Sri. M. Venkateswara Rao

-1- dt.05.06.2025 Orders in MVOP No.3076 of 2014 of MACT cum

XXVI ACJ, CCC, HYD

BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-CUM- XXVI

ADDL.CHIEF JUDGE, CITY CIVIL COURT AT HYDERABAD

Present: Sri M.Venkateswara Rao

Chairman MACT-cum-XXVI Addl.Chief Judge

Thursday, on this 5 th Day of June, 2025

M.V.O.P. No. 3076 of 2014

Between: Bathula Sandeep Reddy, S/o. Narsimha Reddy, Aged about: 21 years, Occ: Engineering Student-Cum-Home Tutor, R/o.H.No.2-2- 115/2/1, Amberpet, Hyderabad.

….Petitioner

And

1. Konda Anvesh Goud, S/o. Venkateshwarlu, Aged Major, Occ: Owner of Pulser motor cycle bearing No. TS 05 EA 4616, R/o H. No. 1-78-1, Tipparthy Road, Nakrekal, Nalgonda District.

2. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, Rep. by its Manager (Legal) North East Plaza, 4th Floor, Beside BMW Showroom Erramanzil Colony X Road, Khairatabad, Hyderabad. (Policy No. OG-15-1812-1802-00000366 Valid From 29-07-2014 to 28-07-2015.

3. M/s. Lotus Cap Golden Educational Society, Rep by A. Srinivas Reddy, R/o. Plot No 28 and 29, Huda Complex, Near Huda Park, Saroor Nagar, Kothapet, Hyderabad.

4. Reliance General Insurance, Rep.by its Manager, 1st Floor, Vijetha Sanjeevani, H.No. 6-4-8, Opp. Gandhi Hospital, Musheerabad, Hyderabad - 500082 (Insurer of the Lotus Cap Bus bearing No. AP 29 T 6130) Policy bearing No. 180473255000038 valid from 6:54 hrs on 31-03-2014 to 23:59 hrs on 30-03-2015.

5. Pasala Anand, S/o. George, age: 49 years Occ: Driver of Lotus Cap Bus bearing No. AP 29 T 6130, R/o H.No. 8-94, Peddamberpet Village, Hayatnagar Mandal, R.R. District (Respondents No.3 to 5 are impleaded as per the orders in I.A.No. 1122 of 2018 dt.09.02.2022) ….Respondents -2- dt.05.06.2025 Orders in MVOP No.3076 of 2014 of MACT cum

XXVI ACJ, CCC, HYD

This petition came before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri P. Chandra Mouli, Learned counsel for

Petitioner; Sri V. Vinod, Learned counsel for Respondent No.2;

Sri S. Venkatesh Gupta, Learned counsel for Respondent No.4;

Respondent Nos.1, 3 and 5 remained exparte; and upon hearing both the counsel and on perusing the material on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:-

:: O R D E R ::

1.This petition is filed under Section 166 of the MV Act, 1988, by the petitioner seeking compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of realization. Originally the petition was filed by the petitioner against respondents No.1 and 2. Subsequently the respondents

No.3 to 5 are impleaded as per orders in I.A.No. 1122 of 2018 dt.09.02.2022.

2.The averments of petition, in brief are summarized as under:

i. On 16.11.2014 at about 19-30 hours, the petitioner was proceeding as pillion rider on motor cycle bearing No.TS-05-EA 4616 from Mahamudabad village of Nalgonda District side towards Hayathnagar side. When they reached at Anjaneya

Swamy temple, on NH-65 road, Laxma Reddy Palem, -3- dt.05.06.2025 Orders in MVOP No.3076 of 2014 of MACT cum

XXVI ACJ, CCC, HYD

Hayathnagar, the rider of motor cycle drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner without following traffic rules and lost control of said Pulsar and dashed to the pedestrian namely

Sandhya Venkatesh who was going by walk.

ii.As a result, of which the petitioner and rider of motor cycle fell down and sustained grievous multiple fracture injuries.

iii. Immediately after the accident the petitioner was shifted to Ozone hospital, Kothapet, where the petitioner was admitted as inpatient from 16.11.2014 to 19.11.2014 and due to said accident the petitioner became disability.

iv. The police station, Hayathnagar registered a case in

Crime No.923 of 2014 under Sec.338 of IPC against the driver of

Pulsar bearing No.TS 05 EA 4616.

v. At the time of accident the petitioner was prosecuting

Final Year Engineering student-cum home tutor and the petitioner was studying in M/s. Mahaveer Engineering & Technology

Chandrayangutta, Hyderabad in E.C.branch and the petitioner was taking home tutions on which the petitioner was earning

Rs.15,000/- per month prior to the accident and that the petitioner is not in a position to attend the college and take home -4- dt.05.06.2025 Orders in MVOP No.3076 of 2014 of MACT cum

XXVI ACJ, CCC, HYD

tutions. Thus, the petitioner lost his entire earnings throughout his remaining life.

vi. Due to the said accident the petitioner had incurred huge expenditure towards hospitalization, medical treatment, transport and extra nourishment etc. and became permanent disable.

vii. At the time of accident the petitioner was 21 years and also lost amenities and social status.

viii. That the respondent No.1 being owner and respondent

No.2 being insurer, respondent No.3 being insurer of respondent

No.4 and 5, respondent No.5 being driver of crime vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner.

Hence, the petition.

3. Respondent Nos.1, 3 and 5 remained exparte.

4. Respondent No.2 has filed counter opposing the relief claimed in this petition, inter alia by contending as under:

i. This respondent denies the age, income and avocation of the petitioner.

ii. This respondent further stated that without admitting the involvement of respondent No.1 vehicle in the said accident and -5- dt.05.06.2025 Orders in MVOP No.3076 of 2014 of MACT cum

XXVI ACJ, CCC, HYD

even if the petitioner proves the involvement of insured vehicle in the alleged accident.

iii. That the driver of the Pulsar bike bearing No. Ts.05 EA 4616 was not holding valid driving license at the time of accident and further not qualified for holding driving license and further has not satisfied the requirements of Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicle

Rules.

iv. This respondent alleged that to drive the vehicle, if he should have valid driving license, but the pulsar bike driver had not possessed any valid and effective driving license as on the date of alleged accident.

v. This respondent further contended that the petitioner was travelling on crime vehicle as a pillion rider, therefore the petitioner is not entitled for any compensation.

vi. The respondent No.1 has not informed about the accident to this respondent, hence this respondent shall be permitted to take all necessary defences as contemplated under

Section 147 and 149 of M.V.Act. This respondent denies the age of the petitioner. The respondent No.2 may be protected under Section 170 of M.V.Act apart from Section 147 and 149 of M.V Act.

-6- dt.05.06.2025 Orders in MVOP No.3076 of 2014 of MACT cum

XXVI ACJ, CCC, HYD

vii.This respondent said as per Section 134 (c) of

M.V.Act it is mandatory duty of the insured to furnish the particulars of policy, date, time and place of accident, particulars of injured and the name of the driver and particulars of the driving license, but the insured had not complied with statutory demand, as such this respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner.

viii.He submits that as per Section 158 (6) of M.V.Act, 1988, it is mandatory duty of the concerned P.S. to forward all the relevant documents to the concerned insurer within 30 days from the date of the information but the police station failed to forward the documents and not complied with the statutory demand. Hence, prays to dismiss the petition.

5. Respondent No.4 has filed counter opposing the relief claimed in this petition, inter alia by contending as under:

i. This respondent denies that the crime vehicle

No 1 i.e., Bus bearing No. AP 29 T 6130 is owned by the respondent No.3 driven by respondent No.5 and is insured with this respondent and that this respondent had not issued any policy to the alleged crime vehicle i.e., Bus bearing No. AP 29 T 6130 as alleged by the petitioner and particulars in respect of the alleged policy as mentioned in the petition are totally false -7- dt.05.06.2025 Orders in MVOP No.3076 of 2014 of MACT cum

XXVI ACJ, CCC, HYD

and not tallying with this respondent's records, "without prejudice" in the event if any policy as alleged is traced out or exists, the liability of this respondent if any, be restricted as per the terms and conditions of the policy, provided the owner and driver of the said vehicle if not violated any of the provisions of MV Act and MV Rules.

ii. That this respondent further alleged that, as on the date of alleged accident the driver of the alleged crime vehicle Bus bearing No. AP 29 T 6130 had no driving license to drive the said class of vehicle or any other vehicles as such, the owner and driver of the said crime vehicle violated the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act and A.P M.V Rules, hence this respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner even in the vent if any policy existing to the crime vehicle as alleged by the petitioner.

iii. This respondent specifically contended that, as on the date of alleged accident the alleged crime vehicle ie.,

Bus bearing No. AP 29 T 6130 was plying without permit and fitness on the roads, it is clear violation of provisions of the M.V.

Act and A.P TV Rules and conditions of the insurance policies, -8- dt.05.06.2025 Orders in MVOP No.3076 of 2014 of MACT cum

XXVI ACJ, CCC, HYD

hence this respondent is not liable to pay any compensation even if any insurance policy is existing against the crime vehicle as alleged by the petitioner.

iv. This respondent most respectfully submits that, if the respondent No. 1 is the owner of the alleged crime vehicle i.e., Bus bearing No. AP 29 T 6130 and it had an insurance coverage with this respondent as alleged by the petitioner, hence it is mandatory obligation for the 1" respondent to intimate the alleged accident with all the particulars of the alleged accident and furnish the documents of the crime vehicle, so far this respondent has not received any information pertaining to the alleged accident and not received any of the documents pertaining to the crime vehicle by the respondent No. 1 hence it is establishing that, the said crime vehicle is not owned by the respondent No. 1 and insured by this respondent, without prejudice to the said plea, this respondent is entitled to take all the general defenses that are available under section 170 (a) (b) of M.V Act and under sections 147 and 149 of the M.V Act in the event if any policy as alleged by the petitioner is traced out or exists against the crime vehicle.

