Partly allowed

Kanigiri Vijay Kumar v. B.Venkata Reddy and the Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd

Telangana HC19 Feb 2025MACMA/763/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Injured claimant appealed for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal for injuries sustained in a road accident involving a Cruiser vehicle. The High Court enhanced compensation from Rs.80,000 to Rs.1,20,000, adding amounts towards fracture injury and attendant charges.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs.80,000 to Rs.1,20,000; Tribunal's findings on interest and liability left undisturbed; no costs.

Kanigiri Vijay Kumar Vs B.Venkata Reddy and the… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³²⁵³ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

¶6

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 763 OF 2014

¶7

Appeal filed Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, against the Order and decree in M.V.O.P.No.477 of 2008 dated.24l05l2007 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-ll Additional District Judge (FTC) at Mahabubnagar.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Kanigiri Vijay Kumar, S/o T.N.Kanigiri Occ School Assistant, ZPHS Kollampally, R/o H.No . 4-2-45, Sikilgeri Street, Narayanpet Town, Mahabubnagar District. ...AppellanUPetitioner 1. B.Venkata Reddy S/o Chenna Reddy, Owner of Cruiser bearing no. KA 33. 9993, R/o H.no.B-2-114, Yelisetty Village, Yadgir Taluk, gulbarga Dist, Karnataka State.

¶10

AND

¶11

The Oriental lnsurance Company limited, Rep by its Divisional manager, Divisional Office, All Karim Trade Centre, Ranigunj, Secunderabad. (Policy Cover note no. 8835 valid from 2511112066to2411112077 issued by D.O.ll Cheny Building No.3, First Cross, First Floor, Gandhi nagar, Bangalore)

¶12

... Respondent

¶13

Counsel for the Appellant: Ms J. SANDHYA RANI

¶14

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI Y.KISHORE BABU

¶15

The Court made the following: JUDGMENT

¶16

¶17

¶18

HON'B .E SMT.JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSIINI

¶19

M.A.C.M.A.No.763 OF 2Ol4

¶20

JUDGMENT:

¶21

1 . Dissatis'ied with the compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum - II ACditional District Judge (F.T.C.), Mahabubnagar (in short, the Tribunal), in M.V.O.P.No.477 of 2008, dated 26.06.2012, the petitioner in the said O.P p referred the present Appeal seeking enhancement of compenserti,rn.

¶22

For tl.re sake of convenience, the parties hereirrafter be re ferred as l h( ]' were arrayed before thc learned Tribunrrl.

¶23

The brit;f facts of the case are that the petition,:r liled a petition unclel Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1 98{l seeking compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in an accident that took place on 24.O5.2OO7. It is stated by the petitioner that on 24.O5.2OO7 at about i2.15 noon, when the petitioner along with his wife and daughter were p:-oceeding on Scooter bearing No.AP-22D-825 from Satlranarayana temple cross-roads t,r their house at Sikilgeri, Narayanpet, a Cruiser bearing No.ln-33-9993 came from Yadgiri side in a rash and negligent marrner at high speed and dashed against the Scooter of the petiticner, due to which, the petitioner, his wife and

)\ )\

MGP,] MACMA.No.763 of 2014

¶28

daughter fell down and sustained severe injuries. Immediately after the accident, the petitioner was shifted to Government Hospital, Mahabubnagar, thereafter, shifted to S.V.S.Hospital, Mahabubnagar and was treated as inpatient from 24.O5.2OO7 to 09.06.2007. It is stated by the petitioner that he sustained Post traumatic fracture of left leg and other multiple simple and grievous injuries all over the body and due to the said injuries, he is unable to walk prope rly and became permanently disabled. Hence, filed claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.2,0O,OO0/- against the respondents.

¶29

Respondent No. l/Owner of Cruiser bearing No.KA-339993 filed his counter denying the manner of accident and injuries sustained by the petitioner. He contended that as the subject Cruiser vehicle was insured with respondent No.2 with valid insurance policy, therefore, the compensation, if any, is awarded, respondent No.2 is liable for payment of the same and hence prayed to dismiss the claim against him.

¶30

Respondent No.2/lnsurance Company liled its counter denying the averments made in the claim petition including, manner of accident, injuries sustained by the petitioner and expenses incurred by him and contended that the alleged

I I

MGP,J MACMA.t\o.763 of 2014

¶35

I I I I I I

¶36

lr t I

¶37

accident occurrcd only due to the rash and negligenr:e cn part of the petitioner and as the owner and insurer of the sai<l Scooter were not made as parties to the petition, the clainr petition is liable to be dir;nrissed and therefore prayed to d-ismiss '-he claim against it.

¶38

Based on the pleadings made by both parties, th,: learned Tribunal had tiamed the following issues for condu<:tingJ trial:i. Whcther the accident occurred on 24.05.2O07 at altout 72.15 noon, at Satganarayana cros-s roo.ds in the limits of Naraganpet, tuas due to rash and ru:gligent diuing of diuer of Cruiser beaing No.KA3.t-9993?

