Nethi Saidulu Vs N. Sathyanarayana

¶1

[^32s61

¶2

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

¶3

TUESDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR^REDDY

¶6

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLA^{NEOUS APPEAL NO: 651 OF 2019}

¶7

Appeal filed under Section 173 of^{M.V.Act, aggrieved by the orderand} decree date17.12.2018^passed in M.V.O.P.No.286i2013^{on the file of the court of} the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims^{Tribunal-cum-Special Sessions Judge for} Trial of S.C.s/S.T.s(POA) Cases-cum-Vll Additional^{DistrictJudge,Nalgonda-}

¶8

Between:

¶9

Nethi Saidulu, S/o Maraiah, Age- 25^years, Occ-^{Laborer, R./o Sabbidigudem} Village, Narketpalli Mandal, Nalgonda District.

¶10

...APPELLANT/Petitioner

¶11

AND

¶12

1 . N. Sathyanarayana, S/o. Narahari, Aged- J5^{years,R/o.H.No.19-2112'1} ' Muthireitdykunla, Miryalaguda, Nalgonda^{District (Owner of Auto bearing No.} AP-24-X-8690)

¶13

The Oriental lnsurance Company^{Limited, BranchOffice, Ramagiri, Nalgonda} Town and District rep.by its Br. Manager. (Policy No. 43379113112013117 , valid from 4-4-2012 to^34-2013)

¶14

...RESPONDENTS/ResPondents

¶15

Counsel for the Appellant : SRl. ANNAPURNA^SREERAM

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 :

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SMT.^{L MAAMU VANI}

¶18

The Court made the following: JUDGMENT

¶19

IIY THE HIGH COT'RT NOR TIIE ATATE OF TEI" .ITGAITA AT E?DERABAI)

¶20

TEE HOIT'BLE SRI WSTICE C.V.BEASKAR ]I ODDY

¶21

M.A.C.U.A.I[o.651 of 2019

DATE: O6.O1.2O26

Betweeu:

Nethi Saidulu

...AppeIlant

AND

N. Sa thyanarayana and alother.

¶28

Respondents

¶29

JTIDGMENT:

¶30

This appeal is filed by tJ:e appellant-claimant, Lnder Secdon 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, aggrieved by tlLr award dated l7.l2.20la passed by tJ'e Chairman, Motor Acr i lents Claims Tribunal-cum-Special Sessions Judge for Trial of S.t) s/S.T-s (POA) Cases-cum-Vll Additional District Judge, Nalgond:r ( tr short, "the Tribunal") in M.V.O.P.No.286 of 2013, whereby the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. TO,OOOI- with propr :tionate costs and interest fhereon at 60/o pet annum from the dat: c,f petition till the date of reaiization.

¶31

The brief facts of the case are t]1at on 23.12.' O12 at about 4:30 PM, the appellant was travelling in the auto bearing

¶32

2

¶33

: i I I Ii II t I t i II i i! I t t tII I I I I I I ! I I, t I

¶34

reBistration No. AP-24-X-6690 of respondent No.1 from Narketpally to go to l.is destination, the driver of the said vehicle drove in a rash and negligent manner at high speed ald on the way, when the auto reached the outskirts of Chinathummalagudem viflage, the driver lost control, and the auto turned turtle. As a result, the appellant sustained grievous injuries and fractures. The appellant filed the aforesaid O.P. against r€spondent No.l-owner of the auto and respondent No.2-Insurance Company claiming compensation of Rs.2,5O,OOO/-.

¶35

Before the Tribunal, respondent No.l-owner of the vehicle remained ex parte and. respondent No.2-Insurance Compaly filed a counter, denying tJre averments of the claim petition, contending that the driver lacked a valid driving license, the auto was overloaded, and t.Ile compensation claimed was excessive.

¶36

The Ttibunal, upon appreciation of the evidence, held that the appellant sustained injuries in the accident due to the negligent driving of respondent No.l's vehicle. It further held that respondent No.2 was the insurer under a valid policy and, hence tJ e insurance company is liable to pay the compensation. The Tribunal also obserrred that the auto was overcrowded (more than four passengbrs, e\ren up to ten, based on the cross-examination of PW-1) and t]lus held tJre appellant partially liable, fixing a

¶37

3

¶38

contributory negligence^{of 30% on the part of the al: rcllant' The} Tribuna-I assessed the^{total just compensation at F:l ' 1,OO,OOO/-} (Rs.SO,OOO/- toward.s special damages^{and Rs. 50,O())./- towards} general damages), from which it deducted^{3O%(Rs.3 ),OOO/-)for} contributory negligence,^{thereby awardinga final cor:r nnsation of} Rs.7o,OO0/-.