-9- dt.05.06.2025 Orders in MVOP No.3076 of 2014 of MACT cum

XXVI ACJ, CCC, HYD

v. This respondent alleged that since the accident is not informed to this respondent by the respondent No.3, hence this respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner even in the event if any policy as alleged is exists or traced out.

vi.This respondent not admits and denies that, the petitioner had valid and effective driving license to drive the class of vehicle on which he was allegedly proceeding at the time of accident, the said vehicle was road worthy to ply on the roads and not proceeding in contrary to the provisions or the MV Act and MV rules, hence the petitioners are put to strict proof of the same.

vii. This respondent submits that, as per the available preliminary information and as per the averments of the petition itself, the petitioner himself fell down on the road and there due to his own negligence and violation of traffic rules and there is no negligence on the part of the driver Bus bearing to. AP 29 T 6130, hence the claim of the petitioner is liable to be dismissed against this respondent.

-10- dt.05.06.2025 Orders in MVOP No.3076 of 2014 of MACT cum

XXVI ACJ, CCC, HYD

viii. This respondent denies the injuries sustained in the said accident 1) Polytrauma, 2. Fracture of both nasal bones, 3. Multiple abrasions and lacerations over frontal region

4. injury on left maxillary region, 5. injury on left lower eye lid, nose and lips, 6. injury on left knee region, left elbow and fore arm and 7. multiple injuries all over the body.

ix.This respondent further denied that as on the date of alleged accident the petitioner was aged 21 years, studying in Final Year Engineering (E.C. Branch) in M/s

Mahaveer Engineering & Technology, Chandrayangutta,

Hyderabad and also taking Home Tuitions on which he was earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- Per month and contributing his earnings for his education and his family members, other than petitioner no earning person in his family, due to the alleged injuries sustained by the petitioner, he is not in a position to go to college, attend classes and take home tuitions, he could not put his signature on this petition for that he put his thumb impression, he is completely bed ridden since om the date of accident he is incurring huge expenditure towards his hospitalization and medical treatment, transport and extra nourishment etc, still he is undergoing treatment as out-patient -11- dt.05.06.2025 Orders in MVOP No.3076 of 2014 of MACT cum

XXVI ACJ, CCC, HYD

and he lost his entire earnings, he himself and his family are suffering with pain, mental agony and sustained permanent disability, as all averments of the petition are base less, false and fabricated to lay the present false claim, as such the petitioner be put to strict proof of the above allegations. Hence prayed to dismiss the petition with costs.

6. On the basis of above pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial:

1. Whether the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the motor cycle bearing No. TS 05 EA 4616 causing injuries to the petitioner?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so, to what extent and from whom?

3. To what relief?

7.This court have gone though the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties to the petition, and on careful analysis of the same, this court is of the view that the issue No.1 as settled by this court is not sufficient. It is settled law that when the parties to the suit or petition are having knowledge of their rival's claim in full and lead their evidence to put forth their claims and to rebut the cases of others, then the court is empowered to amend or add the issues even at the time of passing final judgment. The law in -12- dt.05.06.2025 Orders in MVOP No.3076 of 2014 of MACT cum

XXVI ACJ, CCC, HYD

this regard is also settled by the Hon’ble Apex court in catena of decisions. In the present case also, though Respondent No.1 to

Respondent No.3 are impleaded no additional issue is framed. As the parties having full knowledge about the defence raised by the defendants and as both the parties adduced sufficient evidence, this court holds that it is a fit case to add additional issue No.1A in respect of which the evidence is already available on record on behalf of either side. For better adjudication of the matter while exercising the powers U/O 14 rule 10 of CPC, the issue No.1A is settled as under:

Issue No.1A; “Whether the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of driver of Cab Bus bearing

No.AP 29 T 6130 causing injuries to the petitioner?”

8.To substantiate the case of the petitioner, the petitioner himself examined as PW1 and Ex.A1 to A7 are marked. The doctor who treated the petitioner was examined as PW2. On behalf of respondent No.2, its Assistant Manager-legal was examined as RW1 and Ex.B1 police is marked. On behalf of respondent No.4 its Manager (Legal claims) examined as RW2 got marked Ex.B2 attested copy of the passenger carrying vehicle liability policy vide No.1804732550038 issued against the vehicle i.e., bus bearing No.AP 29 T 6130.

-13- dt.05.06.2025 Orders in MVOP No.3076 of 2014 of MACT cum

XXVI ACJ, CCC, HYD

9.Heard. Perused the material on record.

10.Issue No.1 and IA:- Since trial of MVOP is summary in nature, the sum and substance of evidence has to be considered.

11.It is the case of the petitioner that the accident was caused by the negligent driving of rider of Motor cycle bearing No.TS 05 EA 4616. In his additional evidence he deposed that the

Respondent No.5 who is driver of Cab Bus bearing No. AP 29 T 6130 also drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and caused injuries. In support of the same, petitioner himself was examined as

PW1 and marked Ex.A1-Certified copy of FIR and Ex.A2-certified copy of Charge sheet and Ex.A3-Certified copy of MLC. The evidence of

PW.1 coupled with Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.3, even after test of cross examination, are establishing that at relevant time drivers of said two crime vehicles drove their respective crime vehicles in a rash and negligent manner and caused injuries to the petitioner. There is no cogent evidence placed by respondents to show the negligence of petitioner.

12.Further contention of the petitioner is that, he sustained fracture injuries in the said accident. The evidene of PW.1 coupled with Exs.A1 & A.2 along with A3-Certified copy of MLC Record and

Ex.A.4 Discharge summary of Ozone hospital, all of which, even after -14- dt.05.06.2025 Orders in MVOP No.3076 of 2014 of MACT cum

XXVI ACJ, CCC, HYD

test of cross examination show that the petitioner sustained injuries in the said accident.

13.Therefore, in view of above discussion and for the reasons stated above it can be safely held that, the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of crime vehicle Pulsar bearing No. TS- 05-EA-4616 and also driver of Cab Bus Bearing No.AP 29 T 6130 causing injuries to the petitioner. Issue No.1 and IA are answered accordingly.

14.Issue No.2:-

a) Age of the injured;

15.As per claim petition age of the petitioner/injured was mentioned as 21 years. As as per FIR and charge sheet the age of injured was mentioned as 21 years. Further no other cogent evidence is placed to prove the age of injured less than 21 years. Therefore, basing on evidence on record, age of injured is taken as 21 years, as on the date of occurrence of accident.

b) Income of injured;

16.Further contention of petitioner is that, by the time of accident injured was prosecuting EC final year and also taking home tutions on which he is earning Rs.15,000/-. But, no piece of document -15- dt.05.06.2025 Orders in MVOP No.3076 of 2014 of MACT cum

XXVI ACJ, CCC, HYD

is filed to prove that the injured is earning Rs.15,000/- per month.

Therefore, the fact of earning Rs.15,000/- on Tuitions by injured is not proved.

17.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case ofKUBRABIBI &

ORS. Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD & ORS., reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 697 was pleased to held that, when in the absence of definite proof of the income, the social status of the injured/deceased is to be kept in perspective where such persons are employed in unorganized sector and the notional income in any event is required to be taken into consideration.

18.The evidence of PW1 shows that the petitioner was final year Engineering student and was studying in M/s. Mahaveer

Engineering and Technology, chandrayangutta, Hyderabad (E.C.Branch). This court relied on a citation in case of Navojoth

Singh Vs. Harpreeth Singh reported in 2020 LawSuit (SC) 832, and wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court fixed the notional income of a Student undergoing Degree Course in Engineering from a premier institute as Rs.10,000/-.

19.This court relied on a citation in case of Narmadi Bai

Vs. Triupati Arolu and others reported in 2017 ACJ 2023, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had assessed the income of engineering student at Rs.8,000/-.

-16- dt.05.06.2025 Orders in MVOP No.3076 of 2014 of MACT cum

XXVI ACJ, CCC, HYD

20.However, in case of Meena Pawaia vs Ashraf Ali which was decided on 18 th November, 2021, the Hon’ble supreme court was pleased to take notional income of a student studying in the Final year of E.C branch as Rs.10,000/- per month. In said citation accident was taken place in the year 2012. When it comes to present case accident was taken place in the year 2014.

Further material on record shows that, injured is a bright student and that looking to the educational qualification and the family background and as observed herein above, the injured is having a bright future. Therefore, in view of above reasons this court holds that, assessing income of injured at Rs.10,000/- per month would meet the ends of justice which can not be said to be higher side. The annual income would be Rs.1,20,000/.

c) Permanent disability or Future prospects;

21.Further, it is to be noted that the petitioner has failed to prove any permanent disability as a result of the injuries sustained in the accident. Therefore, no compensation can be awarded on this count.

b) Medical Expenses;

22. PW1 further stated that he had incurred more than

Rs.1,00,000/-. The evidence of PW.1 coupled with Ex.A6 Medical bills -17- dt.05.06.2025 Orders in MVOP No.3076 of 2014 of MACT cum

XXVI ACJ, CCC, HYD

establishing that, petitioner spent Rs.59,300/- towards medical expenses, as such petitioner is entitled for the same.

c) Pain and suffering both physical and mental;

23.The material on record shows that the injured was

Hospitalized. Further, evidence of PW1 and Ex.A4- Discharge summary is showing that injured sustained severe injuries and underwent surgery. To heal any fracture and to have normal movement after such surgery it requires some considerable period and during such period petitioner might have undergone lot of pain and suffering, for which he is granted a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and he is also granted a sum of Rs 50,000/- towards extra nourishment and

Transport.

