1
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-CUM-I
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AT: SURYAPET
DATED, THIS THE 15th DAY OF APRIL, 2025.
Present : Dr. M.Shyam Sree, Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum-I Additional District Judge, Suryapet.
MVOP No. 133 of 2021
Between: Matta Varun, S/o. Yadagiri, Age:26 years, Occ:Software Engineer, R/o. H.no. 1-2-214, MG road, Suryapet town and District.
… Claim Petitioner
And
1. Banoth Sanker, S/o. Laxma, Age: 42 years, Occ: Tipper driver, R/o. H. No.4-19 Teekam naik thanda, H/o. Gayamvarigudem village of Chivvemla Mandal, Suryapet District(Driver of Tipper bearing no.TS- 05-UE-4788)
2. Vembadi Venkanna, S/o. Rajaiah, Age: Major, R/o.H. No. 10-28 Cheekatigudem village of Kethepalli Mandal, Nalgonda District (owner of Tipper bearing no.TS-05-UE-4788)
3. Magma HDI General Insurance Company Limited, flat no.101 first floor door no.6-3-1093/101 Vv vintage boulevard Rajbhavan road somajiguda, Hyderabad (Policy no.P0021300039/4103/101395 valid from 25.02.2021 midnight to 24.02.2022) …Respondents
This petition came before me on 13.06.2024 for a final hearing, in the presence of Sri. Gondrala Ashok, Advocate for the petitioner; and Sri. J. Shashidhar,Advocate for respondent no.3 and the respondent no.1 and 2, are set exparte, and upon perusing the record having stood over for consideration, till this day, the court made the following:
:: O R D E R ::
1. This is a petition filed by the petitioner under section 166 of
MVOP No. 133 of 2021 2 Dated 15-04-2025 the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to grant compensation of
Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs only) to the petitioner for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident, with costs and interest @ 18% per annum from the date of accident till realization.
2. The averments in the petition in a nutshell are, as follows:
(i) The petitioner is working as a software engineer at Genus Power infra structure Limited in Hanmakonda. On 21.04.2021, in the evening hours, he started from Suryapet on his Pulsar motorcycle bearing no.TS-29-G-0334 in order to go to Hanmakonda. On the way at about 4.40 pm, when he reached the canal, Kotinaik thanda,
Suryapet to Danthalapalli road, Athamkur-S Mandal, in the meantime, the driver of Tipper bearing no.TS-05-UE-4788 drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner came across the road on the wrong side and dashed against the motor cycle of the petitioner from right side, as a result, he fell down along with motorcycle, the tipper run over his waist and both things, as a result, the petitioner sustained multiple fracture injuries, immediately he was shifted to
Area Hospital, Suryapet in 108 ambulance, as his condition was serious on the advice of the doctors, from there he was shifted to
Yashoda Hospital, Malkpet Hyderabad for expert treatment. The above said the accident occurred only due to negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle, i.e., Tipper bearing no.TS-05-UE-4788.
MVOP No. 133 of 2021 3 Dated 15-04-2025
(ii) On receipt of the complaint, the Sub-Inspector of police of
Athmakur-S Police Station registered the case in crime No.69/2021, for the offence under Section 337 IPC and later filed the charge- sheet for the offence U/sec. 338 of IPC, against the respondent no.1.
