Dismissed

Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Dammannagari Ravinder

Telangana HC7 Oct 2025MACMA/469/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Insurance company appealed against Tribunal award of Rs.24,54,158/- with interest to a software engineer injured when a lorry dashed his motorcycle. The High Court found no evidence rebutting negligence or loss of employment, held the appeal meritless, and dismissed it, confirming the Tribunal's order and decree.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed without costs; Tribunal award of Rs.24,54,158/- with 7.5% interest confirmed against owner and insurer jointly and severally.

Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Dammannagari Ravinder — Insurance | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO^NANDIKONOA

¶6

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCEL EOUS APPEAL NO: 469 0F 2020

¶7

Appeal under Section 173 of Motor^{VehiclesAct againstthe orderanddecreein} M.V.O.P.No.190 of 2014 dated 02.04.it.2018 on^{the file of the Court of the Chairman} Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-l^{Additional District} &^{Sessions Judge'} Nizamabad.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Shriram General lnsurance Compa ny Ltd, Represented by its Manager, Office at 3-6-517, Sai Datta Arcade, 4th Floor, Flat No.401 to 403, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad.

¶10

...AppellanU2nd ResPondent

¶11

¶12

Dammannagari Ravinder, S/o Sangareddy,^{Aged.30-yeai!'Occ. Software} Engineer at-SandT Capital lT Company at^{Hightech City,Hyderabad,R/o.} Taiiwai Village and Mandal, Nizamabad^{District-S03'120.}

¶13

. . . RespondenUPetitioner

¶14

V.VUay Kumar, S/o Yadagiri, Aged.^{Major,Occ.Business and Owner of the} Lorry bearing no.AP 10 V 8417, R/o.^{H.No.12-1-67712,North Lalaguda,} Lalailet, Secunderabad-500^{01 7.}

¶15

...ResPondenUl "t ResPondnet

¶16

¶17

Petition under Section 151 CPC^{praying that in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support^{of the petition,the High Court may be plbasedto} grant stay of operation of decree and^judgment dated^210412018in trl.V.O.p.tto.tg0 ot 2014 on the Motor^{Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-l Additional} District Judge, At Nizamabad,^{pending disposalof the mainM.A.C.M.A.}

¶18

Counsel for the Appellanfi SRI HARINATH^{REDDY SOMA} Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI^{P RADHIVE REDDY} Counsel for the Respondent No.2:--

¶19

The Court made the following: JUDGMENT

¶20

)

¶21

THE HC'N'BLE SRI JUSTICEI\TARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

¶22

M.A.C.M.A.No .469 of 2O2O

¶23

JUDGMENT:

¶24

This I{.A.C.M.A. is filed by the appellant/Insurance Company under Sectjon 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, the Act, 19881 aga.inst the order and decree, dated O2.O4.2O18 in M.V.O.P.Nc,.190 of 2014 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-l Additional District Judge, Nizamabad (hereinafter referred to as the learned TribunalJ wherein the learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.24,54,158/- with interest @7.5o/o per annum to^t:he claimants.

¶25

Heard Sri Harinath Reddy Soma, learned Standing .2. Counsel fcrr the appellant-Insurance Company and Sri P.Radhive Reddy, learned counsel for respond.ent No. 1. Perused the record.

¶26

For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referrerl to as they are in the M.V.O.P.

¶27

4, The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed claim petition under section 166 (1)(a) of the Act, 1988 and 4s5 of the Andtrra Pradesh Motor vehicles Rules, 1989, claiming

¶28

¶29

f,rR,J UAC![A.I[o.469^of2O2O

¶30

compensation of Rs.50,00,000/-^{for the injuriessustained by him} in a motor vehicle accident.

