Allowed

Chincheti Averi, Hyderabad v. M Naveen Kumar Reddy, Ranga Reddy Dist and Anr.

Telangana HC12 Feb 2025MACMA/2773/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Motor accident appeal seeking enhancement of compensation for a minor girl injured when a tipper dashed her auto. Court enhanced compensation from Rs.80,000 to Rs.1,18,542 with additions for medical expenses, attendant charges and transportation, and reduced interest to 7.5% per annum.

What the court decided

AI extract

Chincheti Averi, Hyderabad Vs M Naveen Kumar Reddy… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

[³²⁵³ ]

¶3

IN THE HIGH^{COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶4

WEDNESDAY,^{THE TWELFTHDAYOF FEBRUARY} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTYFIVE} .

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE^{SMTJUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI}

¶7

MOTOR AC^{CIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO| 2773 0F 2016}

¶8

AppealfiledunderSectionlT3ofMotorvehiclesAct,againsttheJudgment-and d;;;, made in^{O.P.NO.295 ot 2013 daled' 22'02'2016on the file of the} cn"irr"n, Motor^{Accident claimsTribunal-cum-XXVAdditional chief Judge, city} Civil Court at HYderabad.

¶9

Between:

¶10

Kumari Chincheti^{Averi,D/o. SrinivasAged about} ]2.years'^{Occ: Student' Bang} ,i"oi i"pi".E"1"d^{by irer natrrit Cu"rti"n and fathi:rChincheti Srinivas,S/o'} ii;;-h;;;,--;sio ds v"ro,'-occ:^{cootl, R/o H No 1-6-212t65t107t98'} Musheerabad,^HYderabad.

¶11

...APPELLANT

¶12

AND

¶13

1 M Naveen Kumar^{Reddy, S/o,Krishna reddy, Age^Major'Owner.of Tipper} be;;i'";i.i;.'Ai-i^{z-V-or5e, Rio. ii-sz, Bhivani colohv,RajenderNasar'} R.R.Dist.

¶14

Shriram General^{lnsurance Company Limited, Rep} by Its Branch Manager, No 8, Himayathnagar,

¶15

Flat No.401 to^{403, Sai DaftaArcade' street} Hyderabad.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Counsel for the^{Appellant:SRl. A S NARAYANA}

¶18

Counsel for the^{Respondent No.2: SRI N MOHAN KRISHNA}

¶19

Counsel for the^{Respondent No.1: None appeared}

¶20

The Court delivered^{the following:JUDGMENT}

¶21

Ho-!o URABLE SMT.JUSTICE M.G .PRTYAI)ARSINI

¶22

M.A.C.M.A.No.2773 ()F 2016

¶23

JUDGII/IENl':

¶24

lrggr t i'ed by the Award and Decree clatetl 2,.1.02.2016 (hereinaf tt r- l,ill be referred as tmpugned Award,) ytassed by the learnec^(llteirman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal _ cum _ II. Additionzrl I istrict Judge, Warangal (hereinafter w:ll br: referred as "Tribrrrr a[") in M.V.O.p.No.295 of 2013, tht: pctitioner/ claimar r il,:ri the present Appeal seeking enhancr ment of compen sittil r.- .

¶25

Fr)r I h I sake of convenience, the parties hereinrrfterr are referred as ttrcy were arrayed before the Tribuna.l.

¶26

The tr:-itf facts of the case as can be seen frorn the record are that t tc letitioner, being minor representecl bv her natural guardian 'urc father, filed craim petition under Ser:tior 166 of the Motor \t:-ricles Act claiming compensation c,f Rsr.4,C0,000/_ from the re sp ondent Nos. I and 2 for the injuri,:s susta ined by her in tlre -cad trafhc accident that occurred on OT.aB.2Ol2. The reas tr: i s,s;igned by the petitioner for sustainingl inj rrries in the accicrerrt is that on OZ.Og.2Ol2 at g.O0 pM she along with her father^.,v.--re proceeding in arr Auto bearing Nc,. AF, 22 y rclI (hereinaft.ei' * itl be referred as trime vehicle) frcm ,Jilledu

¶27

,ir:&!.e. r.:t.