24. In all, the just compensation that can be awarded to the petitioner is enumerated as follows:-

Pecuniary DamagesAmount

Medical Expenses Rs. 59,300/- Non-pecuniary damages: Pain and suffering (both mental Rs.1,00,000/- and physical) Rs. 50,000/- Extra Nourishment and transport

Total Rs. 2,09,300/- -18- dt.05.06.2025 Orders in MVOP No.3076 of 2014 of MACT cum

XXVI ACJ, CCC, HYD

25. RW1 in his cross examination admitted that Ex.B1 policy is in force at the time of accident. RW1 admitted that Ex.B1 is package policy and it covers two persons. RW2 is also shows that Ex.B2 policy is in force at the time of accident. Since it is held that the accident was caused due to negligence of the driver of Motor cycle bearing No. TS 05 EA 4616 and Respondent No.5 who is driver of Cab Bus bearing No.

AP 29 T6130, this court court holds that, Respondent No.1 to

Respondent No.5 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.

Though respondents 1 to 5 are jointly and severally liable to pay the aforesaid compensation, the Respondent No.2 and 4 being insurers should indemnify Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.3 respectively.

Thus, the respondent No.2 and 4 being the insurers of offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay the above determined compensation amount to the petitioner along with costs and interest. They can avail doctrine of subrogation after payment of compensation to the petitioner.

Issue No.2 is answered accordingly.

26.Issue No.3:-In view of finding on Issues No.1 and 2, this court holds that petition is to be allowed in part with costs.

Issue No.3 is answered accordingly.

-19- dt.05.06.2025 Orders in MVOP No.3076 of 2014 of MACT cum

XXVI ACJ, CCC, HYD

27.In the result, i.The petition is allowed with costs directing respondents

Nos.1 to 5 jointly and severally to pay the petitioner a sum of

Rs.2,09,300/- (Rupees two lakhs nine thousands, three hundred only) towards compensation with interest at 7.5 % per annum from the date of filing of claim till date of realization.

ii.Respondent No.2 and 4 are directed to deposit the above said compensation amount jointly or severally within a period of one month from today, failing which the petitioner is entitled to recover the same by following due process of law.

iii.The Respondent No.2 and Respondent No.4 are permitted to avail doctrine of subrogation in the event of payment of entire compensation by any one of them.

iv.Upon deposit, the petitioner is entitled to withdraw entire amount without furnishing any security.

v.The advocate fee is fixed as Rs.2,000/-.

vi.The petitioner shall pay the deficit court fee if any. Or else, it shall be recovered from the amount deposited.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 5th day of June, 2025.

Sd/-

XXVI Additional Chief Judge,

City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

-20- dt.05.06.2025 Orders in MVOP No.3076 of 2014 of MACT cum

XXVI ACJ, CCC, HYD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONER:

PW1:Bathula Sandeep Reddy PW2: Dr. P. Viswaksen Reddy

FOR RESPONDENTS:

RW1: A. Karthik RW2: Kavirat Yasaswini Naga Sai Anusha

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PETITIONER

Ex.A1: Certified copy of FIR with complaint. Ex.A2: Certified copy of charge sheet. Ex.A3: Certified copy of MLC. Ex.A4: Discharge summary. Ex.A5: Bunch of medical bills for tune of Rs.66,638/-. Ex.A6: Out patient tickets Nos. 2. Ex.A7: X-ray reports Nos.2.

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR RESPONDENT NO.1

Ex.B1: Policy.

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR RESPONDENT NO.2

Ex.B2: Attested copy of the passenger carrying vehicle liability policy vide No.1804732550038 issued against the vehicle i.e., bus bearing No.AP 29 T 6130.

Sd/-

XXVI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

-1- dt.05.06.2025 Orders in MVOP No.144 of 2015 of MACT cum

XXVI ACJ, CCC, HYD

BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-CUM- XXVI

ADDL.CHIEF JUDGE, CITY CIVIL COURT AT HYDERABAD

Present: Sri M.Venkateswara Rao

Chairman MACT-cum-XXVI Addl.Chief Judge

Thursday, this the 5 th Day of June, 2025

M.V.O.P. No. 144 of 2015

Between: Sappidi Bhaskar Reddy, S/o. Laxma Reddy, Aged about: 21 years, Occ: Engineering Student-Cum-Home Tutor, R/o.H.No.1- 42, Mahammadabad Village Narayanpur Mandal, Nalgonda District.

….Petitioner

And

1. M/s Lotus Lap Golden Educational Society, Rep. by A. Srinivas Reddy, Occ: Business (Owner of Bus bearing No. AP 29 T 6130, R/o Plot No. 28, Huda Complex, Saroornagar, Cyberabad, Hyderabad

2. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, Rep. by its Manager (Legal), H. No. 4-1-327 to 337, Sagar Plaza, Abids, Hyderabad-500001 ( Policy No. 1804732355000038) Valid From 31-03-2014 to 30-03-2015.

….Respondents

This petition came before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri P.Pandu Ranga Swamy, Learned counsel for

Petitioner; Sri N.V.Ramana Rao, Learned counsel for Respondent

No.1; Sri S. Venkatesh Gupta, Learned counsel for Respondent

No.2, upon hearing both the counsel and on perusing the material on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:- -2- dt.05.06.2025 Orders in MVOP No.144 of 2015 of MACT cum

XXVI ACJ, CCC, HYD

:: O R D E R ::

1.This petition is filed under Section 166 of the MV Act, 1988, by the petitioner seeking compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of realization.

2.The averments of petition, in brief are summarized as under:

i. On 16.11.2014 at about 19-30 hours, the petitioner was proceeding in his motor cycle bearing No.TS-05-EA 4616 along with pillion rider from Mahammadabad village of Nalgonda District side towards Hayathnagar side with great care and diligence by following traffic rules.

ii. When the petitioner at Anjaneya Swamy temple of NH-65 road, Laxma Reddy palem, Hayathnagar, Cyberabad.

iii. At the material time, one pedestrian suddenly came on road, the petitioner being rider of motor cycle to avoid the accident tried to stop, but motor cycle went on and dashed to pedestrian, due to which the petitioner and pillion rider fell down on the road along with motor cycle.

iv. As a result, of which the petitioner sustained grievous multiple fracture injuries.

-3- dt.05.06.2025 Orders in MVOP No.144 of 2015 of MACT cum

XXVI ACJ, CCC, HYD

v. Immediately after the accident the petitioner was shifted to

Ozone hospital, Kothapet, where the petitioner was admitted as inpatient from 16.11.2014 to 21.11.2014 and undergone surgery on 17.11.2014 and due to said accident the petitioner became permanently disability.

vi. The police station, Hayathnagar registered a case in Crime

No.923 of 2014 under Sec.338 of IPC against the driver of Bus bearing

No.AP 29 T 6130.

vii.At the time of accident the petitioner was prosecuting Final

Year Engineering student-cum home tutor and the petitioner was studying in Brilliant Grammar School Educational Society’s Group of

Institutions at Adbudullapar Village, Hayathnagar Mandal in ECE

Branch, IV year and also taking tutions on which the petitioner was earning Rs.15,000/- per month prior to the accident.

viii.Due to the said accident the petitioner had incurred huge expenditure towards hospitalization, medical treatment, transport and extra nourishment etc.

ix.At the time of accident the petitioner was 21 years and also lost amenities and social status.

-4- dt.05.06.2025 Orders in MVOP No.144 of 2015 of MACT cum

XXVI ACJ, CCC, HYD

x.That the respondent No.1 being owner and respondent

No.2 being insurer of crime vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. Hence, the petition.

3.Respondent No.1 has filed counter opposing the

relief claimed in this petition, inter alia by contending as

under:

i. Respondent No.1 denied all the allegations made in the petition and denies the age, income and avocation of the petitioner.

ii. This respondent denied the allegation that he is prosecuting studies of final year Engineering and also taking home tuitions on which the petitioner was earing Rs.15,000/- per month prior to the accident and also denied that the petitioner is still undergoing treatment for the injuries sustained in the said accident.

iii. This respondent denied that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Bus bearing

No. AP 29T 6130 and that the police registered a case against the driver of Bus and further stated that the present petition filed by the petitioner is invented and concocted for the purpose of illegal claims in this petition.

-5- dt.05.06.2025 Orders in MVOP No.144 of 2015 of MACT cum

XXVI ACJ, CCC, HYD

4. Respondent No.2 has filed counter and additional counter opposing the relief claimed in this petition, inter alia by contending as under:

i.This respondent denies that the crime vehicle

No. 1 i.e., Bus bearing No. AP 29 T 6130 is owned by the respondent No.1 and is insured with this respondent and that this respondent had not issued any policy to the alleged crime vehicle No. 1 i.e., Bus bearing No. AP 29 T 6130 as alleged by the petitioner and particulars in respect of the alleged policy as mentioned in the petition are totally false and not tallying with this respondent's records, "without prejudice" in the event if any policy as alleged is traced out or exists, the liability of this respondent any, be restricted as per the terms and conditions of the policy, provided the owner and driver of the said vehicle if not violated any of the provisions of IMV Act and MV Rules.

ii.That this respondent further alleged that, as on the date of alleged accident the driver of the alleged crime vehicle Bus bearing No. AP 29 T 6130 had no driving license to drive the said class of vehicle or any other vehicles as such, the owner and driver of the said crime vehicle violated the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act and A.P M.V rules, hence this respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the -6- dt.05.06.2025 Orders in MVOP No.144 of 2015 of MACT cum

XXVI ACJ, CCC, HYD

petitioner even in the vent if any policy existing to the crime vehicle as alleged by the petitioner.

iii. This respondent specifically contended that, as on the date of alleged accident the alleged crime vehicle ie.,

Bus bearing No. AP 29 T 6130 was plying without permit and fitness on the roads, it is clear violation of provisions of the M.V.

