IN THE COURT OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
(SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR FAST TRACKING THE CASES
RELATING TO ATROCITIES AGAINST WOMEN-CUM-V ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT JUDGE) AT KHAMMAM.
Monday, this the 17 th day of November, 2025.
Present: Ms.Archana Kumari M,
Judge, Family Court-cum-
IV Addl.District Judge, Khammam, FAC, Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -cum-V Additional District Judge, Khammam
M.V.O.P. No.403 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
Pokala Kiran, S/o. Ramanatham, Age.42 years, Occu:Business, R/o.Near Industrial Area, Ganapati Enterprises, Yallandu Road, Khammam Town and District. ....Claim Petitioner.
And
1.Odde Lakshman, S/o.Venkati, Age:30 years, Occu: Rider of the Motor cycle bearing No.TS-04-FC-6216, R/o. Venkatagiri X Road, Khammam Rural, Khammam District. 2.Pallapu Chinna Durgaiah, S/o.Balaiah, Age:45 years, Occu:Owner of the Motor cycle bearing No.TS-04-FC-6216, R/o. Venkatagiri X Road, Khammam Rural, Khammam District.
3. HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Limited, represented by its Branch Manager, through Local Branch, Khammam, Wyra Road, Khammam District (Policy No.2312203707657400000, valid from 19.10.2020 to 19.10.2025).
…..Respondents.
This petition is coming before me on 14.11.2025 for hearing in the presence of Sri.Seelam Chenna Reddy, Advocatefor the Claim Petitioner; Respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained exparte and that of Sri.K.Rama Rao, Advocate for the Respondent No.3; upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing the arguments of both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Tribunal passed the following:
Page No. 2 of total 21 pages Order in MVOP.403/22, Dt.17.11.2025.
O R D E R
This claim petition is filed by the claim petitioner under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- on account of injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 18.12.2021 at about 16.50 hours at Sk.Mobile Shop, F.C.I.
Bypass road, Khammam, due to rash and negligent rider of the Motor cycle bearing No.TS-04-FC-6316, by respondent No.1.
2.i) That claim petitioner is a resident of Industrial Area, Khammam.
He was aged 42 years and was hale, healthy and energetic prior to the accident. He was doing buisness and earning Rs.20,000/- per month.
ii) On 18.12.2021, the claim-petitioner went to Kalvoddu,
Khammam along with A.Upendarachary for taking the spare parts and after taking spare parts returning to Ballepalli from Kalavoddu,
Khammam on his motor cycle bearing No.AP-28-DL-1248 and on the way when he reached near SK mobile shop FCI pass road, Khammam at about 16.50 hours, at that time the driver of the motor cycle bearing
No.TS-04-FC-6316, coming on the opposite direction and drove it in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and without taking care and caution dashed against the motor cycle of the Claim-petitioner. As a result of which, the claim petitioner and pillion rider fell down on the road and the claim-petitioner sustained grievous injuries to left eye, mouth left
Page No. 3 of total 21 pages Order in MVOP.403/22, Dt.17.11.2025.
side force and right hand wrist and injuries all over the body. The said accident was occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of motor cycle bearing No.TS-04-FC-6316 by its driver-respondent No.1 only, who did not take minimum care and caution while driving the motor cycle bearing No.TS-04-FC-6316, thereby he caused the accident.
iii) On a report, the Police, Khammam III-Town registered a case in Crime No.350/2021 under Section 338 of IPC against the driver of crime vehicle i.e., motor cycle bearing No.TS-04-FC-6316.
iv) Immediately after the accident, the claim-petitioner was shifted to Mamatha General Hospital, Khammam, later for better treatment he was shifted to Sunshine Hospital, Secunderabad. During the course of treatment, necessary clinical tests were conducted, x-rays were taken, bandages were applied and surgeries were done to the claim petitioner. He was treated as inpatient for a period of 10 days and discharged from the hospital with an advice to take bed rest for a period of three months. So-far the claim petitioner spent more than
Rs.6,00,000/- towards medical expenses.