¶39

The learned counsel for the^{appellant sirbmi:t 3d that the} quantum of compensation awarded by the^{Tribunal is meagre and} the Tribunal ought to^{have awardedthe claimerl amountof} Rs.2,SO,OOO/ -, and it erred in not considering^{the 409} '^permanent disabitity certificate^(Ex.A-4). It is^{furtherconten i :d that the} Tribunal erred in hnding contributory^{negligencear Iultimately} prayed to allow the appeal.

¶40

On t1'e other hand, the learned Standing^{Ccr nsel for the} respondent No.2-lnsurance Company^{supportedtL :impugrred} award passed by the Tribunal and ultimately^prayedt '^dismisstJle appeal.

¶41

In Sushma us. ]\Btln CranaPo,tl Rangole & )thersl,^the

¶42

Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows:

¶43

" 18. ln the case of Union oJ India v. United.India Insr.)rance^{Cb. Ltd.,} (1997) 8 sCC 683/ thts C,aurt dealt tuith the question uk'tler the

¶44

'^{2024 rNSC 706}

¶45

4

¶46

diuer's negligene in ang manner uicarbuslg cLttclclrls to thz pa-ssengers of tlc fltotor uehicle. of whibh lE Luas the dil,er, and it uas le@ os belou: -

¶47

1-0. There .is o. well-lotoum prindple in tte law of torls ca ed thE "drctrite of identification" or.inputation". It is to the eJfect thd the deJendant can pleod the <ontribubry negligerrn if trc plaintilJ or. of ar empbgee of tte ptainttly ihei tne . pioy". i.s odbtg in tte @u$e of emplogment. But, it hns been ibo ltpld in MUs v. Armsbong lOB88) 13 AC 1, HLI (c,k,o ca ed The Benina ca-se) thit thot pnnciple is not'opplicable to a pa,ssenger in a vehide in tle sense tlat the rwltgence of the dnuer of the uehhle in uhictl the possengei i t oriUlng, connot be lyyt"d t" the possenger. (Halibury,s taws^-iJ EngLand 4th M., 1984 Vol. 34, p. 74; Rqtantdl ind Dhirajlai, I1r1of Torts, 23rd Ed., 1997, p. 511; Ramasuamg lger, Latu of Tods, 7th M., p. 447.) TtE Betnina case !(lBBd 73 AC 1, HLI ia uhicll this pinciple Da.s loid. in 1888 related. to possengerc in a steomshi{t. In that case a nember of the crew ond a passenger in the ship Bushire uere. d.routned on account if the nauigotors of the ship BusNre rtere negtigent, the navigolors' negwene 6uLd. not be itv&ted to the aeceosed tuho uEre trauelling in thot ship. This pincipte has been opplied, in latter cr.ses, to possengers travelling in a motor uehicle whose driuer is found guiltg of @ntributory negligence. In other uord.s, the pinciple of @ntibutory negligeice is @nfined to the acfrnl negligence of tte ptaintdj ir of his agenls- Thcre is tu rule that the d.iuer of an omntbus or a aach or a ab or the engine diuer of a train, or the. captain of a ship on the one hand and. the po,ssengers on the oth;r hand are to be 'identifed' so as to lasten the latter uith ang ltab itA for^the Iomefs^@ntributory negtigen@. Tttere caniot be i fidion^{oJ tte passenger} sharing a "rrght of control" oJ ttle operation of the uehicle nor is there a frction that the diier is an agent of th.e pa.ssenger. A passenger is not treated as a backseat diuer, @rcsser and KeetoL on Torls, Sh Ed., jgA4, pp. 52122.) It is therefore de@r thnt euen iJ the d.iuer of tlv pcrssenger uelic.le uas negligent, the Raitwags. t its negligerte ua.s othenabe proued - ould. not plead @ntribltory negliggte on thE part of the pqssengers of tte uehicle. Wtat rb clear ts thnt qta th.e pa_ssengers of the bus tutto tuere innoent, - tlE drtver ond. owner of the bus and., if proued, the Raihlags - can all be joint tottfeasors."

