1 suffered grievously and she underwent treatment for about a year, which cannot be compensated in terms of money. Therefore, the Claimant filed Cross Objections No. 12 of 2023 seeking enhancement of compensation and also costs.

¶58

Learned counsel representing the claimants relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in “ K.S.Muralidhar Vs. R.Subbulakshmi¹ ” on the point of pain and suffering, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as follows:

¶59

1 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3385

¶60

8

¶61

“Courts have usually been content to say that pain and suffering damages should amount to ‘fair compensation’, or a ‘reasonable amount’, ‘without any definite guide’.

¶62

This Court had taken note of the contention of learned counsel for the Respondent/ Claimant that she underwent medical treatment for about a year due to grievous injuries sustained by her in the accident and have undergone lot of mental agony including severe pain, this Court feels it appropriate to award an additional Rs. 1,00,000/- towards pain and suffering, apart from Rs.1,00,000/-, which already awarded by the Tribunal, which is just and proper for the said injuries sustained by the Claimant in the said accident.

¶63

As far as compensation granted under the conventional heads by the Tribunal is concerned viz., Medical expenses is Rs. 13,00,000/-; Transportation and Extra Nourishment is Rs. 1,00,000/- and loss of earnings during the period of treatment is Rs. 6,51,000/-, totaling Rs. 22,51,000/-. It is made clear that except enhancing under head of pain and suffering, the remaining compensation granted under respective heads shall remains same, which are proper and needs no interference.

¶64

The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under different heads and the amounts enhanced by this Court are as follows:-

¶65

9

¶66

S.No.	Head of the claim	Compensation awarded by the Tribunal	Amounts now enhanced by this Court
1.	Pain and suffering as a consequence of injuries	1,00,000/-	2,00,000/-
2.	Medical expenses	13,00,000/-	13,00,000/-
3.	Transportation and Extra nourishment	1,00,000/-	1,00,000/-
4.	Loss of earnings during the period of treatment	6,51,000/-	6,51,000/-
	Total	21,51,000/-	22,51,000/-

¶67

Accordingly, this Court does not find any merit to interfere with the award impugned in the M.A.C.M.A.No. 498 of 2022 and same is liable to be dismissed.

¶68

In so far as Cross Objections No. 12 of 2023 is concerned, this Court considered the plea taken by learned counsel for the Claimant/ Respondent No.1 and enhanced the compensation under the head of pain and suffering to Rs. 2,00,000/- from Rs. 1,00,000/- In that view, the Cross Objections No. 12 of 2023 is liable to be allowed in-part.

¶69

In the result, The Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 498 of 2022 is dismissed and Cross Objections No.12 of 2023 is partly allowed, enhancing the compensation from Rs. 21,51,000/- to Rs. 22,51,000/- (Rupees twenty two lakhs, fifty one thousand only) with interest at 9% p.a from the date of petition till the date of realization. The compensation amount shall be apportioned among the claimants in the same manner and ratio as ordered by the Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶70

10

¶71

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶72

JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶73

Date: 17.02.2026

¶74

KK

Chola Mandalam Ms General Insurance Company Limited v. Pattela Uma Devi @ Yadlapalli Uma Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chola Mandalam Ms General Insurance Company Limited v. Pattela Uma Devi @ Yadlapalli Uma Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Apsrtc Vs Vada Minna

The Apsrtc Vs Penubadi Padmavathi

The Managing Director, Vs Yellavula Subbalakshmi

Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Vyda Arjuna Rao

A.P.S.R.T.C. Vs Settibattula Ananda Rao

M/S United Insurance Company Limited Vs Bongu Appalanaidu