¶31

The petitioner was^{aged about 30 years and was} Software Engineer at^{S&T Capital IT Company at Hi-TechCity,} Hyderabad and earning^{Rs.38,000I- per month.on 17 .O2.2014at} about 11.30 AM, the^{petitionerwas proceeding on his motorcycle} bearing No.AP-2S^{-AP-3742on one side of the road from Tadwai} towards Yellareddy side^{and when he reached LaxmapurGate,} Yellareddy Mandal,^{Nizamabad District onKamareddyto} Yellareddy Road, at that^{tirne, lorry bearing No.AP-10-V-8417} driven by its driver^{camein a rash and negligent malaner at high} speed from opposite direction^{on wrong side of the road and} dashed the petitioner^{motorcyclewith front portionof the lorry,} due to which the^{petitioner fell down and front wheel of the lorry} ran over the petitioner.^{Due to which the petitioner sustained} fracture injury to right^{hand., left 1.g, right shoulder and also} received injuries all^{over the body. Immediately after the accident,} he was shifted to^{Government Hospital,Yellareddyand from there} he was shifted to^{Sai Krishna Hospital, Kamareddyand from there} he was referred^{to Hyderabad, where he was admitted in Yashoda}

¶32

\q-

¶33

¶34

f,f,R,J MACMA.I[o.469 of 2O2O

¶35

Hospital, Sr:cunderabad, where he was treated by team of doctors and he was operated twice and rods also inserted. It is also stated that due l.o the said accident the petitioner is being taking treatment 'nrith private hospitals. So far the petitioner incurred expenditurr: of Rs.20,00,OOO / - towards medicines, transportation, special diet and attendant charges. The motorcycle of the petitioner was also damaged worth Rs.5o,000/-. The Doctors advised that the petitioner for further treatment operations, for which he required more than Rs.2o,oO,ooo/-. It is stated that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of lorry berring No.AP- 10-V-8417 only.

¶36

6, Respondent No.1 is owner of the said lorry.Respondent No.Z is thr: insurance company and insurance policy was in force at the timr: of accident, as such both the respondents are liable to pay compe:nsation jointly and severally to the petitioner.

¶37

Basing on the complaint, the policy yetlareddy registered a case in Crime No.36 of 2014 under Section 337 of IpC. 8. Respondent No.1 remained absent.

¶38

¶39

f,rtR,J EACMA.[o.469^of2O2O

¶40

Respondent No.2 filed written^{statement denying}

¶41

averments made in the^{petition including the age, occupation,} income of the petitioner. It is^{also denied the manner of the} accident and sustaining^{of injuries by the petitioner.It is further} stated. that the subject accident^{took place on accountof collusion} of the motorcycle and lorry^{and there is greater negligence on the} part of the rider of the motorcycle,^{as such the ou'ner and insurer} of the motorcycle are^{necessaryparties to this petition and hence,} he prayed to dismiss the^{claim petition.}

¶42

Basing on the^{abovepleadings, the Tribunal framed the} following issues for trial?

¶43

(i) whether on L7.O2.2O14 at^{about 11:30 AM at Laxmapur} gate, Yellaredd.y Mandal, accident^{occurred due to rash and negligent} driving of lorry bearing^{No.AP-16-TW-1758driven by its driver?}

¶44

(ii) Whether the petitioner^{receivedinjuries in that accident?}

¶45

(iii) Whether the petitioner^{is entitled for compensation?If so, to} what amount and from^{whichrespondent?}

¶46

(iv) To what relieP

¶47

[n support of the^{case of the petitioner,P.ws.l and 2} were examined and Exs.A.1^{to A.15 *"h**ked.} On behalf of the

¶48

respondents, no oral or documentary^{evidencewas evidenced.}

¶49

¶50

¶51

IYI{R'J UACUA.I{o.469 of 2O2O

¶52

L2. The learned Tribunal after hearing both the^counsel and after considering the entire material on record, held^that respondent Nos.l and 2 who are insured and insurer of^the offending vehicle are^jointly and severally liable to^pay compensation of Rs.24,54,1581- with costs and interest @^7.5% per annurr. from the date of petition till the date of realization.

¶53

Being aggrieved by the Order and decree passed by the Iearned Tribunal, the appellant-insurance company preferred the present appeal on the following among the other grounds:

¶54

(i) It is averred that the learned Tribunal grosqly erred in making the appellant liable to pay compensation to the petitioner.