Act and A.P TV Rules and conditions of the insurance policies, hence this respondent is not liable to pay any compensation even if any insurance policy is existing against the crime vehicle as alleged by the petitioner.

iv. This respondent most respectfully submits that, if the respondent No. 1 is the owner of the alleged crime vehicle i.e., Bus bearing No. AP 29 T 6130 and it had an insurance coverage with this respondent as alleged by the petitioner, hence it is mandatory obligation for the 1" respondent to intimate the alleged accident with all the particulars of the alleged accident and furnish the documents of the crime vehicle, so far this respondent has not received any information pertaining to the alleged accident and not received any of the documents pertaining to the crime vehicle -7- dt.05.06.2025 Orders in MVOP No.144 of 2015 of MACT cum

XXVI ACJ, CCC, HYD

by the respondent No. 1 hence it is establishing that, the said crime vehicle is not owned by the respondent No. 1 and insured by this respondent, without prejudice to the said plea, this respondent is entitled to take all the general defenses that are available under section 170 (a) (b) of M.V Act and under sections 147 and 149 of the M.V Act in the event if any policy as alleged by the petitioner is traced out or exists against the crime vehicle.

v.This respondent alleged that since the accident is not informed to this respondent by the 1" respondent, hence this respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner even in the event if any policy as alleged is exists or traced out.

vi. This respondent not admits and denies that, the petitioner had valid and effective driving license to drive the class of vehicle on which he was allegedly proceeding at the time of accident, the said vehicle was road worthy to ply on the roads and not proceeding in contrary to the provisions or the

MV Act and MV rules, hence the petitioners are put to strict proof of the same.

-8- dt.05.06.2025 Orders in MVOP No.144 of 2015 of MACT cum

XXVI ACJ, CCC, HYD

vii. This respondent submits that, as per the available preliminary information and as per the averments of the petition itself, the petitioner himself fell down on the road and there due to his own negligence and violation of traffic rules and there is no negligence on the part of the driver Bus bearing to. AP 29 T 6130, hence the claim of the petitioner is liable to be dismissed against this respondent.

viii. This respondent further denied that as on the date of alleged accident the petitioner was aged 21 years, studying in Final Year Engineering (E.C. Branch) in M/s

Mahaveer engineering & Technology, Chandrayangutta,

Hyderabad and also taking Home Tuitions on which he was earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- Per month and contributing his earnings for his education and his family members, other than petitioner no earning person in his family, due to the alleged injuries sustained by the petitioner, he is not in a position to go to college, attend classes and take home tuitions, he could not put his signature on this petition for that he put his thumb impression, he is completely bed ridden since om the date of accident he is incurring huge expenditure towards his hospitalization and medical treatment, transport and extra -9- dt.05.06.2025 Orders in MVOP No.144 of 2015 of MACT cum

XXVI ACJ, CCC, HYD

nourishment etc, still he is undergoing treatment as out-patient and he lost his entire earnings, he himself and his family are suffering with pain, mental agony and sustained permanent disability, as all averments of the petition are base less, false and fabricated to lay the present false claim, as such the petitioner be put to strict proof of the above allegations.

ix. This respondent in his additional counter alleged that as on the date of accident the petitioner was 21 years, studying in final year Engineering (ECE branch) in brilliant

Grammer School Educational Society’s Group of Institutions at

Abdullapur Village and also taking home tuitions, on which the petitioner was earning an amount of Rs.15,000/- per month is denied.

x. This respondent denied the injuries sustained in the said accident and medical expenditure incurred by the petitioner. Hence prayed to dismiss the petition with costs.

5. On the basis of above pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial:

1. Whether the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the Bus bearing No. AP 29T 6130 causing injuries to the petitioner?

-10- dt.05.06.2025 Orders in MVOP No.144 of 2015 of MACT cum

XXVI ACJ, CCC, HYD

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so, to what extent and from whom?

3. To what relief?

6.To substantiate the case of the petitioner, the petitioner himself examined as PW1 and Ex.A1 to A9 are marked. On behalf of respondents, respondent No.2 Legal Manager was examined as RW1 and got marked Ex.B1 is attested copy of policy.

7.Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and respondent

No.2. Arguments of respondent No.1 treated as hears. Perused the material on record.

8.Issue No.1:- Since trial of MVOP is summary in nature, the sum and substance of evidence has to be considered.

9.It is the case of the petitioner that the accident was caused by the negligent driving of driver of respondent No.1. In support of the same, petitioner himself was examined as PW1 and marked Ex.A1

Certified copy of FIR and Ex.A2 certified copy of Charge sheet. But,

Ex.A2 charge sheet Categorically establishes that, the petitioner drove his motor cycle in a rash and negligent manner and hit to one pedestrian and later fell down. Further charge sheet shows that, when the petitioner fell down, the driver of the crime vehicle Bus bearing

NO.AP-29-T-6130 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and -11- dt.05.06.2025 Orders in MVOP No.144 of 2015 of MACT cum

XXVI ACJ, CCC, HYD

gave dash to the petitioner resulting he sustained multiple injuries.

The evidence of PW.1 coupled with Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2, even after test of cross examination, are establishing that at relevant time driver of respondent No.1 crime vehicle drove the crime vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and hit to injured, resulting which petitioner sustained injuries. Though the petitioner is a co-accused, the above material evidence establishing that the petitioner sustained injuries due to rash and negligence act of driver of Bus. Therefore, this court holds that, the petition filed by petitioner against Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2 under Sec.166 of Motor Vehicle Act is maintainable.

10.Further contention of the petitioner is that, he sustained fracture injuries in the said accident. The evidene of PW.1 coupled with Exs.A1 & A.2 along with A4-certified copy of MLC Record and

Ex.A.4 Discharge summary of Ozone hospital, all of which, even after test of cross examination show that the petitioner sustained injuries in the said accident.

11.Therefore, in view of above discussion and for the reasons stated above it can be safely held that, the driver of Bus bearing No.AP 29 T 6130 drove the same in rash and negligent caused injuries to the petitioner. Issue No.1 is answered accordingly.

-12- dt.05.06.2025 Orders in MVOP No.144 of 2015 of MACT cum

XXVI ACJ, CCC, HYD

12.Issue No.2:-

a) Age of the injured;

13.As per claim petition age of the petitioner/injured was mentioned as 21 years. As per FIR and charge sheet the age of injured was mentioned as 21 years. Further no other cogent evidence is placed to prove the age of injured less than 21 years. Therefore, basing on evidence on record, age of injured is taken as 21 years, as on the date of occurrence of accident.

b) Income of injured;

14.Further contention of petitioner is that, by the time of accident injured was prosecuting ECE IV year and also taking home tuitions on which he is earning Rs.15,000/-. But, no piece of document is filed to prove that the injured is earning Rs.15,000/- per month.

15.This court relied on a citation in case of Navojoth

Singh Vs. Harpreeth Singh reported in 2020 LawSuit (SC) 832,

and wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court fixed the notional income of a Student undergoing Degree Course in Engineering from a premier institute as Rs.10,000/-.

16.This court relied on a citation in case of Narmadi Bai

Vs. Triupati Arolu and others reported in 2017 ACJ 2023,

-13- dt.05.06.2025 Orders in MVOP No.144 of 2015 of MACT cum

XXVI ACJ, CCC, HYD

wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had assessed the income of engineering student at Rs.8,000/-.

17.However, in case of Meena Pawaia vs Ashraf Ali which was decided on 18 th November, 2021, the Hon’ble supreme court was pleased to take notional income of a student studying in the IV year of Electronics and Communication Engineering as Rs.10,000/- per month. In said citation accident was taken place in the year 2012. When it comes to present case accident was taken place in the year 2014. Further material on record shows that, injured is a bright student and that looking to the educational qualification and the family background and as observed herein above, the injured is having a bright future. Therefore, in view of above reasons this court holds that, assessing income of injured at

Rs.10,000/- per month would meet the ends of justice which can not be said to be higher side. The annual income would be Rs.1,20,000/.

c) Permanent disability or Future prospects;

18.Further, it is to be noted that the petitioner has failed to prove any permanent disability as a result of the injuries sustained in the accident. Therefore, no compensation can be awarded on this count.

-14- dt.05.06.2025 Orders in MVOP No.144 of 2015 of MACT cum

XXVI ACJ, CCC, HYD

b) Medical Expenses;

19. The evidence of PW.1 coupled with Ex.A5 and Ex.A7 are establishing that, petitioner spent Rs.1,01,498/- towards medical expenses, as such petitioner is entitled for the same.

c) Pain and suffering both physical and mental;

20.The material on record shows that the injured was

Hospitalized. Further, evidence of PW1 and Ex.A4- Discharge summary is showing that injured sustained severe injuries and underwent surgery. To heal any fracture and to have normal movement after such surgery it requires some considerable period and during such period petitioner might have undergone lot of pain and suffering, for which he is granted a sum of Rs.50,000/- and he is also granted a sum of Rs 10,000/- towards extra nourishment and

Rs.10,000/- towards Transport.

21.Petitioner filed Ex.A.7 to show future medical expenditure. However, no material is filed to show that though he had taken Ex.A.7 in the year 2015, he had underwent any plastic surgery.

Therefore, this court holds that, petitioner is not entitled for any amount under Ex.A.7.