(iii) The petitioner was aged about 26 years, and he was quite a hale and healthy person; at the time of the accident, the petitioner was working as a software engineer by profession in Genus Power
Infrastructure Limited and earning Rs.17,458/- per month. He used to contribute to the maintenance. On account of the accident, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries, i.e., multiple pelvic and spine fractures, fracture of superior and inferior pubic rami on the left side, fracture of inferior pubic rami on the right side, and contusion on the left ankle. Immediately after the accident, he was shifted to
Govt. Area Hospital, Suryapet for treatment. As his condition was serious and on the advice of the doctor, he was shifted to Yashoda
Hospital, Malakpet, Hyderabad, and treated as an inpatient from 22.04.2021 to 05.05.2021 and he underwent surgeries; he spent about Rs.16,00,000/- towards treatment, medicines, transpiration, and hospitalization charges. The petitioner's total bed reddens, he is unable to move from the bed, and his income source is adversely affected. The petitioner is a young person, and his bright future is also spoiled. Due to severe multiple injuries, the petitioner sustained disability; the District Medical Board, Suryapet, issued disability
MVOP No. 133 of 2021 4 Dated 15-04-2025 certificate stating that the petitioner sustained 76% disability. Still, the petitioner is taking treatment and physiotherapy; he is suffering a lot, both physically and mentally. The petitioner spent a huge amount for his treatment, medicine, transportation charges, etc.; as such, he claims an amount of Rs.50,00,000/- under all counts.
Hence, the petition.
3. On receipt of the notice, respondent no.3 appeared and filed a counter contending inter alia that the petition is liable to be dismissed in limine. It is submitted that the alleged accident took place due to negligence on the part of the rider/petitioner, who rode the motorcycle in a rash and negligence manner without observing traffic rules and regulations and without wearing a helmet (headgear), which is mandatory on his part under the provision of MV
Act and if he would not have been any alleged accident. The owner of the Pulsar motorcycle bearing no.TS-29-G-0334 and its Insurer are also necessary parties to the claim petition, and the relevant details of the motorcycle, D.L. particulars of the petitioners, and the particulars of the Insurance policy pertaining to the motorcycle had to be placed on the record. Without prejudice to the above contentions, respondent no.3 submits that sections 128 & 129 of MV
Act -1988 provide for the wearing of protective headgear/helmet by those riding two-wheelers. Respondent no.3 is unable to admit whether the interest of Vembadi Venkanna in Tipper bearing no.TS-
MVOP No. 133 of 2021 5 Dated 15-04-2025 05-UE-4788 alleged to have been insured with this opponent at the material time vide policy no.P0021300039/4103/101395, which is valid from 25.02.2021 to midnight of 24.02.2022. At the time of the accident, the petitioner did not hold a driving license. It is denied about the age, avocation, and income of the deceased. The claim of compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- is excessive and exaggerated. No documentary evidence is produced in support of the expenditure.
Hence, he prayed to dismiss the claim petition against respondent
No. 3.
4. Based on the pleadings of both sides the following points have been settled for trial:
1. Whether the accident occurred on 21.04.2021, around 04.40 pm near canal, Kotinayak thanda road leading from Suryapet to Dhanthalapally road, Athmakur-S mandal, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tipper bearing no.TS-05-UE-4788?” 2. Whether the claim petitioner is entitled for compensation
as prayed for, if so, to what quantum and from whom?"
3. To what relief?
5. During the trial, on behalf of the petitioner, PW-1 was examined and also examined PW2 to PW6 and Ex.A1 to Ex.A57 were exhibited.
On behalf of respondent no.3, RW1 was examined and Ex.B1 to Ex.B3 and Ex.C1 were exhibited on behalf of respondent no.3. This Tribunal heard the arguments on both sides.
MVOP No. 133 of 2021 6 Dated 15-04-2025
6. POINT No.1: The petitioner, who examined himself as P.W.1 has filed an affidavit in lieu of his chief examination as contemplated under Order-XVIII, Rule-4 (1) of C.P.C. His evidence is nothing but a replica of the petition pleadings.
7. It is in the evidence of PW-1 that on 21.04.2021, in the evening hours, he started from Suryapet on his Pulsar motorcycle bearing no.TS-29-G-0334 in order to go to Hanmakonda. On the way at about 4.40 pm, when he reached near canal, Kotinaik thanda, Suryapet to
Danthalapalli road, Athamkur-S Mandal, in the meantime, the driver of Tipper bearing no.TS-05-UE-4788 drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner came across the road on the wrong side and dashed against the motor cycle of the petitioner from right side, as a result he fell down along with motorcycle, the tipper run over the his waist and both thighs, as a result, the petitioner sustained multiple fracture injuries, immediately he was shifted to Area Hospital,
Suryapet in 108 ambulance, as his condition was serious on the advice of the doctors, from there he was shifted to Yashoda Hospital,
Malakpet Hyderabad for expert treatment. The above said the accident occurred only due to negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle, i.e., Tipper bearing no.TS-05-UE-4788.