¶28

¶29

towards Choudariguda and when the auto reached near turning of Padmaram Village, a Tipper bearing No. Ap 12 V 612g beiag driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner at high speed dashed the said auto. As a result, the petitioner fell down and received multiple grievous injuries. A case in Crime No.7g of 2Ol2 of Kondurg Police Station was registered for the offenc6 under Section 337 of the Indian penal Code against the driver of the crime vehicle. It is submitted by the petitioner that since the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 being the owner and insurer of the crime vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

¶30

Before the learned Tribunal, the respondent No.l/owner of the crime vehicle remained exparte and whereas the respondent No.2/insurer of the crime vehicle filed counter mainly contending that the driver of the crime had no valid driving license to drive the said class of vehicle and that the crime vehicle. was not worthy enough to ply on the road. It was further contended that policy was not issued in favour of the crime vehicle and that the claim of the petitioner is excessive and exorbitant and thus, prayed to dismiss the petition.

; r.j*;+'".,i;g;.d

()rr Lrr:half of the petitioners, pWs I and, 2 were ,.)xamined, Exs.A1 1o l.(j were got marked. On behalf of respon dents, no oral evide:ce was adduced, however, Ex.Bl c.opv of .rnsurance policy^-,vas rrarked. Based on the oral and docrrmentary evidence. tte learned Tribunal awarded r:omoenl,ation of Rs.80,CrO,l,/- Aggrieved by the quantum ,tf < omlensation awarde,l b! the learned Tribunal, the appellant/;:retitioner preferre rl ttle present Appeal to enhance the compensation.

¶35

He:,r: Sri A.S. Narayana, learned counsel for the appellarrt,'p: tr tioner, Sri N. Mohan Krishna, learned l.itanding Counsel lcl. the respondent No.2/lnsuraace Comperny^.and perused tlre record including the grounds of Appeal.

¶36

It is^.:e rtinent to note that the respondent Nos. r and 2 have not prcft:rred any Appeal challenging the impu5lned Award. There is zrlsc no dispute with regard to the manner of the accident, as ,h: learned Tribunal by relying on the oral e rridence of PWl i o rll,:,1 with the documentar5r evidence under Exs.Al (FIR) anct {2 lcharge sheet) arrived to a conclusicn tlrat the accident ,)cc i rred due to rash and negligent driving c,f th:: crime vehicle. FurrlLer, though the respondent No.t2 a:-gue d that policy war; r.url issued in favour of the crime vehicle, a per usai of

¶37

¶38

Ex.Bl^{reveals that at the time of accident the insurance policy} in respect^{of crime vehicle was subsisting'}

¶39

The hrst^{and foremost contention of the leamedcounsel} for the^{petitioner is that thoughthe petitioner sustained} fracture injuries^{to her right elbow' which is causing much} inconvenience^{to her in writing and reading to pursue her future} education,^{the learned Tribunal awarded meagercompensation'}

¶40

g. A perusal^{of oral evidenceof PW1and documentary} evidence^{under Ex'A3 discloses that the petitioner alleged to} havesustainedlaceratedwoundsapartfromfractureof.right elbow.^{That apart, the petitioneralso examined the doctor of} Trident Hospital^{as PW2, who alleged tohave provided} reatment^{to the petitioner at the time of the accidentin order to} prove the^{nature of injuries sustained by her' PW2deposed} that the^{petitioner was examined oo 07 'O8 '2012 and found deep} laceration^{measuringabout 2 x 1 x 5.cm over right elbow for} which treatment^{was done'He furtherdeposed that the x-ray} shows fracture^{of elbow,which is grievous injury'}

¶41

The learned^{counselfor the respondentNo'2/Insurance} Company while^{bringingto the notice of the Court paragraph} No.12 of the impugned^{order arguedthat the evidenceof PWs I}

¶42

¶43

¶44

and 2 rr:v--a[:i that the petitioner was treated as an ()utlratient in the hospiie J, ls such, the injuries sustained by rhe Fretitioner were no1_ €t,rtrt'/r)us in nature-

