IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY M.A.C.M.A.No.883 of 2016 Date: 02.03.2026 Between:

Ravi Chandra Reddy …. Appellant AND Narsing Rao and two others …..Respondents

JUDGMENT:

Aggrieved by the award and decree dated 13.07.2009 (hereinafter shall be referred to as ‘the impugned order’) passed by the learned IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge –cum– XVII Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad (hereinafter shall be referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) in O.P.No.1981 of 2006, the appellant/petitioner preferred the present Appeal.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred as per their status before the Tribunal.

I. BRIEF FACTS

3. The brief facts of the case as borne out from the record are as under:

a) The appellant/claimant, who was a B. Tech., student, filed a claim petition under Section 166/163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and Rules 455 of A.P.M.V.Rule 1989 r/w. Amendment Act of 1994 claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- against the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 for the injuries sustained by the petitioner in a road traffic accident. The reason assigned by the petitioner for the accident is that on 30.04.2006 while the petitioner was proceeding on a Hero Honda Motorcycle bearing registration No.AP 3 AL 1773 from Sangareddy towards Hyderabad and when he reached the Lakdram gate at about 8PM, Ambassador Car bearing No.MYR-8396 which was coming in the opposite direction, was driven in a rash and negligent manner at high speed. The driver of the said car, while overtaking another vehicle, dashed the motor cycle of the petitioner. As a result, the claimant fell down and sustained grievous injuries on head, leg and other parts of his body. Immediately, the claimant was shifted to Gandhi Hospital and within three (03) hours thereafter shifted to Yashoda Hospital, where the petitioner underwent surgical operations on 15.06.2006, 25.05.2006 and discharged on 06.06.2006. The claimant incurred more than Rs.4,50,000/- towards hospitalization and treatment expenses and is likely to incur further expenses of Rs.1,00,000/- for future medical expenses and operations which was estimated at Rs.6,00,000/-. The concerned police also registered a case against the driver of the Ambassador Car.

b) The claimant completed B. Tech., course and was preparing to pursue higher studies abroad. He had obtained a passport and had also secured eligibility to appear for TOEFL examination. According to the him, had the accident not occurred, he would have secured employment in USA, and would have earned the income more than Rs.25,00,000/- per annum and even in India he would have earned more than Rs.50,000/- per month. But, because of the accident, he sustained grievous injuries and fractures, he was not in a position to move from the bed and still he is undergoing treatment due to deformity of leg and also facing problems in shortening of leg with three surgical operations. Due to head injury, the claimant experienced memory loss and continues to suffer from giddiness. The claimant is also under the care of neuro surgeon for improvement of sensorium and also incurring an expenditure of Rs.3,000/- per month for attendant charges. The respondent No.1 is the owner of the vehicle, which was insured with respondent No.2 and respondent No.3 is the Divisional Manager of respondent No.2. The policy issued by respondent No.2 in favour of respondent No.1 was in force as on the date of accident. Therefore, respondent Nos.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the said compensation.

4. The respondent No.1 remained exparte before the learned Tribunal and on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3, a counter was filed denying the material averments made in the claim petition including the manner of the accident, age and income of the claimant. It was further contended that the claimant was not holding valid and effective driving license at the time of the accident and therefore, the respond