8. PW.1 denied that the driver of the crime vehicle was negligent.
Considering the evidence of P.W. 1, nothing convincing is elicited to show that the accident occurred not due to the negligence of the
MVOP No. 133 of 2021 7 Dated 15-04-2025 rider of Tipper bearing no.TS-05-UE-4788.
9. It is not in dispute that the police in Athamkur-S registered a case in crime No.69/2021 under Sections 337 of IPC against the driver of the crime vehicle, which is evident by the First Information Report (Ex.A-1). Certified copy of the charge sheet (Ex.A-3), it is clear that on completion of the investigation, the Investigation Officer filed a charge sheet (Ex.A-3) against the driver of the crime vehicle for the offence under Section 338 of IPC, which reveals that the accident occurred due to the negligent act of the driver of Tipper bearing no.TS-05-UE-4788/respondent no.1.
10. In Bimla Devi & Others V. Himachal Road Transport Corporation
& Others reported in (2009) 13 SC 530 Kaushnumma Begum and
others v/s New India Assurance Company Limited reported in 2001
ACJ 421 SC and in National Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Pushpa Rana reported in 2009 ACJ 287, it has been held that:
“the negligence has to be decided on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and a holistic view is to be taken. It has been further held that the proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act are not akin to the proceedings in a Civil Suit and hence, strict rules of evidence are not applicable”.
12. 11. It is an argument that the petitioner himself has dashed the crime vehicle and sustained injuries. Therefore, there is no contributory negligence on the part of the driver, which was denied
MVOP No. 133 of 2021 8 Dated 15-04-2025 by PW1. Further, the investigation done by police reveals the crime vehicle hit on the right side of the motorcycle, indicating negligence.
Apart from the arguments, the insurance company had not put any evidence on record in support of its contention of contributory negligence.
12. From the material on record, it is clear that the petitioner sustained injuries in the motor vehicle accident and that the said accident occurred due to the negligent act of the rider of the crime vehicle. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
13. ISSUE No.2: The claim petitioner filed the present petition by claiming compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs only) with interest @ 18% per annum, under all heads, as compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the accident.
14. It is in the evidence of P.W-1 that in the said accident, he sustained injuries, i.e., multiple pelvic and spine fractures, fracture superior and inferior pubic rami left side, fracture inferior pubic rami right side, and contusion on the left ankle. Injury no.1 to 4 are grievous in nature. Immediately after the accident, he was shifted to Area Hospital, Suryapet, as his condition was serious, he was shifted to Yashoda Hospital, Malakpet, Hyderabad, for expert treatment, and the petitioner spent a huge amount towards
MVOP No. 133 of 2021 9 Dated 15-04-2025 medicines and treatment. The petitioner has filed Ex.A2, i.e., the
Medico-legal record of patient Varun, which corroborates the testimony of PW1 as to the nature of the injuries sustained by him.
15. Going through the evidence on record, it is clear that the petitioner is able to establish the nature of the treatment given to him for the injuries sustained by him in the accident that took place on 21.04.2021.
16. Transport to hospital: Admittedly, the accident occurred on 24.04.2021 at Kotinaik thanda, Athamkur-S Mandal, and immediately he was shifted to Area Hospital, Suryapet, and later he took treatment at Yashoda Hospital, Malakpet, Hyderabad for better treatment. The petitioner did not produce any transport expense bills. However, considering the nature of the injuries sustained by the petitioner and also the place of the accident, this Tribunal feels that a reasonable amount has to be awarded under this head, and this
Tribunal found that an amount of Rs.10,000/- is found to be a reasonable amount. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to claim an amount of Rs.10,000/- under the head of transport expenditure.