-15- dt.05.06.2025 Orders in MVOP No.144 of 2015 of MACT cum

XXVI ACJ, CCC, HYD

22. In all, the just compensation that can be awarded to the petitioner is enumerated as follows:-

Pecuniary DamagesAmount

Medical Expenses Rs. 1,01,498/- Non-pecuniary damages: Pain and suffering (both mental Rs.50,000/- and physical) -- Damages of Marriage prospects;

Rs. 10,000/- Extra Nourishment

Rs.10,000/- Transport

Total Rs. 1,71,498/- Rounded to Rs.1 ,71,500/-

23. The evidence of R.W.1 is that policy is in force at the time of accident. However, RW.1 claimed that, crime Bus does not possess Valid RC/Fitness/Permit to ply on the road and that the driver of Respondent No.1 do not posses a Valid Driving License.

But, except self serving statement of RW.1, no other cogent evidence is placed to prove such contention of RW.1. Respondent

No.1 did not examine either investigating officer or MVI to prove their contention. On the other hand, admittedly, Ex.1 Policy is in force at the time of accident. Since it is held that the accident was -16- dt.05.06.2025 Orders in MVOP No.144 of 2015 of MACT cum

XXVI ACJ, CCC, HYD

caused by the driver of respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 is insurer of crime vehicle, Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. Though respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the aforesaid compensation, the Respondent No.2 being insurer should indemnify Respondent No.1. Thus, the respondent No.2 being the insurer of offending vehicle is liable to pay the above determined compensation amount to the petitioner along with costs and interest. Issue No.2 is answered accordingly.

24.Issue No.3:-In view of finding on Issues No.1 and 2, this court holds that petition is to be allowed in part with costs.

Issue No.3 is answered accordingly.

25.In the result,

1.The petition is allowed with costs directing respondents

Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally to pay the petitioner a sum of

Rs.1,71,500/- (Rupees one lakh seventy one thousand

five hundred only) towards compensation with interest at 7.5 % per annum from the date of filing of claim till date of realization.

2.Respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the above said compensation amount within a period of one month from today, failing which the petitioner is entitled to recover the same by following due process of law.

-17- dt.05.06.2025 Orders in MVOP No.144 of 2015 of MACT cum

XXVI ACJ, CCC, HYD

3.Upon deposit, the petitioner is entitled to withdraw the same without furnishing any security.

4.The advocate fee is fixed as Rs.2,000/-.

5.The petitioner is directed to pay deficit court fee if any.

Or else, said amount shall be recovered form the amount deposited out of decree.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 5h day of June, 2025.

Sd/-

XXVI Additional Chief Judge,

City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONERS: FOR RESPONDENTS:

PW1: Sappidi Bhaskar Reddy RW1: Kavirat Yasaswini Sai Anusha

DOCUMENTS MARKED BY PETITIONER

Ex.A1: Certified copy of FIR with Complaint. Ex.A2: Certified copy of charge sheet. Ex.A3: Certified copy of MLC. Ex.A4: Discharge summary. Ex.A5: Bunch of medical bills tune of Rs.77,498/- (16 Nos.). Ex.A6: Bunch of prescriptions/OP tickets (5 Nos.). Ex.A7: Estimation certificate for further surgery for Rs.1,00,000/-. Ex.A8: Bunch of travel bills (4 Nos.) Rs.24,000/-. Ex.A9: Loss of 1 semester certificate issued by college.

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR RESPONDENTS

Ex.B1: Attested copy of the passenger carrying vehicle liability policy vide No.1804732550038 issued against the vehicle i.e., bus bearing No.AP 19-T-6130.

Sd/-

XXVI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

-1- dt.19.05.2025 Orders in MVOP No.417 of 2019 of MACT cum

XXVI ACJ, CCC, HYD

BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-CUM- XXVI

CHIEF JUDGE, CITY CIVIL COURT AT HYDERABAD

Present: Sri M.Venkateswara Rao

Chairman MACT-cum-XXVI ADDL.Chief Judge

Monday, on this 19th day of May, 2025

M.V.O.P. No. 417 of 2019

Between: M. Rajeshwari, W/o. Lt.Col. M. Satyanarayana Raju, age 69 years, Occ: Housewife and Saree Business, R/o. Plot No.32, Shanthi Vihar, Near Greenpark Enclave, Kapra, E.C.I.L, Hyderabad.

… Petitioner

AND

1.Shri Nookala Venkata Ratnam, S/o. Satyanarayana, age: Major, Owner of Tipper Lorry bearing No. AP-37-TE-3636, D.No.1-36, Arugolanu village, Tadepalligudem Mandal, West Godavari District.

2.Angarapu Satyanarayana, S/o. R. Raghavulu, aged about 60 years, Occ: Driver, R/o.H.No.6-131, Unguturu (Post and Mandal) West Godavari.

3.The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, rep. by Regional Manager, T.P. Clams Hub, Snehalatha Complex, 6-3-871, 2nd floor, Greenland Road, Begumpet, Hyderabad.

(Certificate-cum-policy No.462600/31/2019/642 valid from 27.06.2018 to 26.06.2019)

... Respondents

This petition came before me on this day for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri K. Venkat Ram Reddy, learned counsel

for Petitioner; Sri K. Bhaskar Dev, learned counsel for Respondent

No.3; Respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained absent and was set ex parte, upon hearing both the counsel and on perusing the material on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:

-2- dt.19.05.2025 Orders in MVOP No.417 of 2019 of MACT cum

XXVI ACJ, CCC, HYD

:: O R D E R ::

1.This petition is filed under Section 166 of the MV Act, 1988, by the petitioner seeking compensation of Rs.8.00,000/- against respondents jointly and severally along with interest 18% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of realization by her in the motor vehicle accident which occurred on 06.01.2019 at about 01-45 P.M. Subsequently the petitioner filed petition to enhance the compensation to Rs.30,00,000/- and this court allowed the petition vide

I.A.No. 2333 of 2023 dt.05.02.2024.

2.The averments of petition, in brief are summarized as under:

i. On 06.01.2019 at about 1.45 P.M the petitioner along with her husband were proceeding in Santro Car bearing No.AP-29-

AH-7595 from Hyderabad to Narsipatnam.

ii. The petitioner alleged that when they reached near Auto

Nagar Prathipadu Village, Pentapadu, at the material time the driver of Lorry bearing No. AP 37-TE-3636 drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner while taking U-turn without any precautions dashed to petitioner Car from front side.

iii. Due to which, the petitioner and her husband sustained injuries all over the body.

-3- dt.19.05.2025 Orders in MVOP No.417 of 2019 of MACT cum

XXVI ACJ, CCC, HYD

iv.Immediately after the said accident petitioner was shifted to Government hospital, Tadepalligudem for treatment and after first aid the injured was shifted to Sri Sai Swetha Hospital, Tanuku and from there the petitioner was shifted to KIMS Hospital, Rajamundry for further treatment, and there the petitioner was shifted to Military Hospital,

Secunderabad in Ambulance for better, as such the petitioner underwent three major operations and Doctors advised Petitioner to undergo two more operations.

v.The Petitioner incurred huge amount towards medical expenses and is not in a position to sit and stand without taking the support of two persons and in the said accident the petitioner had lost four tooth and tongue broken into pieces, due to which she is not able to take food and her condition is serious.

vi.The police station Pentapadu, West Godavari District,

Andhra Pradesh State registered a crime No. 4 of 2019 under Sec.337 of

IPC against the driver crime vehicle.

vii.At the time of accident the petitioner was aged about 69 years and was hale and healthy at the time of accident and the petitioner was earning an amount of Rs.20, 000/- per month on sarees business.

viii.Due to the injuries received in the said accident the

Petitioner cannot sit, stand, walk and squat properly and always getting -4- dt.19.05.2025 Orders in MVOP No.417 of 2019 of MACT cum

XXVI ACJ, CCC, HYD

severe pain in the body and that the husband of petitioner's engaged two attendants to take care of the Petitioner.

ix.Due to said accident the petitioner was totally confined to bed and there is no scope that she may recover in future and through out her life she need support of two attendants and further required physiotherapy treatment. The Petitioner virtually unable to attend nature call etc, without the assistance of attendants.

x.The respondent No.1 being owner, respondent No.2 being the driver and respondent No.3 being insurer of crime vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner.

3. Summons served to respondents, but Respondent No.1 and 2 remained exparte.

4. Respondent No.3/insurance company has filed

counter opposing the relief claimed in this petition, inter alia

by contending as under:

i.This respondent denied the income, age, avocation and manner of accident.

ii. The respondent No.3 alleged that the respondent No.1 had not issued any notice about the alleged accident to this respondent in collusion with the petitioner and this respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner.

-5- dt.19.05.2025 Orders in MVOP No.417 of 2019 of MACT cum

XXVI ACJ, CCC, HYD

iii.That, as per Section 134 (C) of the M.V. Act, 1988, it is the mandatory duty of respondent No.1/owner to furnish the particulars of the policy, date, time, and place of the accident, as well as the particulars of the driving license, but the respondent

No.1/owner has not complied with the statutory demand. Hence, this

Respondent is not liable to pay any compensation, and the case should be dismissed against this Respondent for non-compliance with the statutory demand.

iv.The petitioner and the first Respondent, the owner of the vehicle, were using the vehicle following the traffic rules as per

A.P.M.V. Rules. The petitioner and the first Respondent are further put to strict proof that there was no violation of any sections of the M.V.

Act, 1939, and its subsequent amendments.

v.Respondent No. 2 seeks protection under Sections 147 & 149 of the M.V. Act.

vi. Respondent No. 3 further submits that, as per Section 158(6) of the M.V. Act, 1988, it is the mandatory duty of the concerned insurer to forward the documents within 30 days from the date of information. However, the police station and the insured have failed to forward the documents and have not complied with the statutory demand for which they are liable for contempt of court.

