IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY M.A.C.M.A.No.692 of 2019 DATE: 22.01.2026 Between:

Mungi Gopi Krishna …..Appellant AND Gandham Dhanalaxmi and another ….Respondents

JUDGMENT

This appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is filed by the appellant-claimant challenging the impugned order and decree dated 22-04-2015 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs/STs (PoA)-cum-Additional District Judge), Khammam (for short “the Tribunal”) in MVOP.No.1075 of 2012, whereby the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.2,38,477/- in favour of the appellant- claimant, against respondent No.1 (owner of the offending vehicle) alone, while the claim against respondent No.2 (the insurer) was dismissed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 18.03.2012, while the appellant-claimant was travelling on a motorcycle along with his friend near Khanapuram Stage, Khammam, an auto-rickshaw bearing registration No.AP-20/TB-4537, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, collided with the motorcycle, causing the appellant-claimant to fall and suffer multiple grievous injuries. Immediately after the accident, the appellant-claimant was taken first to the Government Hospital, Khammam and thereafter to Srujan Orthopedic and Accident Care Hospital, Khammam, where he was given a prolonged treatment and his leg was amputated upto ankle. The police, Khanapuram Haveli Police Station, registered Crime No.73 of 2012 under Section 338 of IPC in respect of the accident. Stating that prior to the accident, the appellant-claimant was working as a private electrician and earning Rs.10,000/- per month and due to the disability suffered in the said accident, he was unable to work anymore, he filed the aforesaid claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-, against respondent Nos.1 and 2 i.e., owner and insurer of the auto respectively, on the ground that the accident was caused by rash and negligent driving of the auto-rickshaw.

3. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.1 remained ex parte. Respondent No.2-insurance company filed a counter contending that the accident was not caused by rash or negligent driving of the auto but by the driver of the motor vehicle, and disputed the age and income of the appellant-claimant. It was further stated that the driver of the offending vehicle did not hold a valid licence at the time of the accident and denied the existence/coverage of a valid insurance policy. It was also alleged that the claim was excessive and that the appellant did not suffer any disability. It placed reliance on Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act and prayed for dismissal of the petition. 4. The Tribunal, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the auto and awarded a total compensation of Rs.2,38,477/- in favour of the appellant-claimant with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of petition till realization, solely against the owner. It declined the appellant’s claim against the insurer on the ground that the driver had no valid driving licence on the date of accident. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the appellant- claimant preferred the present appeal before this Court challenging the quantum of compensation as well as the dismissal of the claim against the insurer.

5. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. There is no dispute with regard to the finding of the Tribunal that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the auto.

7. So far as the assessment of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal has granted Rs.58,477/- towards medical expenses (based on admitted medical bills), Rs.30,000/- towards clinical charges, Rs.20,000/- towards grievous injuries, Rs.1,00,000/- towards disability compensation, and Rs