17. Extra Nourishment: Though the petitioner proved that he sustained injuries in the accident and was admitted to the hospital, there is no evidence before this Tribunal that the doctor prescribed taking vitamin food and other medicines for energy. Anyhow,
MVOP No. 133 of 2021 10 Dated 15-04-2025 considering the nature of the injuries received by the petitioner and his age, though there is no evidence before this Tribunal, this
Tribunal feels that an amount of Rs.10,000/- is found to be a reasonable amount. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to claim an amount of Rs.10,000/- under the head of extra nourishment.
18. Medical Expenditure: According to the petitioner, he spent an amount of Rs.14,16,863/- towards medical expenditure, etc. To prove his claim he got marked Ex.A6 to Ex.A53 i.e. bills of supply/invoice no.IP12047796, bills dated 21.04.2021 issued by
Yashoda Hospital, Hyderabad, Tax invoices issued by Dheeraj Medicals
dated 21.04.2021 (2 in number), invoice bill dated 26.05.2021 issued
by Gayathri Medical Hall, Diagnostic bill dated 26.05.2021, receipt
dated 26.05.2021 issued by Yashoda Hospital (3 in number),
Diagnostic bill, dated 26.05.2021, bills, diagnostic bills, tax invoices issued by Dheeraj Medicals dated 10.06.2021, outpatient cash receipt
dated 10.06.2021 issued by Yashoda Hospital, bill, outpatient cash
receipt dated 10.06.2021 issued by Yashoda Hospital, diagnostic bill,
dated 01.07.2021 issued by Yashoda Hosptial, Bill dated 01.07.2021
issued by Yashoda Hospital, bill dated 01.07.2021 issued by Yashoda
Hospital, tax invoice no.C031859 in the name of Matta Varun, Receipt no.149 dated 05.07.2021 issued by Sai Sri Physiotherapy, Receipt no.151 dated 05.08.2021 issued by Sai Sri Physiotherapy, tax invoice, diagnostic bill dated 02.08.2021, outpatient cash receipt dated
MVOP No. 133 of 2021 11 Dated 15-04-2025 02.08.2021, tax invoice dated 06.08.2021, diagnostic bill dated 02.09.2021, outpatient cash receipt, dated 02.09.2021, tax invoice, cash bills dated 01.07.2021, 10.06.2021, 26.05.2021, 02.09.2021, 02.08.2021 pertaining to Ambulance service, clinical biochemistry pertaining to patient/M. Varun was issued by Yashoda Hospital. The major surgical profile pertains to patient/M.Varun issued by Yashoda
Hospital, x-ray pelvis AP view (Department of Radiology) pertaining to M.Varun issued by Yashoda Hospital, x-ray left let with knee AP view (department of radiology) pertaining to M. Varun issued by
Yashoda Hospital (2 in number), x-ray chest AP view (Department of
Radiology) pertaining to M. Varun issued by Yashoda Hospital, Medical report with respective injuries of M. Varun issued by Yashoda
Hospital, medical report with respective injuries of M. Varun issued by Yashoda Hospital, CT peripheral angiogram issued by Yashoda
Hospital, Medical report with respect finding of injuries pertaining to
M. Varun issued by Yashoda Hospital, medical report with respect to
CT chest and abdomen without contract (Department of Radiology) issued by Yashoda Hospital (2 in number) and medical report with respect to 3D CT scan of Brain with facial bones(Department of
Radiology) issued by Yashoda hospital. To prove the above documents, PW4 was examined, and he stated that one patient by the name of Matta Varun joined Yashoda Hospital, malakpet, on 22.04.2021 with IP No.300081, their hospital-issued medical bills
MVOP No. 133 of 2021 12 Dated 15-04-2025 /Ex.A6, which also shows that he was discharged on 05.05.2021. The final bill dated 05.05.2021 shows that the patient paid an amount of
Rs.12,08,000/- and the other bills with various dates were also issued by their hospital under Ex.A7. Therefore, the claim petitioner is entitled to a sum of Rs.12,08,000/-under the head of medical expenditure.