-6- dt.19.05.2025 Orders in MVOP No.417 of 2019 of MACT cum

XXVI ACJ, CCC, HYD

vii. This respondent further alleged that the liability of this respondent arises only when the vehicle owner complied with policy conditions and statutory obligation of M.C.Act as regards to driver having been duly licensed to drive the vehicle was being used in compliance of road permit, without such compliance this respondent cannot be held liable under law or under the terms and conditions of policy. Hence prayed to dismiss the petition with exemplary costs.

5. On the basis of above pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial:

1. Whether the alleged accident dt.06.01.2019 resulting in injuries to the petitioner i.e., Smt. M. Rajeshwari occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Tipper Lorry bearing Registration No. AP 37 TE 3636?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so, from whom and to what extent?

3. To what relief?

6. To substantiate the case of the petitioner, the petitioner herself examined as PW1 and marked Ex.A1 to A22. Two persons who are said to personal care takers attendant of petitioner was examined as PW2 and PW3. On behalf of respondents, no oral or documentary evidence adduced to substantiate their case, but Ex.B1 policy is marked with consent.

7.Heard both sides. Perused the material on record including written arguments of both petitioner and respondent No.3.

-7- dt.19.05.2025 Orders in MVOP No.417 of 2019 of MACT cum

XXVI ACJ, CCC, HYD

8.Issue No.1:- Since trial of MVOP is summary in nature, the sum and substance of evidence has to be considered.

9.The case of the petitioner that, the accident was occurred due to negligent driving of the Respondent No.3. In support of the same, petitioner herself was examined as PW1 and marked Ex.A1-

Certified copy of FIR, Ex.A4-Certified copy of charge sheet. Evidence of PW.1 coupled with Ex. A1 and Ex.A4, even after test of cross examination, are establishing that at relevant time driver of crime vehicle drove the crime vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. The

Respondent No.1 and 2 did not contest the case. There is no cogent evidence placed by respondents to show the negligence of petitioner.

10. Therefore, in view of above discussion and for the reasons stated above it can be safely held that, petitioner sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 06.01-2019 at about 1.45 P.M, when they reached near Auto Nagar Prathipadu

Village, Pentapadu and that at the material time the driver of Lorry bearing No. AP 37-TE-3636 drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner while taking U-turn without any precautions dashed to petitioner Car from front side and accident taken place due to the rash and negligent driving by the rider of offending crime vehicle

Lorry bearing No.AP 37-TE-3636. Issue No.1 is answered accordingly.

-8- dt.19.05.2025 Orders in MVOP No.417 of 2019 of MACT cum

XXVI ACJ, CCC, HYD

11. Issue No.2: It is the case of the original petitioner claiming a compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-. Subsequently it was enhanced to Rs.30,00,000/- on the ground that she incurred more

Rs.22,50,000/- towards medical expenses and other amounts are claimed towards pain and suffering, etc.

a) Age of the injured:

12. The petitioner contended that she is aged about 69 years. As per Ex.A4 charge sheet age of petitioner/injured was mentioned as 69 years. No other evidence is placed to prove the correct age of injured.

Therefore, considering material on record, the age of injured is taken as ‘69’ years.

b) Income of injured:

13. The injured claimed that she is doing screes business and earning an amount of Rs.20,000/- per month. But, except evidence of

PW1 no document is filed to prove the income of injured. As such, basing on age and circumstances of the case the income of injured is assessed as Rs.8,000/- per month notionally which cannot be said to be higher or lower side.

c) Permanent Disability:

14. It is contended by the petitioner that she is permanently disabled due to the injuries sustained by her in the accident. In support of the same the petitioner had not examined the doctor who treated the petitioner for injuries and who issued the disability certificate.

-9- dt.19.05.2025 Orders in MVOP No.417 of 2019 of MACT cum

XXVI ACJ, CCC, HYD

15. A perusal of said certificate under Ex.A9 shows that it is issued on a plain paper by filling some columns and there is no specific mention as to rules and guidelines followed in issuing said certificate. It is mentioned in Ex.A9 that there is 45% of temporary disability and it has to be reviewed in two years. The Ex.A.9 was obtained in the year 2021 and no such review report is filed. As already stated supra, Ex.A.9 is not showing any permanent disability. Further, the doctor who issued the said certificate was also not examined. As such, the Ex.A.9 though marked, remained not proved. Except that no other certificate is placed to prove that the petitioner suffered any permanent Disability. Therefore, this court hold that the petitioner is not entitle for any compensation under permanent disability.

16. Therefore, following amounts can be awarded towards compensation.

I-PECUNIARY DAMAGES:

a) Medical Expenses:

17.The petitioner contended that she spent huge amount towards her treatment. PW1 in her cross examination stated that the amount of Rs.58,000/- towards Ambulance charges on various date and that the amounts are paid by cash. Ex.A12 shows that, petitioner spent

Rs.15,300/-, Ex.A.13 and Ex.A.14 also establishes that the petitioner further spent an amount of ₹ 1,98,985 and Rs.58,000/- respectively.

-10- dt.19.05.2025 Orders in MVOP No.417 of 2019 of MACT cum

XXVI ACJ, CCC, HYD

Therefore, this court holds that the petitioner is entitled Rs.2,71,000/- only towards medical bills.

b) Loss of income during laid up period:

18. It is the case of the petitioner that she suffered loss of income because of the accident. Since the petitioner suffered fractures, it requires at least two months rest and during said period the petitioner could have suffered loss of income for two months. Therefore, this court holds that the petitioner is entitled for Rs.16,000/- towards loss of income during laid up period.

c) Permanent disability or Future prospects;

19. Further, it is to be noted that the petitioner failed to prove any permanent disability. Therefore, no compensation can be awarded on this count.

II-NON-PECUNIARY DAMAGES:

a) Pain and suffering:

20. The petitioner with a grievous injury of fracture of left ribs and head injury. In these circumstances, this court feels that it is fit case to award a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards pain and suffering.

b) Loss of amenities:

21. The petitioner can be awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of amenities, transport charges, attendant charges during treatment, for extra nourishment.

-11- dt.19.05.2025 Orders in MVOP No.417 of 2019 of MACT cum

XXVI ACJ, CCC, HYD

22.The petitioner further claimed attendant charges. To prove the same she examined PW.2 and PW.3. PW.3 deposed that, she served as attendant from February 2009 on a monthly salary of Rs.20,500/- and she worked upto April 2024. PW.3 deposed that from April, 2024 to till date she is rendering services as attendant. PW.1 also exhibited photographs.

Except filing receipts, no authenticated transaction from the bank is filed to prove the payment of such huge amount. Further, the petitioner is old aged person. In such circumstances, this court feels that evidence of

PW.2 and PW.3 and the receipts filed by the petitioner are can not be based to pay the such huge amount towards attendant charges. The other claims of the petitioner in written arguments are beyond the pleadings and evidence on record. However, considering the age of injured, this court feels that awarding Rs.3,00,000/- towards attendants charges would meet the ends of justice.

23. The learned counsel for petitioner relied on a citation in cases of (1) Abhimanyu Partap Singh vs. Namita Sekhon and another

reported in 2022 (5) ALT (SC) 14 (D.B.), (2) Sidram vs. Divisional

Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited and another

reported in AIR OnLine 2022 SC 890, (3) in M.A.C.M.A.Nos. 2279

of 2013 and 2745 of 2012 decided by Hon’ble High Court

dt.27.06.2024, (4) S. Chandrasekharan and others vs. M.

Dinakar and another reported in 2022 (4) ALT 70 (SC). While admitting law laid down therein, this court is of considered opinion that -12- dt.19.05.2025 Orders in MVOP No.417 of 2019 of MACT cum

XXVI ACJ, CCC, HYD

the facts and circumstance of the present case and the facts and circumstance of the said citation are entirely different as such, in the humble opinion of this court, the above citation is not applicable to the facts and circumstance of the present case.

24. In all, the just compensation that can be awarded to the petitioner is enumerated as follows:-

Pecuniary Damages Amount in Rs.

1. Loss of Income ₹ 16,000/-

2. Medical Expenses ₹ 2,71,000/- Non-pecuniary damages:

3. Pain and suffering ₹ 3,00,000/-

4. Loss of amenities and ₹ 1,00,000/- extra nourishment etc.

5. Attendant charges ₹ 3,00,000/-

Total ₹ 9,87,000/- Rounded to

25.On behalf of respondent No.3 no evidence is adduced to refute the evidence lead by the petitioner. Further there is no denial of issuance of policy. Admittedly, it is held that the accident was caused due to negligence driving of driver of the crime vehicle. Respondent No.1 being owner, Respondent No.2 being driver and Respondent No.3 being insurer of crime vehicle are liable to pay compensation to the petitioner jointly and severally. Though respondents No.1 to 3 are jointly and -13- dt.19.05.2025 Orders in MVOP No.417 of 2019 of MACT cum

XXVI ACJ, CCC, HYD

severally liable to pay the aforesaid compensation amount to the petitioner, the respondent No.3 being the insurer of offending vehicle is liable to pay the above determined compensation amount to the petitioner with costs and interest. Issue No.2 is answered accordingly.

26. Issue No.3:-In view of finding on Issues No.1 and 2, this court holds that petition is to be allowed with costs. Issue No.3 is answered accordingly.

27. In the result, i. The petition is allowed with costs directing respondents

No.1 to 3 jointly and severally to pay the petitioner a sum of

Rs.9,87,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs eighty seven thousands only) towards compensation with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim till date of realization.

ii. Respondent No.3 is directed to deposit the above compensation amount within a period of one month from today, failing which the petitioner is entitled to recover the same by following due process of law.

iii. Upon such deposit, the petitioner is entitled to withdraw entire amount along with costs and interest without furnishing any security.