v) Due to the accident and the resultant injuries, the claim petitioner has suffered severe pains and put to mental agony. Due to the fracture injuries to his eyes and mouth, the claim petitioner is unable to talk, eat and unable to attend to his normal duties as he was before the accident. Due to the accident and resultant injuries in the accident, not
Page No. 4 of total 21 pages Order in MVOP.403/22, Dt.17.11.2025.
only the earnings during the course of treatment, but also lost his future earning capacity has been completed affected. As such, the claim petitioner is entitled to claim compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- towards general and special damages. Respondent No.1 being the driver, respondent No.2 being the owner and respondent No.3 being the insurer of the crime vehicle and that as the insurance was subsisting by the date of accident, all the respondent Nos.1 to 3 are jointly, severally and vicariously liable to pay the compensation to the claim petitioner together with future interest and costs. Hence the petition.
3. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained exparte.
4. i)Respondent No.3-insurance company filed its counter, denying all the averments made in the claim petition. It had denied the mode and manner of the accident in which it was described to have been taken place and that the vehicle involved in the accident was insured with respondent No.2 and has valid insurance policy at the time of accident and the vehicle was roadworthy to ply. Respondent No.3 further denied that the claim petitioner was hale, healthy and aged about 42 years at the time of the alleged accident and he was a business man.
ii) Respondent No.1 was not holding valid and effective driving licence at the material time of the accident, that the vehicle in question was having valid permit, valid fitness certificate to ply and was roadworthy to ply on the date of alleged accident. Respondent No.3 does
Page No. 5 of total 21 pages Order in MVOP.403/22, Dt.17.11.2025.
not admit that respondent No.2 was the owner of the vehicle and he has got insurable interest for the said vehicle. It is learnt that accident was occurred due to the rash and negligence of the rider of the motor cycle and not by the alleged crime vehicle.
iii) As per Section 134 (c) of the M.V.Act, it is the duty of the driver in case of accident, has to furnish the following information in writing to the insurer, who has issued certificate of insurance about occurrence of the accident, insurance policy number and period of its validity, date, time, place of accident, particulars of the injured in the accident, name of the driver and particulars of the driving licence at the time of the accident. Respondent No.3 is unaware of the criminal proceedings launched in the above matter. But in this case the driver did not inform the insurer and did not furnish the above information as required. Respondent No.3 seeks protection under Sections 147, 150 and 170 of the M.V.Act. The amount of compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- as claimed by the claim petitioner under various heads is highly excessive.
iv) As per Section 158 (6) of the M.V.Act, it is mandatory duty of the concerned police to forward all the relevant documents to the concerned insurer within 30 days from the date of information, but the
Police Station, Khammam III -Town failed to forward the documents and not complied with the statutory demand. Without prejudice, respondent
Page No. 6 of total 21 pages Order in MVOP.403/22, Dt.17.11.2025.
No.3 submitted that at the time of alleged accident, the claim petitioner was negligent and there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the crime vehicle, as such the claim petition is liable to be dismissed.
That the amount of compensation claimed by the claim petitioner is high and exhorbitant. With the above averments, it is prayed to dismiss the claim petition.
5. On the basis of above pleadings and the material available on record, the following issues are settled for trial:
i) Whether the accident is occurred on 18.12.2021 at 16:50 hours near Sk.Auto Mobile Shop, FCI Bypass Road, Khammam, due to rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle motor cycle bearing No.TS-04-FC-6316 by respondent No.1 ?
ii) Whether the claim petitioner received injuries in that accident?
iii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents?
iv) To what relief?
6. Respondent No.3 obtained permission under Section 170 of the
Motor Vehicles Act to take all the defences that are available to the insured/owner, vide orders in I.A.No.5/2025 dated 19.6.2025.
7. During the course of trial, claim petitioner was examined as P.W.1 besides examining the Doctor as P.W.2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A9 on behalf of the claim petitioner. On behalf of Respondent No.3, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and got marked Exs.B1 to B3.