¶45

1 1. The:-e i:i no hard and fast rule that a patient, who sustained frit,)r-ure injuries, has to be provided treatrnenl only as rnpatrenr . tt_ r .A3 coupled with oral evidence of pW2 clearly discloses therr the petitioner sustained fracture of :igh elbow, which is gnr:r,ous injury. As can be seen frorrL thr: irr pugned order, lr:arne cl Tribunal h1" awarded Rs.20,OCr0i -,.br the grievous i:r1, -r but since the petitioner sustained r'racture injury, thi; (tourt is inclined to award Rs.25,00()/ for ,the fracture injurl sustained by the petitioner. Further, the rearned Tribunal d ic not award any compensation for the la,:;erated injury sustr n<:rl by the petitioner. Thus, this Court is ircrined to awarcl Fts...,,000/- for the simple injury sustaired iry the petitioner So lar as the compensadon arnount of Rs.30,OOO/_ awarded 1 t lur learned Tribunal under the hr_.ad ,pai n and suffering' rs a64tr:aring to be just and reasonable.

¶46

Fur1h,:r', iraving sustained simple as well as grievous injuries, the p:t;tioner may not be able to attend lter rlar. r_o day aclivities luir L r> _:t the assistance of an attendant. The Ie arned

¶47

.--q

¶48

Tribunal has not awarded arr amount under the head attendant charges'. Thus, this Court is inclined to award Rs.5,000/ - towards attendant charges.

¶49

Now coming to the medical expenses, the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.3,542/ - towards reimbursement of medical bills. The petitioner claimed an amount of Rs.25,OO0/- for the doctor's fee ald treatment charges. But the learned Tribunal did not consider the said plea on the ground tl-at no bill is hled to that effect and that PW2 also did not depose anlthing on the said aspect. At this juncture it is appropriate to refer to the evidence of PW2, who deposed that Ex.AS i.e. bills were issued by their hospital to the extent of Rs.28,5421-. However, a perusal of the number of bills filed under Ex.AS, it does not disclose that the petitioner paid Rs.2S,OOO/-to the hospital/doctor fee towards and hospital and medical expenses. There is no dispute that the petitioner sustained grievous and simple injuries. In such circumstalces, the petitioner might have spent some amount towards lab expenses, hospital expenses and medical expenses. It cannot be assumed that the for the treatment of fracture injuries, petitioner has incurred only Rs.3,542l- in these days of high standard of living. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner has to obtain follow up

¶50

¶51

7)"

¶52

teatment elsc for quick recovery from the injuries s;ust:rined by her. He;.rr::, this Court is inclined to award Rs.!lO,OOO/_ towards htspit.al and medical expenses apart fiom the medical expenses, c,f J?s.3,S42/_ awarded by the learned .[ribr_rna]. Thus, the petiLort:r rs entitled for an amount of Rs.23i,54:2/- lrospital and med c:rl : xpenses.

¶53

14 Thr: lt.-itioner has claimed Rs.1,00,O00/_ ton,ards loss of marrlage pr:c spects and Rs. 1,70,0OO/- toward:s I >ss of life/futurr: <:ru-nings powers, maintenance and lr.,ss of consortiurm 'lhe learned Tribunal observed at page lJo.7 and in paragraptr l{O > of the impugned order that since thc: pelitioner is unmarried ar:d minor, she is not entitled for ccnsortiu m. In the context t1 i tjury cases, ,,consortium,, refers to the Legar claim made by a s.p(,use or close family member of an injured psrson, seeking cc)rrrp (:rl sation for the loss of companionship, su pport, and servic:s dur,to the injuries sustained by the injurecl party, essentially :JzLireing damages for the disruption of their relationshilr ,viL.-r the injured person as a resurt of the acci:lent. Loss of cons.rr.-jtrm is non_economic damage available. in some injury casr:s C ompensation for loss of consorl rum ca n be claimed wherr tLt: claimant can prove that he/she was dep,rived of the bene[rts of a family relationship because of the accirlent.