19. Pain and Suffering: As seen from the medical record, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries. Considering the nature of the injuries(Multiple pelvic, spine fractures, fracture superior and inferior pubic rami left side, fracture inferior pubic rami right side and contusion on left ankle) sustained and the pain undergone by the petitioner, this Tribunal holds that the petitioner is entitled to
Rs.5,00,000/- under the head of pain and suffering.
20. Loss of Earning: According to the petitioner, he was about 26 years old, and he was working as a software Engineer by profession in
Genus Power Infra Structure Limited Hanmakonda and earning
Rs.17,458/- per month. He also stated that due to the accident, he is not in a position to attend his normal work; as such, his income source was affected. To prove his claim, he got marked
Ex.A55/Salary slip for February 2021 issued by Authorities of Genus
Power Infrastructures Limited. The learned counsel for respondent no. 3 argued that Ex.A55 does not disclose the nature of
MVOP No. 133 of 2021 13 Dated 15-04-2025 employment, and Ex.A55 shows that Matta Varun/petitioner is designated as an engineer. Further, PW5 was examined by the petitioner, who stated that the petitioner is working in Genus Power
Infrastructures Limited and he used to earn Rs.17,458/-, which substantiates the petitioner's version, Rs. 17,458/- would be reasonable, keeping in view his occupation. Considering his injuries, this Tribunal holds that the petitioner is entitled to six months ' income. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to claim an amount of
Rs.1,04,748/- (Rs.17,458/- X 6) under the head of loss of earnings.
21. Permanent Disability: According to the petitioner due to injuries sustained by him in the accident, he sustained permanent disability. The petitioner had filed a permanent disability certificate/Ex.A.54 to show the nature of the disability he sustained.
22. The testimony of P.W-1 was corroborated by
Ex.A54/Disability certificate and issued a disability certificate in the name of the post-traumatic sequel of limbs and Bilateral Lower limb due to an accident. As per the certificate, the disability is 67%.
Ex.A54 issued by the Medical Board, Suryapet, with I.D Number of a person with disability vide ID No.26260292109070002, dt.20.09.2023.
23. The disability is a reflection of the physical (locomotor/orthopedic) disability of the right upper limb and right lower limb. With a history of the accident, the percentage of
MVOP No. 133 of 2021 14 Dated 15-04-2025 disability is 67%. The medical board, Suryapet District, issued ex.A.54. To prove the above document, PW2, PW3, and PW6 were examined. PW2 stated that the petitioner by name Matta Varun, joined in their Yashoda Hospital, malakpet, on 22.04.2021 with IP
No.300081 along with a team of other doctors, he examined the patient, he found the patient had polytrauma with a pelvic injury with bilateral arterial injuries involving external iliac arteries (EIA) with left Vein thrombosis along with multiple bone injuries. After subulaizaticn, the patient was planned for IVC filter placement
before taking the patient's definitive processors. Debridement of
right grain with left CIA to SFA bypass graft S/P right EIA to SFA bypass graft. SFA means Super Facial Femoral artery, CIA means Common
Iliac Artiery, and EIA means Extra Iliac Artery. I have done four processors to in the right grain and to left grain. Ex.A5 discharge summary contains his name as one of the treated a doctor. PW3 stated that on his examination, it was a road traffic accident with bad pelvic injury with pubic diastases and right SI-joint injury with right acetabulum fracture with left DVT and crush injury. At the ER, the patient was stabilized with IV fluids and other modalities of
Resuscitation. On the same day, the patient was taken to the operating theatre, and emergency surgery was done along with a urologist, vascular surgeon, and plastic surgeon. As for orthopedition, their team has done pubic symphysis reconstruction and Acetabulum
MVOP No. 133 of 2021 15 Dated 15-04-2025 fixation. The patient was subjected to necessary physiotherapy after clearance from multiple doctors. He was discharged on 05-05-2021.