Page No. 7 of total 21 pages Order in MVOP.403/22, Dt.17.11.2025.
8. Heard arguments of both sides and perused the entire material available on record.
9.ISSUE Nos.1 AND 2: The case of the claim petitioner is that due to rash and negligent driving of motor cycle bearing No.TS-04-FC-6316 resulting injuries to the claim petitioner in the accident. On the other hand, the case of contesting respondent as seen from the counter is that there was no negligence on the part of the respondent No.1 in driving the crime vehicle. The respondent No.3 denied the age, avocation and health condition of the claim petitioner at the material time of the accident. Respondents also denied that claim petitioner was aged 42 years and was a business man and earning Rs.20,000/- per month. It is the contention of respondents that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of crime vehicle and that the accident occurred only due to negligence of the claim petitioner and hence the claim petitioner is not entitled for any compensation.
10. It is well settled principle of law reiterated in Catena of decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble High Courts from time to time including the judgments in Bimla Devi & Ors vs
Himachal Road Transport Corporation reported in (2009) 13 SCC
530, Shaik Yakub in ALD (5) 439: 2007 (2) Andhra Weekly Reporter
359 and also reiterated in a recent decision in Anita Sharma and others
V/s New India Assurance Company Limited and another reported in
Page No. 8 of total 21 pages Order in MVOP.403/22, Dt.17.11.2025.
2021 (1) ALT 1 (SC), wherein it is held that in case of proof an accident in an enquiry in a motor vehicle claim, the claimants need not establish their case beyond reasonable doubt and it would be suffice if the case is proved on the anvil/touchstone of preponderance of probability. It is also the principle evolved in these judgments that the documents relating to the investigation done by the police in filing charge sheet against the driver of the crime vehicle responsible for the accident, can be relied upon during the course of enquiry conducted in a motor vehicle accident claim, without the need of formal proof of those documents.
11.Guided by the above said settled proposition enunciated by the superior courts, now this Tribunal proceeds to evaluate the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the claim petitioner to prove issue
Nos.1 and 2. Claim Petitioner, who is the injured in the accident was examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A9. In his chief examination, he reiterated the contents of the claim petition asserting that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of motor cycle bearing No.TS-04-FC-6316. In his cross examination also, he denied the suggestion that accident occurred was not due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of crime vehicle, but due to the negligence on the part of the claim petitioner only, which he denied the same.
Though P.W.1 was cross examined at length, nothing adverse is elicited to disbelieve his evidence.
Page No. 9 of total 21 pages Order in MVOP.403/22, Dt.17.11.2025.
12. Coming to the documentary evidence under Exs.A1 to A9,
Ex.A1 is the certified copy of First Information Report in Crime
No.350/2021 of P.S. Khammam III Town and it pertains to the accident of the present case. The said First Information Report is registered against the driver of crime motor cycle bearing No.TS-04-FC-6316 showing him as accused. Ex.A2 is the certified copy of the charge sheet in
C.C.No.153/2022, Ex.A3 is the Medical Legal cases register issued by
Sunshine Hospital, Secunderabad, Ex.A4-is the Discharge died charges issued by the Sunshine Hospital, Secunderabad, Ex.A5- Assessment form issued by Subshine Hospital, Secunderabad, Ex.A6-Report issued by Subshine Hospital, Secunderabad, Ex.A7-Medical Bills for
Rs.3,43,816/- issued by Subshine Hospital, Secunderabad, Ex.A8 is the
X-Ray Films, Ex.A9 is the CT Scan report. Among the documents filed,
Exs.A1 and A2 are relevant for the purpose of this issue. Ex.A1 the certified copy of the First Information Report shows that driver of the crime vehicle was arrayed as accused in crime registered under Section 338 of I.P.C. for causing injuries to the claim petitioner by rash and negligent act and Ex.A2 is the certified copy of charge sheet.
