IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY

MACMA No.422 of 2019

DATE: 02.12.2025

Between:

United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,

Represented by its Divisional Manager,

R/o. Basheerbagh, Hyderabad

…..Appellant

AND

Kondal Rao Gajawada and another

….Respondents

JUDGMENT:

This appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is

filed by the appellant–Insurance Company challenging the award dated 15.10.2018 passed in M.V.O.P.No.1064 of 2012 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal–cum–Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, whereby the Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.4,40,000/- with interest at 7% per annum in favour of the respondent

No.2-claimant for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident.

2. The brief facts are that on 14.09.2012 at about 14:00 hours,the claimant along with his friend Samala Shankar Rao was travelling in car bearing No.AP 11 AE 5850 from Pillaipally Village to Hayathnagar and

whenthey reached Bandaravirala Village, Hayathnagar, a lorry bearing registration No.AP 29 TA 0401 came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed the car, resulting in multiple grievous injuries to the claimant, including a comminuted fracture of the proximal shaft of the humerus with subluxation of the shoulder joint, and grievous injuries to L1 and L2 vertebra. Stating that he took treatment at Sunshine Hospital and other medical centres and that due to the injuries, he was unable to continue his avocation and suffered prolonged disability, the claimant filed the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-. 3. Before the Tribunal, the owner of the lorry remained ex parte. The Insurance Company filed counter denying the manner of accident, the age, occupation and income of the claimant, and further contended that the lorry No.AP 29 PA 0401 was not insured with it and that the vehicle involved was different. It was also pleaded that the amounts claimed were excessive and ultimately, prayed to dismiss the petition.

4. After full-fledged trial, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry driver and that the lorry involved was the one insured with the appellant. It then awarded total compensation of Rs.4,40,000/- with interest @ 7% per annum. Aggrieved by the same, the Insurance Company filed the present appeal.

5. Heard the learned counsel for both sides and perused the record.

6. The point that for consideration in this appeal is:

“Whether the compensation of Rs.4,40,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is excessive, and whether any interference is warranted?”

7. Regarding the manner of accident, the claimant as PW1 clearly narrated the incident. The FIR, complaint and charge sheet (Exs.A1 and A2) support the occurrence. The 161 Cr.P.C. statements of eye-witnesses Shankar Rao, Kondal Rao and Sugunakar Reddy (Exs.A3 to A5) are consistent and confirm that the lorry came in a rash manner and hit their car. The medical legal case record (Ex.A8) and the wound certificates corroborate the injuries suffered. There is no rebuttal evidence from the insurer. The Tribunal rightly held that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry.

8. The insurer disputed the vehicle number, arguing that the policy covered vehicle No.AP 29 TA 0401, whereas the FIR mentioned vehicle number as AP 29 PA 0401. The Tribunal examined this aspect in detail. Ex.A6 (scene of offence panchanama and sketch) and the statements of witnesses show the vehicle involved was the lorry insured with the appellant. RW1 (Insurance Company witness) admitted that the policy covered AP 29 TA 0401 and that the discrepancy in FIR appeared to be clerical. Ex.B1 (policy) supports coverage. The Tribunal correctly concluded that the lorry involved in the accident is the one insured with the appellant, and the mistaken mention of “PA” instead of “TA” in the FIR is n