Since then, he has been under follow-up. The patient cannot perform his previous activities, and this is a grievous injury. PW6 stated that the petitioner, by the name Matta Varun, appeared before the medical board on 20.09.2023. On examination, the petitioner was found 67% temporary disability. The board issued a certificate for a person with a disability in favor of Matta Varun. He was on the signatory to the said certificate, which is already marked as Ex.A54.
The patient was a minor accident, and on consideration of the medical records, the disability arrived.
24. It is the contention of the respondent counsel that Ex.P54 was issued two years from the date of the accident. Further, Ex.A54 notes that it is not valid for medico-legal cases. Hence, the same should not be considered. Though Ex.A54 was issued after two years, but it is specifically mentioned that the cause of the disability is an accident. The contention that the said certificate is not valid in medico-legal cases cannot be accepted as the Government of
Telangana issues it after conducting various tests. It cannot be assumed that it was a false certificate or that it would have been changed if it had been issued for medico-legal cases.
25. The claim petitioner is a software. Based on Ex.A54, the
MVOP No. 133 of 2021 16 Dated 15-04-2025 percentage of disability was 67%. In view of the settled legal position, the disability sustained by the claim petitioner has to be computed considering the nature of the work. It is on record that the claim petitioner is software and has functional difficulty in his right leg, which is why he lost his job. This Tribunal is of the opinion that it is just and proper to consider the functional disability as 60%. It has to be calculated with reference to the age and income of the petitioner.
26. Taking into consideration the age and income of the petitioner, 60% of the income has been added to the income of the petitioner towards future prospects as the age was about 26 years, which comes to Rs.17,458/- i.e., Rs.2,09,496/- per annum. Thus, the loss of future income due to 60% functional disability suffered by him due to the injuries sustained in the accident, taking the appropriate multiplier of (17) as per Sarala Verma and others V. Delhi Transport
Corporation and another1 and National Insurance Company Ltd., V.
Pranay Sethi, and others2, would be (60% of Rs.2,09,496/-)
Rs.1,25,697/- x 17 = Rs.21,36,859/-). Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to Rs. 21,36,859/- under this head.
27. The petitioner is entitled to compensation under different heads as per the following table:
1.(2009) 6 SCC 121)
2.AIR 2017 SC 5157
MVOP No. 133 of 2021 17 Dated 15-04-2025
Sl.No. Head Compensation
Amount
1. Transport to hospital Rs.10,000/-
2. Extra Nourishment Rs.10,000/-
3. Medical expenses Rs.12,08,000/-
4. Pain and Suffering Rs.5,00,000/-
5. Loss of earnings during Rs.1,04,748/- treatment
6. Permanent Disability Rs.21,36,859/-
7. Future treatment -
Total Rs.39,69,607/-
Rounded to Rs.39,69,607/-
28. The claim petitioner is entitled to a total compensation of
Rs.39,69,607/-.
29. Liability: Admittedly, Respondent No. 1 is the driver,
Respondent No. 2 is the owner and Respondent No. 3 is the insurer of the crime vehicle. Respondents No.1 and 2 are set exparte.
30. On behalf of the respondent no.3, RW1 was examined and marked Ex. B-1 to Ex. B-3. Ex.B-3 is an attested copy of the policy, which reveals that it was valid from 25.02.2021 to 24.02.2022.
Admittedly, the accident occurred on 21.04.2021. Thus, it is clear that as of the date of the accident, the policy (Ex.B-1) was in force.
There is no evidence on the record that the respondent no.1 was not holding a valid licence.
MVOP No. 133 of 2021 18 Dated 15-04-2025
31. It is the argument of the respondent no.3 counsel that motor vehicle is goods carriage section-B, whereas the driver possess licence of light motor vehicle. Hence, the driver of the crime vehicle do not possess effective driving licence, therefore the company is not liable. At this juncture, it is relevant to mention that in a decision reported in between M/s Bajaj Alliance General Insurance
Co.Ltd. Vs. Rambha Devi & Ors3 held at para no.130 as under:
“Now harking back to the primary issue and noticing
that the core driving skills (as enunciated in the earlier
paragraphs), expected to be mastered by all drivers are
universal – regardless of whether the vehicle falls into
“Transport” or “Non-Transport” category, it is the
considered opinion of this Court that if the gross vehicle
weight is within 7.500 kg – the quintessential common
man’s driver Sri, with LMV licence, can also drive a
“Transport Vehicle”.