¶54

-rIX

¶55

Butintheinstantcase,thereisnosuchcase.Hence,the petitioner^{is not entitled for any amountunder the head 'loss of} consortium''^{Now comingto the loss of futureearningpowers'} maintenance^{and loss of life' it is pertinent to note that the} petitioner^{has not sustainedany permanentdisability so as to} affect^{her marriageprospectsor future prospectsor to say that} she suffered^{any loss of future life' Even PW2 i'e'' the doctor'} who has^{providedtreatment to the petitioner'did not whisper} anything^{aboutthe permanent disability much less disabilityof} the petitioner'^{In such circumstances' it cannot be said that} the injuries^{sustained by the petitioner would causehindrance} to the^{marriage prospects or earnings of the petitionerin future'} Hence,^{the petitioner is not entitled for any amount underthe} head^{loss of life / futureearnings powers'maintenance and loss} of consortium'

¶56

15.^{The learned Tribunal awardedRs'6'0OO/ -towards} transportation,^{which is appearingto' be on lesserside' It is} pertinent^{tQ note that immediately after the accident' the} injured^{was shifted to GovernmentHospital'Shadnagarand} from there^{toTrident Hospital'Shamshabad forbetter} treatment. The^{injured is residentof Musheerabad and thus'} considerable^{amountmight have been spent towards}

¶57

..^.:

¶58

transpor-tirt i o r for travering from Musheerabad to lrhar nshabad as the p(rt,t_icner obtained treatment as inpatienl in Trident Hospital. l.le rrce, this Court is inclined to awrrd Rs..0,OOO/_ towards trai s Jrortation.

¶59

16' The rearned rribunar has awarded Rs. lcr,o0o/ iowards loss of eilrLc:Lt.icn and Rs. lO,00O/_ towards extra nourir.;hment, which ar: ac,1x:aring to be just and reasonable cons;rder.rng the facts and c Lr: runstances of the case.

¶60

Thouqjr the petitioner has claimed an irmo unt of Rs.2S,OO()/ - trwards damages to clothing an<i artir:lt s, the petitioner 1a le rI to aver and establish as to \t/hat u,e.re the damages lh tr tr:re caused to the clothing and articlesi bel,lnging to the petit:oru:r.. Hence, the petitioner is not entitl:d frr any amount unier lte head tamages to clothing and ilrticles,.

¶61

In vjerv :[ the above facts and circumstances, in a ll, the appellant/,:Lrirna nt is entitled for the. compensation r_rncler va rious he: rd s . r s; follows:

¶62

Sl.No.	Nameof the head	Ccmp,sns;q1i9n award edtothe claimantIRs.)
1	PzLi:a ndsufferance	30,()0o/-
2	.alandMedicalexpens- _. : Hr)Si,ltt	23,:1421-

¶63

¶64

	Onefracture^rnlury		2s,oool-
4	Onesimple^injury		s,0oo/-
5	Attendant^charges		5,o0o/-
6	Transportatlon^expenses		10,000/-
7	Extra nourishment		1o,000/-
8	[,ossof education		1O,o00/-
		Total	t,t8,542/-

¶65

The learned^{Tribunal awardedrate of interest@ 8o/o per} annum. However,^{as per the decision of the HonouratlleApex} Court in Rajesh^{and others v' Rajbir Singh and othersr this} Courtisinclinedtoreducetherateofinterestgrantedbythe learned Tribunal^{from 8Yo per annum to7 '5o/o pt'} "t"''rn'

¶66

At tfre^{time of fi1ing of the petitionbeforethe learned} Tribunal,^{the age of the petitioner was 12 years and thus'the} learned Tribunal^{directedthe compensationamountto be} deposited in^{any nationa-lizedbank till the petitionerattains the} age of majority.^{But by now the petitioner mighthaveattained} the age of^{majority, thus, the purpose for which the learned} Tribunal has ordered^{for depositing the amount many} nationalized bank^{has beenserved.Hence, the petitioner may}

¶67

r 2013 ACJ 1403 = 2013 (4) ALT 35

¶68

: -, ati,, .:.