¶39

ti. Whether the driuer of the offending uehtcle uas huing ualid driuing license as on the date ancl time oi accident?

¶40

iii. lt hether the insurance policg was in force o.s on the d.ate and time of accident?

¶41

tu. V'hether the petitioner i.s entitled for compen:;ation a,nount? lf so, to what amount and u.thom?

¶42

u. To uLat relieJ?

¶43

7 . Before the Tribunal, the petitioner/ injured ,:xamined himself as PV/1, got examined PW2 and got marked llxs.Al to A1O on his b--half. On behalf of respondents no oral evidence was adduced, however, Ex.Bl-Copy of insurance p,llicy was marked with r:onsent.

\ \

MGP,I MACMA.No.763 of 2014

¶48

After considering the oral and documentar5r evidence available on record, the learned Tribunal had partly-allowed the claim petition by awarding compensation of Rs.8O,OOO/- along with interest @ 7.5o/o per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit payable by both the respondents 1 & 2^jointly and severally. Having not satisfied with the compensation awarded, the petitioner/ inj ured preferred the present Appeal seeking enhancement of the same.

¶49

Heard arguments submitted by Sri N.Laxmi Narayana, learned counsel representing on behalf Smt.J.Sandhya Rani, learned counsel for the appellant/ injured and Smt.P.Satya Manjula, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2/Insurance Company who appeared through virtual mode. Perused the record.

¶50

During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant/injured submitted that the learned Tribunal awarded very meager amount towards loss of earnings though the appellant was absented to his duty for 3 months on account of fracture injury sustained to him. He also contended that the Tribunal failed to consider the evidence of PW2, who deposed

¶51

¶52

MGP,I MACMA.N,).763 of 2014

¶53

about the injuds. sustained to the petitioner and iailed to award any amount towards attendant charges.

¶54

I 1. On the cther hand, learned counsel for the res,pondent No.2/lnsurance Company contended that the learne:d^'l'ribunal, after consiclering all the aspects, had awarded rerrsonable compensation for which interference of this C ourt is unwarrante d.

¶55

Now the p,)int that emerges for determination is,

¶56

W4etLrcr the oppellant/ injured is entitied for en hancement of comperusation?

¶57

POINT:

¶58

Since there is no dispute about the manner of accident and liability of the respondents and since the findings arrived at by the Court trelow on those aspects were not challeng:d, there is no necessitl to once again decide the above said zrspects. The only point thet has to be considered in the present llppeal is with regard to quantum of compensation.

¶59

Learned counsel for the appellant/ injured conter.ded that though the p(:titioner got examined PW2-Orthopaedic Surgeon to prove about the injuries sustained by him, but the Tribunal

¶60

1 I

¶61

¶62

MGP,] MACMA.No.763 of 2014

¶63

failed to consider his evidence and awarded meager compensation.

¶64

PW2 in his evidence deposed that the petitioner was admitted in their Hospital for sustaining ".njury contusion left forearm, Laceration on left leg 1 x 2 cms. size, sustained bone on the dorsum of left feet" and was operated on 25.05.2007 and was discharged on 09.06.2007. He also stated that the third injury sustained by the petitioner is grievous in nature and the petitioner had to take rest for a period of 3 weeks. Though PW2 was cross-examined, nothing adverse was elicited to disbelieve his testimony.

¶65

Learned counsel for the petitioner/ injured contended that though the petitioner was absented to his duty for 3 months, but the learned Tribunal calculated loss of earnings only for a period of 2 months.

¶66

In this regard, a bare perusal of evidence of PW2 clearly discloses that he advised the petitioner/ injured to take rest only for a period of 3 weeks and not for a period of 3 months. Further, Ex.A7-Salary Certificate of the petitioner issued by Head Master of Z.P.H.S., Kollampally clearly shows that the petitioner applied leave for 49 days i.e. from 13.06.2OO7 to

¶67

¶68

¶69

MGP,I MACN4A.Ni).763 of 2014

¶70

\ \

¶71

¶72

30.06.2007 arLd 01.07.2007 to 31.07.2007 and his leave was sanctioned ar d salary was paid for the leave pcriol which means that he had not suffered any loss of earnings during his leave period. Even then, the learned Tribunal considt:ring the fracture inj ur y and other injuries sustained by :rim, on humanitarian grounds, awarded an amount of Rs.:20,000/ - towards loss o[ earnings for bed rest period which do not require any lurther enhirncement of same.