In view of the above legal position, the insurance company cannot deny their liability.
32. Since the accident occurred due to the rash and negligence of the driver of the crime vehicle and the insurance was in force, respondent no.1 (Owner) and respondent no.2 (insurance company) are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner.
3 2024 INSC 840
MVOP No. 133 of 2021 19 Dated 15-04-2025
33. Rate of interest: The 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, reported in 2005 ACJ 1131, this Tribunal awards interest @ 7.5% per annum on the compensation amount. Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of the petitioner and against respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
34. ISSUE No.3: Given the findings and conclusions on the above issues, the petitioner is entitled to compensation from respondents No.2 and 3. Accordingly, this issue is answered.
35. IN THE RESULT: The petition filed by the petitioner is allowed by awarding total compensation of an amount of Rs.39,69,607/- with proportionate costs against the respondent no.2 and 3, with subsequent interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit of the amount.
1. The respondent no.2 and 3 are directed to deposit the awarded amount within ONE month from the date of this award;
2.After the deposit of the above-said amount, the petitioner is entitled to Rs.39,69,607/- (Rupees Thirty Nine Lakhs Sixty Nine Thousand Six Hundred and seven only). The petitioner is at liberty to withdraw the awarded amount along with the accrued interest.
3.The petitioner is directed to pay the deficit court fee within 15 days from today. The office is directed to prepare the decree after paying the deficit court fee.
MVOP No. 133 of 2021 20 Dated 15-04-2025
4.The Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only).
Typed to my dictation, corrected, and pronounced by me in the open court on this 15 th day of April, 2025.
Sd/-
Chairman Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I
Additional District Judge, Suryapet.
:: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE::
WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
P.W-1 Matta Varun
P.W-2 Prakash Goura
P.W-3 K. Sathish Kumar
P.W-4 J. Srinivas
P.W-5 S.N. Brahmaji
P.W-6Dr. D. Muralidhar
WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS
R.W-1 Dhanavath Kota
DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
Ex.A-1 Certified copy of First Information Report in Cr. No. 69/2021, Athmakur-S police station.
Ex.A-2 Medico legal record of patient varun
Ex.A-3 Certified copy of charge sheet in Cr. No.69/2021, Athmakur-S police station
Ex.A-4 Certified copy of accident information report (form no.54) Ex.A-5 Discharge summary (MLC 31136) of Matta Varun
Bill of Supply/Invoice no. IP12047796 Ex.A-6
MVOP No. 133 of 2021 21 Dated 15-04-2025
Ex.A-7 Bill dated 21.04.2024 issued by Yashoda Hospital, Hyderabad (consist of 4 in number)
Ex.A-8 Tax invoice issued by Dheeraj Medicals dated 21.04.2021(2 in number)
Ex.A-9 Tax invoice issued by Dheeraj Medicals dated 24.04.2021
Ex.A-10 Tax invoice issued by Dheeraj Medicals dated 05.05.2021
Ex.A-11 Tax invoice issued by Dheeraj Medicals dated 06.05.2021
Ex.A-12 Tax invoice issued by Dheeraj Medicals dated 08.05.2021
Ex.A-13 Tax invoice issued by Dheeraj Medicals dated 26.05.2021
Ex.A-14 Invoice bill dated 26.05.2021 issued by Gayathri Medical hall
Ex.A-15 Diagnostic bill dated 26.05.2021