-14- dt.19.05.2025 Orders in MVOP No.417 of 2019 of MACT cum

XXVI ACJ, CCC, HYD

iv.The advocate fee is fixed as Rs.1,500/-.

v.Decree to be prepared upon payment of deficit court fee it any. Or else, it shall be recovered from the decretal amount after deposit.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Grade-I, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 19th day of May, 2025.

Sd/-

XXVI Additional Chief Judge

City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONERS: FOR RESPONDENTS:

PW1: M. Rajeshwari - None- PW2: Tanneeru Durga PW3: Nalla Yellamma

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PETITIONER

Ex.A1: Certified copy of FIR along with complaint. Ex.A2: Certified copy of memo for alteration of section Law. Ex.A3: Copy of injury certificate of the petitioner issued by the Military hospital, Secunderabad (attested by SHO, Pentapadu). Ex.A4: Certified copy of charge sheet. Ex.A5: Certified copy of docket proceedings in C.C.No.40 of 2020 on the file of the Hon’ble I Additional JFCM, Tadepallygudem. (accused convicted). Ex.A6: Original certificate issued by KIMS hospital. Ex.A7: Original discharge summary, dt.07.01.2019 issued by the KIMS hospital, Rajahmundry. Ex.A8: Original hospital discharge slip of the petitioner issued by the Military hospital, Secunderabad, dt.23.01.2019.

-15- dt.19.05.2025 Orders in MVOP No.417 of 2019 of MACT cum

XXVI ACJ, CCC, HYD

Ex.A9: Original disability certificate of the petitioner issued by the Military hospital, Secunderabad dt.28.04.2021. Ex.A10: Original discharge summary of the petitioner issued by the Srikara Hospital, Secunderabad dt.03.03.2022. Ex.A11: Original discharge summary of the petitioner issued by the Sunshine hospital, Secunderabad dt.25.04.2022. Ex.A12: Original inpatient final bill for Rs.15,300/- issued by the KIMS hospital, Rajahmundry. Ex.A13: Original medical bills, number in (80) amount in Rs.1,98,985/-. Ex.A14: Original ambulance service bills Number in (5) amount is Rs.58,000/-. Ex.A15: Original cash payment receipts o the person care taking attendant of the petitioner number in (69) amounting to Rs.14,06,500/-. Ex.A16: Original advance payment receipt issued by KIMS hospital, Rajahmundry. Ex.A17: Original doctor prescriptions (2) issued by the Srikara hospital, Secunderabad. Ex.A18: Photographs number in (8) along with pen drive contains soft copy photos and videos of the injured petitioner. Ex.A19: MRI films number in (14) of the petitioner. Ex.A20: Original digital CT-Scan films number in (8) of the petitioner. Ex.A21: Copy of insurance policy of the crim vehicle. Ex.A22: Certified copy of out patient assessment record of the petitioner issued by KIMS hospital, Secunderabad.

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR RESPONDENT No.3 Ex.B1: Insurance Policy.

Sd/-

XXVI Additional Chief Judge City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

-1- dt.19.05.2025 Orders in MVOP No.417 of 2019 of MACT cum

XXVI ACJ, CCC, HYD

BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-CUM- XXVI

CHIEF JUDGE, CITY CIVIL COURT AT HYDERABAD

Present: Sri M.Venkateswara Rao

Chairman MACT-cum-XXVI ADDL.Chief Judge

Monday, on this 19th day of May, 2025

M.V.O.P. No. 417 of 2019

Between: M. Rajeshwari, W/o. Lt.Col. M. Satyanarayana Raju, age 69 years, Occ: Housewife and Saree Business, R/o. Plot No.32, Shanthi Vihar, Near Greenpark Enclave, Kapra, E.C.I.L, Hyderabad.

… Petitioner

AND

1.Shri Nookala Venkata Ratnam, S/o. Satyanarayana, age: Major, Owner of Tipper Lorry bearing No. AP-37-TE-3636, D.No.1-36, Arugolanu village, Tadepalligudem Mandal, West Godavari District.

2.Angarapu Satyanarayana, S/o. R. Raghavulu, aged about 60 years, Occ: Driver, R/o.H.No.6-131, Unguturu (Post and Mandal) West Godavari.

3.The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, rep. by Regional Manager, T.P. Clams Hub, Snehalatha Complex, 6-3-871, 2nd floor, Greenland Road, Begumpet, Hyderabad.

(Certificate-cum-policy No.462600/31/2019/642 valid from 27.06.2018 to 26.06.2019)

... Respondents

This petition came before me on this day for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri K. Venkat Ram Reddy, learned counsel

for Petitioner; Sri K. Bhaskar Dev, learned counsel for Respondent

No.3; Respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained absent and was set ex parte, upon hearing both the counsel and on perusing the material on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:

-2- dt.19.05.2025 Orders in MVOP No.417 of 2019 of MACT cum

XXVI ACJ, CCC, HYD

:: O R D E R ::

1.This petition is filed under Section 166 of the MV Act, 1988, by the petitioner seeking compensation of Rs.8.00,000/- against respondents jointly and severally along with interest 18% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of realization by her in the motor vehicle accident which occurred on 06.01.2019 at about 01-45 P.M. Subsequently the petitioner filed petition to enhance the compensation to Rs.30,00,000/- and this court allowed the petition vide

I.A.No. 2333 of 2023 dt.05.02.2024.

2.The averments of petition, in brief are summarized as under:

i. On 06.01.2019 at about 1.45 P.M the petitioner along with her husband were proceeding in Santro Car bearing No.AP-29-

AH-7595 from Hyderabad to Narsipatnam.

ii. The petitioner alleged that when they reached near Auto

Nagar Prathipadu Village, Pentapadu, at the material time the driver of Lorry bearing No. AP 37-TE-3636 drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner while taking U-turn without any precautions dashed to petitioner Car from front side.

iii. Due to which, the petitioner and her husband sustained injuries all over the body.

-3- dt.19.05.2025 Orders in MVOP No.417 of 2019 of MACT cum

XXVI ACJ, CCC, HYD

iv.Immediately after the said accident petitioner was shifted to Government hospital, Tadepalligudem for treatment and after first aid the injured was shifted to Sri Sai Swetha Hospital, Tanuku and from there the petitioner was shifted to KIMS Hospital, Rajamundry for further treatment, and there the petitioner was shifted to Military Hospital,

Secunderabad in Ambulance for better, as such the petitioner underwent three major operations and Doctors advised Petitioner to undergo two more operations.

v.The Petitioner incurred huge amount towards medical expenses and is not in a position to sit and stand without taking the support of two persons and in the said accident the petitioner had lost four tooth and tongue broken into pieces, due to which she is not able to take food and her condition is serious.

vi.The police station Pentapadu, West Godavari District,

Andhra Pradesh State registered a crime No. 4 of 2019 under Sec.337 of

IPC against the driver crime vehicle.

vii.At the time of accident the petitioner was aged about 69 years and was hale and healthy at the time of accident and the petitioner was earning an amount of Rs.20, 000/- per month on sarees business.

viii.Due to the injuries received in the said accident the

Petitioner cannot sit, stand, walk and squat properly and always getting -4- dt.19.05.2025 Orders in MVOP No.417 of 2019 of MACT cum

XXVI ACJ, CCC, HYD

severe pain in the body and that the husband of petitioner's engaged two attendants to take care of the Petitioner.

ix.Due to said accident the petitioner was totally confined to bed and there is no scope that she may recover in future and through out her life she need support of two attendants and further required physiotherapy treatment. The Petitioner virtually unable to attend nature call etc, without the assistance of attendants.

x.The respondent No.1 being owner, respondent No.2 being the driver and respondent No.3 being insurer of crime vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner.

3. Summons served to respondents, but Respondent No.1 and 2 remained exparte.

4. Respondent No.3/insurance company has filed

counter opposing the relief claimed in this petition, inter alia

by contending as under:

i.This respondent denied the income, age, avocation and manner of accident.

ii. The respondent No.3 alleged that the respondent No.1 had not issued any notice about the alleged accident to this respondent in collusion with the petitioner and this respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner.

-5- dt.19.05.2025 Orders in MVOP No.417 of 2019 of MACT cum

XXVI ACJ, CCC, HYD

iii.That, as per Section 134 (C) of the M.V. Act, 1988, it is the mandatory duty of respondent No.1/owner to furnish the particulars of the policy, date, time, and place of the accident, as well as the particulars of the driving license, but the respondent

No.1/owner has not complied with the statutory demand. Hence, this

Respondent is not liable to pay any compensation, and the case should be dismissed against this Respondent for non-compliance with the statutory demand.

iv.The petitioner and the first Respondent, the owner of the vehicle, were using the vehicle following the traffic rules as per

A.P.M.V. Rules. The petitioner and the first Respondent are further put to strict proof that there was no violation of any sections of the M.V.

Act, 1939, and its subsequent amendments.

v.Respondent No. 2 seeks protection under Sections 147 & 149 of the M.V. Act.

vi. Respondent No. 3 further submits that, as per Section 158(6) of the M.V. Act, 1988, it is the mandatory duty of the concerned insurer to forward the documents within 30 days from the date of information. However, the police station and the insured have failed to forward the documents and have not complied with the statutory demand for which they are liable for contempt of court.

-6- dt.19.05.2025 Orders in MVOP No.417 of 2019 of MACT cum

XXVI ACJ, CCC, HYD

vii. This respondent further alleged that the liability of this respondent arises only when the vehicle owner complied with policy conditions and statutory obligation of M.C.Act as regards to driver having been duly licensed to drive the vehicle was being used in compliance of road permit, without such compliance this respondent cannot be held liable under law or under the terms and conditions of policy. Hence prayed to dismiss the petition with exemplary costs.

