##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.1354 of 2019 DATE: 30.03.2026

Between:

United India Insurance Company Ltd., Represented by its Manager,

Abhishek Mul Road, Chandrapur, Maharashtra. …..Appellant

AND

V. Praveen Kumar and another.

….Respondents

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the appellant/Insurance Company

challenging the decree and judgment dated 21.11.2015 passed in M.V.O.P.No.943of 2006 by theMotor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad(for short “the Tribunal”), whereby the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.2,70,000/- for the injuries sustained by

respondent No.1 herein-claimant in a motor vehicle accident.

2. Heard the submissions of learned counsel for both sides and

perused the record.

3. The learned Standing Counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company contended that the driver of the offending lorry did not

2

possess a valid and effective driving license at the time of the accident, as he only held a license to drive a ‘Light Motor Vehicle (Non- Transport)’ while the crime vehicle was a heavy transport vehicle. It is further contended that the Tribunal erred in applying the "pay and recover" principle and that the quantum of compensation awarded is excessive and not supported by documentary evidence regarding

medical expenditure.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.1- claimant contended that the Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, rightly awarded the compensation and that no interference is required by this Court in the well-reasoned order

passed by the Tribunal.

5. As seen from the material placed on record, the accident occurred on 18.10.2005 at about 4:00 PM when a lorry bearing No.AP 9 T 1570, driven in a rash and negligent manner, hit the claimant who was a pedestrian in front of St. Anns College, Tarnaka. The claimant, a 24-year-old Post-Graduate student, sustained crush injuries to both feet, resulting in visible disfiguration and loss of functional ability. Regarding the license, while the driver possessed only an LMV license, the Tribunal rightly relied on the settled law that the insurer is liable to pay the compensation to a third party and subsequently recover it

from the owner due to the breach of policy conditions.

3

6. Sofaras quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal fixed a notional monthly income of Rs.8,000/- considering the claimant's academic background as an M.A. English student. The Tribunal awarded Rs.48,000/- for temporary loss of earnings (6 months), Rs.10,000/- for nourishment and transport, Rs.12,000/- for future medical expenses, Rs.1,00,000/- for pain and suffering, and Rs.1,00,000/- for loss of amenities and marriage prospects due to disfiguration. This Court finds no illegality or irregularity in the Tribunal’s findings regarding the negligence of the crime vehicle or the quantum of compensation. The grounds urged by the appellant do not warrant any interference with the well-reasoned impugned judgment.This appeal is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be

dismissed.

7. In the result, this appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall

stand closed.

________________________________ JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY

Date:30.03.2026 Bw