Considering the evidence of P.W.1 and coupled with Exs.A1 and A2, this
Tribunal holds that the claim petitioner could prove his case to the effect that the accident occurred as a result of rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of motor cycle bearing No.TS-04-FC-6316, as a
Page No. 10 of total 21 pages Order in MVOP.403/22, Dt.17.11.2025.
result of which the claim petitioner sustained severe injuries. Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of the claim petitioner and against the respondent Nos.1 to 3.
13.ISSUE No:3 : It is to be next seen whether the claim petitioner is entitled for compensation from the respondents. It is contended on behalf of the claim petitioner that he sustained injuries in the accident.
The claim petitioner was aged about 42 years by the date of accident and he was hale and healthy prior to the accident. He was running
Ganapathi Enterprises and due to the accident, he sustained fracture injuries in the accident and became permanently disabled and not in a position to attend to his normal duties as he was before the accident.
14. In support of the aforesaid contentions, the claim petitioner himself got examined as PW.1, who filed his evidence affidavit for examination in chief, wherein he reiterated the contents of the claim petition in respect of his sustaining injuries in the accident, treatment and medical expenses spent by him. But due to the accident, he suffered disability and therefore he is entitled for compensation from the respondents for the injuries suffered by him in the accident caused by motor cycle bearing No.TS-04-FC-6316 by its driver/respondent No.1.
Respondent No.1 being the driver, respondent No.2 being the owner and
Respondent No.3 being the insurer of the crime vehicle are jointly, severally and vicariously liable to pay the compensation to the claim
Page No. 11 of total 21 pages Order in MVOP.403/22, Dt.17.11.2025.
petitioner. During the course of cross examination, P.W.1 denied the suggestion that due to his negligence only, the accident was occurred and there was no rash or negligent driving on the part of respondent
No.1. P.W.1 denied all the above suggestions apart from the suggestion that respondent No.3 is not liable to pay compensation to the claim petitioner.
15. Apart from his evidence, the claim petitioner also examined
Dr.Dandu Bhavani Prasad as P.W.2, who deposed that he is working as
Plastic Surgeon in Sunshine Hospital, Secunderabad since 2005 and that P.W.1 was admitted in their hospital on 19.12.2021 with RTA and poly trauma. Initially, he took treatment at local hospital and admitted in their hospital for further management. After evaluation, patient was operated by Orthopedic surgeon and plastic surgoen on 21.12.2021. He was operated by putting plates in left Zygoma and maxilla, he was given antibiotics and painkillers for two days and discharged on 23.12.2021.
Patient was advised to come for follow up treatment after discahrge on
OP basis. The titanium screws and plates were used to fix fracture
Zygoma and Maxilla and that the form of patient face will be distorted because of face injuries permanently. Exs.A3 to A9 were issued by their hospital authorities. He denied all other suggestions put to him such as the injuries suffered by him are simple in nature, P.W.1 never attended their hospital for follow up check ups and that he is deposing false.
Page No. 12 of total 21 pages Order in MVOP.403/22, Dt.17.11.2025.
16.PAIN AND SUFFERING: As seen from Ex.A3-certified copy of medical certificate and the evidence of P.W.2-Doctor, P.W.1 sustained
Right radius fracture and left Zygoma and Maxilla fracture and he was operated by Orthopedic surgeon and plastic surgery on 21.12.2021, he was operated by putting plates in left Zygoma and Maxilla. Though P.W.1 claimed disability, no disability certificate issued by the Medical Board with regard for the alleged injuries suffered in the accident is filed to consider the same. Therefore, the claim petitioner has failed to establish the disability alleged to have been suffered by him in the accident.
Therefore, keeping in view the evidence of P.W.2 and Ex.A3, wherein the claim petitioner sustained grievous injuries to his mouth and eyes.
Admittedly, the claim petitioner is runnig business and certainly the injuries may reflect his avocation and its impact diminishing his future earning capacity. Keeping in view the gravity of fracture injuries suffered by the claim petitioner in the accident, an amount of Rs.1,50,000/-, is awarded suffered by the claim petitioner in the accident under the head of pain and suffering, which is just and reasonable in the opinion of the
Tribunal.