Ex.A-16 Receipt dated 26.05.2021 issued by Yashoda Hospital
Ex.A-17 Diagnostic bill dated 26.05.2021
Ex.A-18 Bill dated 26.05.2021 issued by Yashoda Hospital
Ex.A-19 Bill dated 10.06.2021 issued by Yashoda Hospital
Ex.A-20 Diagnostic bill dated 26.05.2021
Ex.A-21 Diagnostic bill dated 26.05.2021
Ex.A-22 Tax invoice issued by Dheeraj medicals,dated 10.06.2021
Ex.A-23 Outpatient cash receipt dated 10.06.2021 issued by Yashoda Hosptial
Ex.A-24 Bill dated 01.07.2021
Ex.A-25 Outpatient cash receipt dated 01.07.2021 issued by Yashoda Hospital
Ex.A-26 Diagnostic bill dated 01.07.2021 issued by Yashoda Hospital Ex.A-27 Bill dated 01.7.2021 issued by Yashoda hospital,
Ex.A-28 Tax invoice no.C031859 in the name of Matta Varun
Ex.A-29 Receipt no.149, dated 05.07.2021 issued by Sai Sri Physiotherapy Ex.A-30 Receipt no. 151 dated 05.08.2021 issued by Sai Sri
MVOP No. 133 of 2021 22 Dated 15-04-2025
Physiotherapy
Ex.A-31 Tax invoice dated 03.08.2021 issued by Dheeraj Medicals
Ex.A-32 Diagnostic bill, dated 02.08.2021
Ex.A-33 Outpatient cash receipt dated 02.08.2021
Tax invoice dated 02.09.2021 Ex.A-34
Ex.A-35 Diagnostic bill dated 02.09.2021 Ex.A-36 Outpatient cash receipt dated 02.09.2021 Ex.A-37 Tax invoice dated 02.09.2021
Cash bill dated 01.07.2021 pertaining to Ambulance Ex.A-38 service
Cash bill dated 10.06.2021 pertaining to Ambulance Ex.A-39 service
Ex.A-40 Cash bill dated 26.05.2021 pertaining to Ambulance service
Ex.A-41 Cash bill dated 02.09.2021 pertaining to Ambulance service
Cash bill dated 02.08.2021 pertaining to Ambulance Ex.A-42 service
Ex.A-43 Clinical Biochemistry pertaining to patient /M. Varun issued by Yashoda Hospital
Ex.A-44 Department of Hematology pertaining to patient/M.Varun issued by Yashoda hospital
Major Surgical profile pertaining to patient /M.Varun Ex.A-45 issued by Yashoda Hospital x-Ray pelvis AP View (department of radiology ) Ex.A-46 pertaining to M. Varun issued by Yashoda Hospital
Ex.A-47 X-ray left leg with knee AP view (department of Radiology) pertaining to M. Varun issued by Yashoda Hospital
Ex.A-48 X-ray chest AP view (department of Radiology ) pertaining to M.Varun issued by Yashoda Hospital
Ex.A-49 Medical report with respective injuries of M. Varun issued by Yashoda Hospital
MVOP No. 133 of 2021 23 Dated 15-04-2025
Ex.A-50 CT Peripheral Angiogram issued by Yashoda hospital Medical report with respect with respect finding of injuries pertaining to M. Varun issued by Yashoda Hospital
Ex.A-51 Medical report with respect to CT chest and abdomen without contract (department odf Radiology )issued by Yashoda Hospital
Ex.A-52 Medical report with respect to 3D CT scan of Brain with facial bones (department of Radiology )issued by Yashoda hospital
Ex.A-53 Certificate for person with disability issued by Medical board, dated 20.09.2023
Salary slip for February -2021 issued by Authorities of Ex.A-54 Genus power infrastructures limited
Ex.A-55 Bank statement of Matta Varun issued by Bank of Baroda, Suryapet
Ex.A-56 Driving licence of Matta Varun validity 16.09.2039
DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS
Ex.B1 Xerox copy of Registration certificate
Ex.B2 Xerox copy of Aadhar card
Ex.B3 policy no. P0021300039/4103/101395 covering the period from 25.02.2021 to mid night 24.02.2022
Ex.C1 Authorization letter
Sd/-
Chairman Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I
Additional District Judge, Suryapet.