¶69

be dire cretl to u,ithdraw the compensation anroun t a.,varded to her

¶70

2I. Lr the result, the Appeal is allowed in part ty enhancing the conrF e rLr;:ltion amount from Rs.SO,OOO/- to Rs. l, .g,542/_, which s,ha I carry interest @ Z.5o/o per annum frorn the date of filing the :l,r im application till the date of reali zatron. The respondcntsr are jointly and severaily liable to degrosit the compen,;ati()11 amount within one month from the date of receipt c:f :. py of this judgment. On such deposit, the p etitioner is entitlecl trl withdraw the entire amount zrwar.ded to her without [u r;: i s hing any securitSr. There shar be no orc er as to costs.

¶71

Miscellarreous petitions, if any, pending *;hal. stand

¶72

closed

¶73

Sd/- A.I/.S.PRASAD ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPYII

SECTI(:JN OFFICER

The Chairrrran. lt4ictor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- XXV Adriitional Chief Judge, City Cir,,il C)ourt at Hyderabad. (with Records)

¶78

One CC to SR . ,\ S NARAYANA, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SiFrll f.l MOHAN KRISHNA, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Co cirls,

I { w$!q \

€;.d:,

HIGH COURl' DATED:12 tA,2'IZO2S

¶84

JUDGMENT MACMA.N o.Z',tT3 ot 2016

¶85

I
n r 1i'lE '; I
1
o
O
z.
2 r 'Lrr IfC5
(ir
11,?-
tr
1 i"1.

¶86

ALLOWING THE MACMA

¶87

I
I L

¶88

oF TELANGANA rN rHE^HrGH "ou*If3$otffott#E o *" t tf-'J#J.fl wED^{N E s DlY, rH E} ff {, ?=,,75',

¶89

RESENT

¶90

THE HONOURABLE^{SMT JUSTICEM'EPRIYADARSINI} EOU S^APPEALN o;27730^F2016 NT CI^{VIL MISCELLAN} MOT^ORACCIDE

¶91

Between:

¶92

Occ'Student,^Be-ing ""lHr?lAli,'lo"",i3, :]i:H;+'"'"i"il [,ff=5*te;r1ffifiri]:'"Pf ...APPELLANT

¶93

AND

¶94

M^Naveen [Tfl ,1ig1'ru''RiJ'i"I3r1"3fl I'?%Y'311j;Rffi^{: jJIl|#l}

¶95

bearing^No R.R.Dist.

¶96

R.R.Dist. Its Branch^Manager'

¶97

Limited,^ReP by

¶98

2 Flli'iu^{?3i"3' Hi:"3:? B""[l'H} cade,^Street No 8, HimaYathnagar' Hyderabad.

¶99

...RESPONDENTS

¶100

.*,4',531Jli1ilih'l"j#i{j;i'#r""i:li'Hiiff;,l"#silff^#"'":'Jffi Chairman,^{Motor Accident(} Civil Court^{at HYderabao'}

¶101

,""Luoffi^{??1'ruag{;q.;if} fl$ffitn[lj^ffi5'pt f i:i::1"" ilIyi,"o" *"'

¶102

¶103

This Court^{doth Order and Decree as follows:} ""i.-il;i th. rt,tncrure ue anJ nereuv is^{partly t"o*"oin"} tribunat^{be and hereby}

¶104

1. That^{the compensationamountaw-ar-O.ej Oy} enhanced^{trorn n"'etidoi-t" n"'rlie's+2/- w'hic;;hallcarry interest @7'SYo} per annum..^{tr.orn tn"""ili"'i'tiri"s 'th" claim afplication tilt the date of}

¶105

.lxi'itxt5i;'pondentsbeandherebvJoilltly:d,^':1"j*''J?:ght"to:il\t"on"-'ilontt^{tiorn t'" date of receipt of copy of} compensation "";;fti;hl; this Judgment;

¶106

¶107

4 That on s;u:lr 'ieposit. that the petitioner be and hereby enti-red to withdraw 5 That the entire sav€! a"nc,,r,ri awarrls to t"ririin"ri'rrij.;;;; ,", sec,urit) 'rs^{aforesaid tne oecree'oiin"i-"*"r'L"rn sha,} srands confirmed

¶108