17.LOSS OF EARNINGS: For ascertaining just compensation in case of injuries suffered, the age and income of the injured are the crucial factors to be determined. So far as the claim of the claim petitioner is concerned, he claimed that he used to earn Rs.20,000/- per month by
Page No. 13 of total 21 pages Order in MVOP.403/22, Dt.17.11.2025.
running business. Except the oral testimony of P.W.1, there is no other oral evidence is adduced to substantiate his claim about his avocation. A perusal of Ex.A2 reveals that claim petitioner is a Business. More-so, it is rightly adopted from the chart given by Telangana State Legal Services
Authority in ROC.No.388/TSLSA/2023 dated 10.10.2023. Observing that the deceased was an agriculturist in contributing to the welfare and care of the family, the income of the deceased is arrived at Rs.13,000/- per month being skilled driver since the accident occurred in the year 2020.
Considering the fracture injuries sustained and the treatment undergone by P.W.1 and keeping in view the evidence of P.W.2-Doctor, he must have taken bed rest for atleast three months. Therefore, having taken into consideration the nature of treatment and the injuries suffered, this tribunal award an amount of Rs.60,000/- @ Rs.20,000/- per month for a period of three months would be just compensation under the head of loss of earnings during the course of treatment.
18.EXTRA-NOURISHMENT : Considering the injuries sustained and the treatment undergone by P.W.1, he must have taken some extra- nourished food for vitamins and for other bony health. Therefore, having taken into account, this tribunal awards an amount of Rs.25,000/- would be the just compensation under the head of extra nourishment.
Page No. 14 of total 21 pages Order in MVOP.403/22, Dt.17.11.2025.
19.TRAVELLING EXPENSES: Considering the injuries sustained and the treatment undergone by P.W.1 at Khammam, he must have taken some ambulance for shifting him from Khammam to Secunderabad for better treatment and also for follow up treatment as deposed to by doctor
P.W.2. However, as deposed to by P.W.2, the claim petitioner underwent treatment at Mamatha Hospital, Khammam. Therefore, having taken into account the injuries suffered by P.W.1, the treatment undergone by him at Mamatha Hospital, Khammam and Sunshine Hospital, Secunderabad and follow up treatment, this tribunal awards an amount of Rs.20,000/- would be the just compensation under the head of extra nourishment.
20.MEDICAL EXPENSES: It has come in the pleadings and evidence of
P.W.1 that he took treatment at Sunshine Hospital and spent
Rs.6,00,000/- towards medical and other expenses. In the said regard, the claim petitioner filed Ex-A7-Medical IP Detailed bill for Rs.3,43,816/- spent during the relevant period covered by the treatment. But the person, who issued Ex.A7 not examined to strengthen the same.
Considering the nature of injuries, treatment undergone by P.W.1, the evidence of P.W.2 and keeping in view Ex.A7-medical bills, the said amount of Rs.3,43,816/- as claimed by him is awarded under the head of medical expenses.
Page No. 15 of total 21 pages Order in MVOP.403/22, Dt.17.11.2025.
21. Thus,the claim petitioner is entitled compensation under the following heads:
Sl.Nature of the compensation Amount awarded in No. rupees 1Towards pain and suffering Rs. 1,50,000-00 2Loss of earnings Rs. 60,000-00 3Towards extra-nourishment Rs. 25,000-00 expenses 4Towards travelling expenses Rs. 20,000-00 5Medical expensesRs. 3,13,816-00
TOTAL COMPENSATION AMOUNT Rs. 5,68,816-00 (Rounded to Rs.5,69,000/-) (Rupees five lakhs sixty nine thousand only)
Liability:
22. According to petitioner, 1st respondent is the driver, 2nd respondent is the owner and 3rd respondent is the Insurance company of the motor cycle bearing No.TS-04-FC-6316. Admittedly, Respondent Nos.1 and 2 did not not contest the matter remained exparte. On behalf of
Respondent No.3, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Ex.B1 to B3 marked.
23. R.W-1 deposed that the crime vehicle-motor cycle bearing No.TS- 04-FC-6316 was insured with their company vide policy No.
