SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 58973

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO
KANDULA KOTAIAH – Appellant
Versus
BAMDI SATYAM AND 3 OTHERS – Respondent
MACMA 1588/2012



##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO

MACMA.No.1588 of 2012

BETWEEN:

Kandula Kotaiah, S/o.Guravaiah,

Aged about 33 years,

Occ: Agriculture & Collie,

R/o. Patha Pinapaka Village,

Thallada Mandal, Khammam District.

... Petitioner/Appellant

AND

1. Bamdi Satyam, S/o.Venkatappaiah,

Occ: Driver of Tractor & Trailor bearing No.

AP 20-U-3469 & 3470, R/o. Thatipudi Village of

Wyra Mandal, Khamma District and Others.

...Respondents/Respondents

JUDGMENT

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of

Motor Vehicles Act assailing the Award passed by the Motor

Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge) at Khammam

in MVOP.No.212 of 2002 dated 02.06.2005.

2. Appellant is the petitioner, respondent Nos.1 to 4 are the

respondents in MVOP No.212 of 2002.

##PAGE2##

2/8

BRMR, J

MACMA.No.1588 of 2012

3. Notices got issued to respondent Nos.1 and 2 in the Appeal

are served but none appeared.

4. Appeal against respondent No.3 is dismissed vide order

dated 16.12.2011.

5.1. Appellant-petitioner has filed claim petition under Section

166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of

Rs.1,00,000/-with costs and interest @ 24% per annum from the

date of accident till the date of realization for the injuries sustained

by him in the accident.

5.2. On 03.06.2001 at about 6.00 p.m. the appellant-petitioner

was waiting for the Bus near Thatipudi Bus stop, at that time

respondent No.1 was driving the tractor and trailer bearing No.

AP-20-U-3469 and 3470 in a rash and negligent manner, came

with high speed and dashed the appellant-petitioner, due to the

impact the appellant-petitioner received fracture of right femur

bone and injuries all over the body and he was shifted to

Government Head Quarters Hospital, Khammam as inpatient for a

period of two months. During the course of treatment, major

surgeries were conducted, blood transfusion has taken place.

Plating was done due to the fractured femur bone and he was

treated by Dr. T.Madhan Singh, Orthopedic Surgeon, Government

##PAGE3##

3/8

BRMR, J

MACMA.No.1588 of 2012

Head Quarters Hospital, Khammam. Appellant-petitioner was

discharged with an advice to take complete bed rest for six months

and was advised not to do any hard work for a period of one year

and he has spent Rs.10,000/- towards medical treatment.

Appellant-petitioner was a small agriculturist and was doing hard

work in the Fields and was aged about 30 years, earning

Rs.2,000/- per month and prayed to allow the O.P. against all the

respondents.

6. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 have filed their common counter

before the Tribunal and denied the allegations, the manner in

which the accident has taken place. Crime vehicle is insured with

respondent No.4 and they have to pay compensation if any and

prayed to dismiss the claim petition against them.

7. Respondent No.4 filed counter and contended that

respondent Nos.2 and 3 in collusion with the appellant-petitioner

with a view to cause loss to the Insurance Company has foisted a

false case and denied the manner in which the accident has taken

place, also denied the age and occupation, earning of the

appellant-petitioner.

##PAGE4##

4/8

BRMR, J

MACMA.No.1588 of 2012

8. The learned Tribunal has framed the following issues:

1. Whether the accident took place due to rash and

negligent driving of the driver of vehicle?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim any

compensation, if so, to what amount and from which

of the respondents?

3. To what relief?

9. Appellant-petitioner is examined as PW.1 and also examined

PW.2-Dr. T.Madhan Singh, got marked Exs.A1 to A6. Respondent

Nos.1 to 4 did not choose to lead evidence. On behalf of

respondent No.4 Ex.B1-Insurance Policy is marked.

10. The learned trial Court after going through the evidence

adduced by the appellant-petitioner coupled with Exs.A1 to A6 and

Ex.B1 has awarded an amount of Rs.33,000/- with interest @ 9%

per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization

holding respondent Nos.1 to 4 are jointly and severally to pay the

amou

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top