¶55

(ii) It is averred that the learned Tribunal ought to have dismissed the claim petition against the appellant as the driver of lorry was not having driving licence as on the date of accident.

¶56

(iii) It is further averred that the Tribunal ought not to have considered the salar5r slip filed by the claimant under Ex.A. 14 for an amount of Rs.38,000/- as gross salary though Ex.A.14 does not bear signature of the person who issued the same.

¶57

(i") It is stated that the petitioner did not Iile the appointrr.ent letter of the company or any d.ocument pertaining to

¶58

nt\o €

¶59

¶60

,l ITICR,J fACUA.Ito.469 of 2O2O

¶61

his employment in the company except salary slip or the income tax returns.

¶62

(v) It is stated that the Tribunal ought not to have granted any amount towards medical expenses without examining^any witness to speak about the medical bills or prescriptions.

¶63

(vi) The Tribunal ought to have seen that the injured^was not wearing helmet at the time of accident as stipulated in^{the Act}

¶64

(vii) The Tribunal wrongly erred in granting^more compensation on different heads without supportive^documents.

¶65

13(t) Having heard learned Standing Counsel^forthe appellant, the learned counsel for the^petitioner and^having perused the entire material placed on record, the following^points which arise for consideration are:

¶66

(q Whether the learned Tttftr.tnal hqs commltted. ang^{error ln} pass{ng the sald order and decree?

¶67

(lq Whether the appellant-lnsurance comPang ls llable^{to pag} the comgensatlon to the petltloner or not?

¶68

(iltl) Whether the petltloner ls entltled Jor^{compensatlon or} not, lf sofrom uthlch rcspondent?

¶69

(lal To ta.hat relleft

¶70

The main grievance of the^{appellant-Insurance} company is petitioner-respondent is. not^{havingvalid driving}

¶71

¶72

!lI(R,J UACUA.[o.469 ol2O2O

¶73

: .:i.:,

¶74

¶75

licence to drive the motorcycle and that the accident had occurred due to negligence of the petitioner himself and not due to the negligence cf driver of offending vehicle. But the sarne was denied by the petitioner. So also, to rebut evidence of the petitionerrespondent, no evidence was let-in by the appellant-insurance company. Therefore, petitioner proved that he received injuries due to rash and negligent driving of driver of offending vehicle and the same^\vas accepted by the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the appellant ,lrgued and contended that the very application is not maintainacle and iearned Tribunal ought not to have considered the salary of the petitioner at Rs.38,000/- and further learned Tribunal ought not to have considered Ex.A.14-pay slip.

¶76

¶77

1. Admittedly, the petitioner was working as Soft Engineer and eami:rgs Rs.38,OO0/- per month. Though it is contended that no appointment order was placed to prove his earnings, on perusal of the enl.ire material on record, the Tribunal has taken only net salary of the petitioner at Rs.30,454/-. There is no dispute regarding considering the net salar5r of the petitioner and so also consideri::rg disability at 72oh due to conducting surgeries femoral condoyle left and ORIF right humours and debrid.ement fracture of

,lI

INCR,J UACf,A.lIo.^tt69 of 2O,l2O

¶82

left leg. It is the case of the appellant-respondent that the petitioner lost his job in the road accident and the learned Tribunal after taking into consideration the evidence on behalf of the respondents, no one was exarnined and no documents were marked to rebut the same, as such this court do not see any ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Tribunal.

¶83

For the said reasons, the appeat falrs to the ground and the same deserves to be dismissed.

¶84

L7. In the result, the appeal s dismissed confirming the order and decree, dated 02.04.2018 in M.v.o.p.No.190 of 2ol4 f passed by the Motor Accident C1aims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Nizamabad.

¶85

Miscellaneous petitions, if any are pending, shall stand. closed.

¶86

SD/- M. JAWAHAR REDDY ANT REGISTRAR

/TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Chairman Motor Accident^{Claims Tribunal-cum-lAdditional District&} Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.