2312203707654/00000 and the same is valid from 19.10.2020 to 18.10.2025. Ex.B-1 is the copy of the policy. It is not in dispute that the
Page No. 16 of total 21 pages Order in MVOP.403/22, Dt.17.11.2025.
accident was occurred on 18.12.2021. Thus, it is clear that that as on the date of accident, the policy (Ex.B-1) pertaining to crime vehicle- motor cycle bearing No.TS-04-FC-6316 was in force.
24.RW1 further deposed that at the time of accident the rider of the crime vehicle was not holding valid license, as such the police filed charge-sheet against the driver of the tractor for the offences under
Section 338 IPC and Section 3 r/w 181 of MV Act, as such, R2 has not satisfied the requirements of Rule 3 of the Central Motor Cycle Rules, 1989. That the injured was proceedings on the motor cycle as a pillion rider, without wearing helmet and due to non-wearing of helmet, the injured violated the provisions of the MV Act. As such, the company has not liable to pay compensation. During the cross-examination, RW1 admitted that as on the date of accident, Ex.B1 policy was in force. Rw1 denied that as on the date of accident, the driver of the crime motor vehicle was not having valid driving license as per the charge-sheet.
In support of their case respondents examined Ch.Vijaya Lakshmi,
Junior Assistant at RTO, Khammam. She deposed that as per the records, the respondent No.1 was not having valid driving license as on 18.12.2021. RW2 denied that as on the date of accident, the driver of the crime motor vehicle was not having valid driving license as per the charge-sheet.
Page No. 17 of total 21 pages Order in MVOP.403/22, Dt.17.11.2025.
25.The main contention of the 1st respondent is that the driver of the crime vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving licence at the relevant time of accident and as such they are not liable to pay compensation. There is no dispute that the police, after completion of investigation filed charge-sheet (Ex.A-2) for the offence under Section 338 of IPC and under Section 3 r/w 181 of Motor Vehicles Act.
26.In the case of third party risks, as per the decision in National
Insurance Company Ltd. V. Swaran Singh and others,1 the Insurer had to indemnify the compensation amount payable to the third party and the insurance company may recover the same from the insured. Doctrine of "pay and recover" was considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Swaran Singh case, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court examined the liability of the insurance company in cases of breach of policy condition due to disqualifications of the driver or invalid driving licence of the driver and held that in case of third party risks, the insurer has to indemnify the compensation amount to the third party and the insurance company may recover the same from the insured.
27.It is well settled law that even though the driver of the crime vehicle was not holding driving licence, the Insurance Company cannot escape, from their liability to pay compensation to the petitioner, as the policy was in force as on that date. Where the driver did not possess the valid 1(2004) 3 SCC 297
Page No. 18 of total 21 pages Order in MVOP.403/22, Dt.17.11.2025.
driving licence and there are, breach of policy conditions, “ pay and recover ” can be ordered, in case of third party risks.
28.In the decision reported in in the case of Parminder Singh V. New
India Assurance Company Limited and others,2 the Hon'ble Apex
Court has observed as under:
"7.1. This Court in Shamanna v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., held that if the driver of the offending vehicle does not possess a valid driving licence, the principle of "pay and recover" can be ordered to direct the insurance company to pay the victim, and then recover the amount from the owner of the offending vehicle.
It is further held that, it is just and fair to direct the respondent insurance company to pay the enhanced amount of compensation and recover the amount from the owners and drivers of the offending vehicle." 29.In a citation Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Company
Limited, Cuddapah V. Acchigari Prasad,3wherein it was held that:
“Owner has obligation to take adequate care and see that driver had appropriate licence to drive the vehicle- Therefore, in view of 2004 (4) ALD 36 (SC), appellant Insurance company, directed to first pay awarded amount to claimants and then recover same from owner of crime vehicle, by initiating proceedings before Executing Court without filing a separate suit for said purpose.”