¶73

Since no specific amount is awarded by the Tribunal towards fractrrrr: injury sustained by the petitioner, tlLis Court finds it desireble to grant an amount of Rs.25,0OO/- towards fracture injurr sustained by the petitioner ald also r:nhances the amounts :ru'arded by the Tribunal under the H<:ads of Pain and Suffering, Transport and Extra Nourishment as unrler:-

¶74

S.No.	of the Narne Head	Amount Awarded Tribunal	by]	Amount awardedby thisCourt
1	l,ossolr:arnings	Rs.20,oO	O/' I I
2 I	Fra<:ttrr:in u		I	Rs.25,OC0/-
3	Medic,rl NSCS	Rs.40,OOO/-
4	Transport Extra- and	Rs.5,000/-		Rs.1t,,OC0/-

¶75

¶76

MGP,' MACMA.No.763 of 2014

¶77

	nourishment
5	Pain andsuffering	Rs.15,000/-	Rs.20,000/-
()	Attendantchargcs		Rs.5,0OO/-
7	TOTAL COMPENSATION	Rs.80,0001-	Rs.1,2O,000/-

¶78

In the result, the Appeal is partly-allowed by enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.80,00O/- to Rs.1,20,000/-. Except the said hnding, the findings arrived by the Tribunal with regard to rate of intcrest and liability shall remain undisturbed. There shall be no order as to costs-

¶79

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shal1 stand closed

¶80

SD/. K.AMMAJI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

ECTION OFFICER

To,

The Motor Accident claims Tribunal-cum-ll Additional District Judge (FTC) at _^{Mahabubnagar (lf any LowerCourt records)} 2. One CC to Sri J.Sandhva Rani. Advocate IOPUCI 3. One CC to Sri Y.Kishora Babu, Advocate tbpUCj

¶85

Two CD Copies

z\S/NVB tu

HIGH COURT

DATED:19102',12025

.\TAT tr
\tc
k-
M
oC) t

. Y.o

¶91

JUDGMENT+tt56P55

¶92

MACMA.No.T'63 ot 2014

¶93

PARTLY ALLOWED WITHOUT COST

¶94

blw ?/

¶95

[³²⁵³ ]

¶96

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶97

WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶98

PRESENT

¶99

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

¶100

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 753 OF 2014

¶101

Between:

¶102

Kanigiri Vijay Kumar S/o T.N.Kanigiri Occ School Assistant, ZPHS Kollampally, R/o H.No. 4-2-45, Sikilgeri Street, Narayanpet Town, Mahabubnagar District. ...AppellanUPetitioner

¶103

AND

¶104

'1 . B.Venkata Reddy S/o Chenna Reddy, Owner of Cruiser bearing no. KA 33. 9993, R/o H.no.8-2-114, Yelisetty Village, Yadgir Taluk, gulbarga Dist, Karnataka State.

¶105

The Oriental lnsurance Company limited, Rep by its Divisional manager, Divisional Office, All Karim Trade Centre, Ranigunj, Secunderabad. (Policy Cover note no. BB35 valid from 25111120661o2411112077 issued by D.O.ll Cheny Building No.3, First Cross, First Floor, Gandhi nagar, Bangalore)

¶106

...Respondent

¶107

Appeal filed Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, against the Order and decree in M.V.O.P.No.477 of 2008 dated.24lO5l2007 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-ll Additional District Judge (FTC) at Mahabubnagar.

¶108

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 Ms J.Sandhya Rani, Advocate for the Appellant and of Sri Y.Kishore Babu, Advocate for the Respondent No.2 and none appeared for the respondent No.'1 .

¶109

This Court doth Orrler and Decree as follows:

¶110

't. That the Mokrr Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is partly allowed by enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.80 000/- to Rs.1 ,20,000/-

¶111

That except the said finding, the findings arrived by the Tribunal with regard to rate of interesl and liability shall remain undisturbed.

¶112

That save as aforesaid, the decree of the Tribunal Lower Oourt shall stands confirmed in arl other respects; and

¶113

That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal.

¶114

SD/- K.AMMAJI AS NT REGISTRAR

,TRUE COPY//

s E^t- ON OFFICER

To,

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-ll Additional Distric: Judge (FTC) at Mahabubnagar (lf any Lower Court records)

¶119

Two CD Copies

ASAIVB

HIGH COUR T

DATED:19102;2025

DECREE

MACMA.No.163 of 2014

PARTLY ALI.OWED WITHOUT COST

¶126

@
b l*lY

¶127

¶128

Kanigiri Vijay Kumar v. B.Venkata Reddy and the Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanigiri Vijay Kumar v. B.Venkata Reddy and the Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd

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

E. Mahesh, Vs St. Joseph Public School

Durgam Rajamallu Vs B.Pasha

The National insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Smt.c.Usha Kumari

Smt Kanigiri Hema Vs B.Venkat Reddy and Another

Ailapuram Gangaram and 2 Ors. Vs Allam Suresh and Anr.

Sunchula Srinivas Vs Md.Riyaz and 2 Others