¶91

One CC to SRI^{HARINATH REDDY SOMA,Advocate} IOPUC]

¶92

One CC to SRI P.RADHIVE^{REDDYAdvocate} [OPUC]

¶93

Two CD Copies

NVBw

,.-*-+:,tlj#. ,=tffi

g *r?

I I I I i I II I t I II i I t I I I II II i

HIGH COt.IRT

DATED i0',111012025

S
t 1 t[R ?[?B
-ff
*

JUDGMENT+DECREE

MACMA.No.469 of 2020

DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS

¶104

*e
("
Xfi'

¶105

[³⁴⁴³¹

¶106

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE^{STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶107

TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH^{DAY OF OCTOBER} TWO THOUSAND AND^{TWENTY FIVE}

¶108

PRESENT

¶109

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{NARSlNG RAO NANDIKONDA}

¶110

oTo IDENT C IL MISC EOU PEAL OF

¶111

Appeal under section^{173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the orderand decreein} M.V.O.P.No.190 0l^{2014 dated 02.04.3.2018 0n the file of the court of the chairman} Motor Accident claims^{Tribunal-cum-lAdditional District& sessions Judge,} Nizamabad.

¶112

Shriram General lnsurance^{Company Ltd, Representedby its Manager, Office} it C-O-stz Sai Datta^{Arcade,4th Floor, Flat No401to403'Himayathnagar'} Hyderabad.

¶113

...APPellanU2nd ResPondent

¶114

AND

¶115

' Dammannagari^{Ravinder, S/o SangareddV'} fqgd.^pO-yea rs, Occ. Software Enoineer at3andT Capital^{lT Company at Hightech City,} Hyderabad, R/o. iadwai Village and^{Mdndal, Nizamabad District-503120'}

¶116

. . . RespondenUPetitioner

¶117

2.V.ViiavKumar.S/oYadaqiri,Aged.Maior,Occ.BusinessandOwnerofthe - ioiri,-6"iiinq no-.Ap to '.v aafi-, R/o. H:No.12-1-67712, North Lalaguda, Lalabet, Sec-underabad-500^{0 1 7.}

¶118

...ResPondenUl "t^ResPondent

¶119

Appeal under Section^{173 of MotorVehicles Act against the orderand decreein} M.V.O.P.No.19O oI 2014^{daled 02.04..;.20180n the file of the court of the chairman} Motor Accident claims^{Tribunal-cum-lAdditional District& sessions Judge,} Nizamabad.

¶120

This appeal coming on^{for hearingand uponperusing the grounds of} appeal,thejudgmentandDecreeoftheLowerCourtandthematerialpapersin thecaseanduponhearingthealgumentofSriHarinathReddySome,Advocate

¶121

for the Appellan:s and Sri P.Radhive Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent No.1 and none appeared 1br Respondent No.2.

¶122

This Court doth Order and Decree as foltows:

¶123

That the tMotor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and is hereby Dismissed confirming the order and decree dated 02.04.2018 in tvl.V.O.p. No.1StO of 014 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunalcum-l Additional District Jude, Nizamabad.

¶124

That save as aforesaid, the decree of the Tribunal shall stands confirmed in all cther respects; and

¶125

¶126

SD/. M. JAWAHAR REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

ECTION OFFICER

To,

The Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-l Additional District & Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.

¶131

Two CD Copies

AS/l.,lVB v,Y

t'/

HIGH COIJRT

;

DATED:0'l11012025

DECREE

MACMA.No.469 of 2020

DISMISS;ING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS

¶141

Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Dammannagari Ravinder

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Dammannagari Ravinder

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kuchipudi Veera Reddy Vs Kuchipudi Pulla Reddy( Died)

Pramila Janardhan Yelagandula Vs Mekala Shantha

M.Ramana Rao Vs Nishani Laxman , Laxminarayana

Musle Laxmi Bai, And 4 Others Vs Sambari Bhuchirajam, And 3 Others

M/s Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Pathlavath Harya

N.Subhadra , N.Subhadramma Vs K.Bal Reddy