30.In the present case on hand, the material on record goes to show that the driver of the crime motor cycle bearing No.TS-04-FC-6316 was not holding driving licence at the relevant time of accident. In view of the citations referred supra and facts of the present case hand, the 3rd 2(2019) 7 SCC 217 32015 (1) ALD 75
Page No. 19 of total 21 pages Order in MVOP.403/22, Dt.17.11.2025.
respondent is directed to first pay awarded amount to the petitioner and then recover same from the respondent No.2 (owner), by initiating proper proceedings.
31. Since it is clearly established that the accident was occurred 18.12.2021 due to rash and negligent act of rider of crime motor cycle bearing No.TS-04-FC-6316, and the Respondent No.2 is the owner, R3 is the Insurer of the Crime motor vehicle. Hence, both the Respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner.
Rate of interest:
32The petitioner is claiming interest @ 18% per annum. As per the principles laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance
Company Limited–Appellant V. Charlie and another, this Tribunal awards an interest @ 7.5% per annum. Accordingly, the issues are answered in favour of the petitioner.
33.ISSUE No.3: In view of my findings on issues No.1 and 2, the claim petitioner is awarded compensation of Rs.5,69,000/- together with interest @ 7.5% P.A. from the date of petition till the date of depositing of the compensation. Accordingly, this issue is answered.
RESULT:
34.In the result, the claim petition is allowed partly with proportionate costs by awarding compensation of Rs.5,69,000/- (Rupees
Five lakhs Sixty nine Thousand only) directing the respondents are jontly
Page No. 20 of total 21 pages Order in MVOP.403/22, Dt.17.11.2025.
and severally liable to pay the said amount to the claim petitioner with subsequent interest at the rate of 7.5% P.A. from the date of filing of the petition till the date of depositing of the compensation amount or realization.
The Respondent No.3 is directed to first pay the awarded amount to the petitioner within TWO months from the date of this award, and then recover the same from the Respondent No.2 by initiating proceedings without filing a separate suit for said purpose.
The petitioner is directed to withdraw the awarded amount with acrued interest thereon.
Advocate’s fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/-.
Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and
pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 17th day of November, 2025.
sd/-
FAC/CHAIRMAN,
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL- CUM-SPECIAL SESSIONS
JUDGE FOR FAST TRACKING THE
CASES RELATING TO ATROCITIES
AGAINST WOMEN-CUM-
V ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE, KHAMMAM
-APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE -
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR
Claim Petitioner :
P.W.1 : Pokala Kiran P.W.2 : Dr. Dandu Bhavani Prasad
Page No. 21 of total 21 pages Order in MVOP.403/22, Dt.17.11.2025.
Respondents: R.W.1 : Shaik Ismail Pasha
R.W.2 : Ch.Vijaya Lakshmi
EXHIBITS MARKED FOR
Claim Petitioner:
Ex.A1: Certified copy of First Information Report in Crime No.52/2020 of P.S.Edulla Bayyaram Ex.A2: Certified copy of the charge sheet in C.C.No.153/2022, Ex.A3: Medical Legal cases register issued by Sunshine Hospital, Secunderabad Ex.A4: Discharge died charges issued by the Sunshine Hospital, Secunderabad Ex.A5: Assessment form issued by Subshine Hospital, Secunderabad, Ex.A6: Report issued by Subshine Hospital, Secunderabad, Ex.A7: Medical Bills for Rs.3,43,816/- issued by Subshine Hospital, Secunderabad, Ex.A8: X-Ray Films, Ex.A9: CT Scan report.
Respondents:
Ex.B1: Copy of Insurance policy No. 2312203707654/00000 and the same is valid from 19.10.2020 to 18.10.2025 Ex.B2: Authorisation leter issued by DTO, dt. 19.8.2023. Ex.B3: Driving license extracted issued to driver of the crime vehicle/R1
sd/-
FAC/CHAIRMAN,
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL- CUM-SPECIAL SESSIONS
JUDGE FOR FAST TRACKING THE
CASES RELATING TO ATROCITIES
AGAINST WOMEN-CUM-V
ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE, KHAMMAM