¶48

(emphasi.s sqplied)

¶49

It is dear Jrcm the ratio of the aboue judgmeat th^t the crntributory negligene on the part of a drtver of the uehicle tnwlued in tlg oeid.ent carutot be uicariouslg attached to th.e pessengers so as to redu@ the @nq)ensation awarded. to the pcssengerc or tlair bgal hetrs as the cose mag be.,

¶50

5

¶51

\

¶52

Following the ratio laid down by ttre Suprert : Court, tl.is Court is of tl.e considered opinion that tJre Trib^u nal erred in holding that there was contributory negligence on 1t e part of the appellant (passenger) merely for travelling in an over< rowded auto. The element of contributory negligence is solely r, lated to the actions or omissions that directly contribute to the 'cculTence^of the accident or the extent of the damage suffere 1. Since the appellant was merely a passenger and not the^, rriver of the offending vehicle, the frnding of 3O7o contributory ru:l ligence is set aside, and the appellant is entitled to full compens ttion without this deduction. The Tribunal granted Rs. 1,1 ,o,ooo/- as compensation before the deduction for contribut,> y negligence (Rs.SO,OOO/- for special damages and Rs.50,0OO / for general damages). The appellant had also suffered a 4(l( i, permanent disability as per the Disabili$ Certifrcate issued t1 the Medical Board Certificate (Ex.A-4). Taking into account t re nature of injuries, 40% disability, treatment undergone (inc.r ding surgery where steel rods were inserted to the right thigh and :ft hand), the period of suffering, and rising cost of living, this Corr t finds it^just and equitable to enhance the total compensation to ls.1,5Q0OO/in toto.

¶53

Coming to the rate of interest, as t1le Honble ii rpreme Court

¶54

in ttre case of Natlonal Insu,ra.n,ce Compamg Lttt tts. M(/j,.r.o,

¶55

l1

¶56

6

¶57

Johal and otl@rs2 a$d in several subsequent decisions held that the reasonable rate of interest to be awarded in motor accident claim cases shall be Z .So/o per annum, this Court is of t] e opinion that the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal in the instant case is on the lower side and tJ.e same requires modifrcation.

¶58

In the result, this appeal is partly allowed. The impugned award passed by the Tribunal is modilied by setting aside tJle frnding of contributory negligence and the compensation is enhanced from Rs.7O,OOO/_ to Rs.1,5O,OOO/_ with interest at Z.S%o per annum from the date of claim petition till realization. The rest of the terms and conditions imposed by the Tribunal shall remain unaltered. No order as to costs.

¶59

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stald closed.

¶60

SD/- A.H.S.GOWRI SHANKAR
)-A\L ,NF\ 5c 2r) ASSISTANT REGISTRA
//TRUE COPY//
SECTION OFFICER

¶61

To,

¶62

The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Special Sessions Judge for Trial of S.C.s/S.T.s(POA) Cases-cum-Vll Additional District Judge, Nalgonda.

¶63

One CC to SMT. ANNAPURNA SREERAM Advocate [OPUC]

¶64

One CC to Ms. L MAAMU VANI Advocate IOPUCI

¶65

Two CD Copies

BJLB/PSL

gr

i_---

HIGH COURT

DATED:06/01/2026

JUDGMENT

MAGMA.No.651 of 2019

rii SlATE
o
) \ I \ht T\6 .b
!)
i
': ;;:,;p11{:

¶74

PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS

¶75

G t(d
9,'t
a<"'

¶76

t^32s6 I

¶77

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶78

TUESDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶79

PRESENT

¶80

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶81

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 651 OF 2019

¶82

Between:

¶83

Nethi Saidulu, S/o Maraiah, Age- 25 years, Occ- Laborer, R/o. Sabbidigudem Village, Narketpalli Mandal, Nalgond\a District.

¶84

...APPELLANT/Petitioner

¶85

AND

¶86

N. Sathyanarayana, S/o. Narahari, Aged- 35 years, R/o. H.No. 19-21121, Muthireddykunta, Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District (Owner of Auto bearing No. AP-24-X€690)

¶87

The Oriental lnsurance Company Limited, Branch Office, Ramagiri, Nalgonda Town and District rep.by its Br. Manager. (Policy No. 43379181f2O13117, valid trom44-2012 to 3-4-2013)

¶88

...RESPONDENTS/Respondents

¶89

Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V-Act, aggrieved by the order and decree date17.12.2018 passed in M.V.O. P. No.286/201 3 on the file of the court of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Special Sessions Judge for Trial of S.C.s/S.T.s(POA) Cases-cum-Vll Additional District Judge, Nalgonda.

¶90

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 argument of Smt. Annapurnasreeram, Advocate for the Appellant and none appeared for Respondent No.1 and Ms. l. Mammu Vani, Advocate appeared for Respondent No.2.

¶91

This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

¶92

That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and is hereby^partly allowed.

¶93

That the compensation amount be and is hereby enhanc: from Rs.70,000! to Rs.1,50,000/- with interest * 7.5%o per annum from the drrt : of claim petition till realization.

¶94