##PAGE1##

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.3381 of 2019

DATE: 31.03.2026

Between:

Komarabathini Nagaraju …..Appellant AND

M/s. G.D. Bulk Carriers and another ….Respondents

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant under Section

173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 15.07.2019 passed in M.V.O.P.No.443 of 2014 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Khammam (for short “the Tribunal”), whereby the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.24,293/- after attributing contributory

negligence to the extent of 40% on the part of the claimant.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 29.07.2011, while the appellant-claimant was proceeding as a pillion rider on a motor cycle bearing No.AP20AJ-1766, near Swaraj Tractor Showroom, Auto Nagar, Khammam, a lorry bearing No.AP31-TA-4403, driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the said motor cycle. As a result, the claimant sustained head injury (left partial extradural

2

hematoma), abrasions and multiple injuries all over the body. Immediately after the accident, he was shifted to Mamata General Hospital, Khammam, where he underwent treatment as an inpatient from 29.07.2011 to 08.08.2011. Stating that he incurred substantial medical expenses and suffered pain, mental agony and loss of studies, the claimant filed the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-. The Tribunal, upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry driver, but attributed contributory negligence to the extent of 40% on the part of the motor cyclist (on which the claimant was a pillion rider) on the ground of triple riding and awarded a total compensation of Rs.40,488/-, but after deducting 40% towards contributory negligence, granted only

Rs.24,293/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the Tribunal erred in attributing contributory negligence to the claimant, who was only a pillion rider and had no role in the occurrence of the accident. Learned counsel further contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is grossly inadequate, despite the claimant having sustained a grievous head injury and having undergone treatment

and as such sought for enhancement of compensation.

3

4. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.2-Insurance Company contends that the Tribunal has rightly appreciated the evidence and attributed contributory negligence, as there was violation of traffic rules, including triple riding on the motor cycle. It is further contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and does not warrant any interference and thus sought for dismissal of

the appeal.

5. So far as contributory negligence is concerned, admittedly, the claimant was a pillion rider on the motor cycle. There is no evidence on record to show that he contributed to the occurrence of the accident in any manner. Even if there was triple riding, the same cannot be a ground to attribute negligence to a pillion rider, unless it is shown that such act directly contributed to the accident. The Tribunal, without any cogent evidence, attributed 40% negligence, which is unsustainable. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal on contributory negligence is liable to be set aside, and the claimant is

entitled to the entire compensation.

6. Coming to quantum of compensation, having regard to the nature of injuries, particularly the head injury (extradural hematoma), period of hospitalization and treatment, this Court is of the view that the amounts awarded by the Tribunal under certain

4

heads are on the lower side. Considering hospitalization, attendant charges, transportation and nourishment, the amount is enhanced from Rs.20,000/- to Rs.55,000/-. For grievou