5. On the basis of above pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial:

1. Whether the alleged accident dt.06.01.2019 resulting in injuries to the petitioner i.e., Smt. M. Rajeshwari occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Tipper Lorry bearing Registration No. AP 37 TE 3636?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so, from whom and to what extent?

3. To what relief?

6. To substantiate the case of the petitioner, the petitioner herself examined as PW1 and marked Ex.A1 to A22. Two persons who are said to personal care takers attendant of petitioner was examined as PW2 and PW3. On behalf of respondents, no oral or documentary evidence adduced to substantiate their case, but Ex.B1 policy is marked with consent.

7.Heard both sides. Perused the material on record including written arguments of both petitioner and respondent No.3.

-7- dt.19.05.2025 Orders in MVOP No.417 of 2019 of MACT cum

XXVI ACJ, CCC, HYD

8.Issue No.1:- Since trial of MVOP is summary in nature, the sum and substance of evidence has to be considered.

9.The case of the petitioner that, the accident was occurred due to negligent driving of the Respondent No.3. In support of the same, petitioner herself was examined as PW1 and marked Ex.A1-

Certified copy of FIR, Ex.A4-Certified copy of charge sheet. Evidence of PW.1 coupled with Ex. A1 and Ex.A4, even after test of cross examination, are establishing that at relevant time driver of crime vehicle drove the crime vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. The

Respondent No.1 and 2 did not contest the case. There is no cogent evidence placed by respondents to show the negligence of petitioner.

10. Therefore, in view of above discussion and for the reasons stated above it can be safely held that, petitioner sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 06.01-2019 at about 1.45 P.M, when they reached near Auto Nagar Prathipadu

Village, Pentapadu and that at the material time the driver of Lorry bearing No. AP 37-TE-3636 drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner while taking U-turn without any precautions dashed to petitioner Car from front side and accident taken place due to the rash and negligent driving by the rider of offending crime vehicle

Lorry bearing No.AP 37-TE-3636. Issue No.1 is answered accordingly.

-8- dt.19.05.2025 Orders in MVOP No.417 of 2019 of MACT cum

XXVI ACJ, CCC, HYD

11. Issue No.2: It is the case of the original petitioner claiming a compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-. Subsequently it was enhanced to Rs.30,00,000/- on the ground that she incurred more

Rs.22,50,000/- towards medical expenses and other amounts are claimed towards pain and suffering, etc.

a) Age of the injured:

12. The petitioner contended that she is aged about 69 years. As per Ex.A4 charge sheet age of petitioner/injured was mentioned as 69 years. No other evidence is placed to prove the correct age of injured.

Therefore, considering material on record, the age of injured is taken as ‘69’ years.

b) Income of injured:

13. The injured claimed that she is doing screes business and earning an amount of Rs.20,000/- per month. But, except evidence of

PW1 no document is filed to prove the income of injured. As such, basing on age and circumstances of the case the income of injured is assessed as Rs.8,000/- per month notionally which cannot be said to be higher or lower side.

c) Permanent Disability:

14. It is contended by the petitioner that she is permanently disabled due to the injuries sustained by her in the accident. In support of the same the petitioner had not examined the doctor who treated the petitioner for injuries and who issued the disability certificate.

-9- dt.19.05.2025 Orders in MVOP No.417 of 2019 of MACT cum

XXVI ACJ, CCC, HYD

15. A perusal of said certificate under Ex.A9 shows that it is issued on a plain paper by filling some columns and there is no specific mention as to rules and guidelines followed in issuing said certificate. It is mentioned in Ex.A9 that there is 45% of temporary disability and it has to be reviewed in two years. The Ex.A.9 was obtained in the year 2021 and no such review report is filed. As already stated supra, Ex.A.9 is not showing any permanent disability. Further, the doctor who issued the said certificate was also not examined. As such, the Ex.A.9 though marked, remained not proved. Except that no other certificate is placed to prove that the petitioner suffered any permanent Disability. Therefore, this court hold that the petitioner is not entitle for any compensation under permanent disability.

16. Therefore, following amounts can be awarded towards compensation.

I-PECUNIARY DAMAGES:

a) Medical Expenses:

17.The petitioner contended that she spent huge amount towards her treatment. PW1 in her cross examination stated that the amount of Rs.58,000/- towards Ambulance charges on various date and that the amounts are paid by cash. Ex.A12 shows that, petitioner spent

Rs.15,300/-, Ex.A.13 and Ex.A.14 also establishes that the petitioner further spent an amount of ₹ 1,98,985 and Rs.58,000/- respectively.

-10- dt.19.05.2025 Orders in MVOP No.417 of 2019 of MACT cum

XXVI ACJ, CCC, HYD

Therefore, this court holds that the petitioner is entitled Rs.2,71,000/- only towards medical bills.

b) Loss of income during laid up period:

18. It is the case of the petitioner that she suffered loss of income because of the accident. Since the petitioner suffered fractures, it requires at least two months rest and during said period the petitioner could have suffered loss of income for two months. Therefore, this court holds that the petitioner is entitled for Rs.16,000/- towards loss of income during laid up period.

c) Permanent disability or Future prospects;

19. Further, it is to be noted that the petitioner failed to prove any permanent disability. Therefore, no compensation can be awarded on this count.

II-NON-PECUNIARY DAMAGES:

a) Pain and suffering:

20. The petitioner with a grievous injury of fracture of left ribs and head injury. In these circumstances, this court feels that it is fit case to award a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards pain and suffering.

b) Loss of amenities:

21. The petitioner can be awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of amenities, transport charges, attendant charges during treatment, for extra nourishment.

-11- dt.19.05.2025 Orders in MVOP No.417 of 2019 of MACT cum

XXVI ACJ, CCC, HYD

22.The petitioner further claimed attendant charges. To prove the same she examined PW.2 and PW.3. PW.3 deposed that, she served as attendant from February 2009 on a monthly salary of Rs.20,500/- and she worked upto April 2024. PW.3 deposed that from April, 2024 to till date she is rendering services as attendant. PW.1 also exhibited photographs.

Except filing receipts, no authenticated transaction from the bank is filed to prove the payment of such huge amount. Further, the petitioner is old aged person. In such circumstances, this court feels that evidence of

PW.2 and PW.3 and the receipts filed by the petitioner are can not be based to pay the such huge amount towards attendant charges. The other claims of the petitioner in written arguments are beyond the pleadings and evidence on record. However, considering the age of injured, this court feels that awarding Rs.3,00,000/- towards attendants charges would meet the ends of justice.

23. The learned counsel for petitioner relied on a citation in cases of (1) Abhimanyu Partap Singh vs. Namita Sekhon and another

reported in 2022 (5) ALT (SC) 14 (D.B.), (2) Sidram vs. Divisional

Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited and another

reported in AIR OnLine 2022 SC 890, (3) in M.A.C.M.A.Nos. 2279

of 2013 and 2745 of 2012 decided by Hon’ble High Court

dt.27.06.2024, (4) S. Chandrasekharan and others vs. M.

Dinakar and another reported in 2022 (4) ALT 70 (SC). While admitting law laid down therein, this court is of considered opinion that -12- dt.19.05.2025 Orders in MVOP No.417 of 2019 of MACT cum

XXVI ACJ, CCC, HYD

the facts and circumstance of the present case and the facts and circumstance of the said citation are entirely different as such, in the humble opinion of this court, the above citation is not applicable to the facts and circumstance of the present case.

24. In all, the just compensation that can be awarded to the petitioner is enumerated as follows:-

Pecuniary Damages Amount in Rs.

1. Loss of Income ₹ 16,000/-

2. Medical Expenses ₹ 2,71,000/- Non-pecuniary damages:

3. Pain and suffering ₹ 3,00,000/-

4. Loss of amenities and ₹ 1,00,000/- extra nourishment etc.

5. Attendant charges ₹ 3,00,000/-

Total ₹ 9,87,000/- Rounded to

25.On behalf of respondent No.3 no evidence is adduced to refute the evidence lead by the petitioner. Further there is no denial of issuance of policy. Admittedly, it is held that the accident was caused due to negligence driving of driver of the crime vehicle. Respondent No.1 being owner, Respondent No.2 being driver and Respondent No.3 being insurer of crime vehicle are liable to pay compensation to the petitioner jointly and severally. Though respondents No.1 to 3 are jointly and -13- dt.19.05.2025 Orders in MVOP No.417 of 2019 of MACT cum

XXVI ACJ, CCC, HYD

severally liable to pay the aforesaid compensation amount to the petitioner, the respondent No.3 being the insurer of offending vehicle is liable to pay the above determined compensation amount to the petitioner with costs and interest. Issue No.2 is answered accordingly.

26. Issue No.3:-In view of finding on Issues No.1 and 2, this court holds that petition is to be allowed with costs. Issue No.3 is answered accordingly.

27. In the result, i. The petition is allowed with costs directing respondents

No.1 to 3 jointly and severally to pay the petitioner a sum of

Rs.9,87,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs eighty seven thousands only) towards compensation with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim till date of realization.

ii. Respondent No.3 is directed to deposit the above compensation amount within a period of one month from today, failing which the petitioner is entitled to recover the same by following due process of law.

iii. Upon such deposit, the petitioner is entitled to withdraw entire amount along with costs and interest without furnishing any security.

-14- dt.19.05.2025 Orders in MVOP No.417 of 2019 of MACT cum

XXVI ACJ, CCC, HYD

iv.The advocate fee is fixed as Rs.1,500/-.

v.Decree to be prepared upon payment of deficit court fee it any. Or else, it shall be recovered from the decretal amount after deposit.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Grade-I, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 19th day of May, 2025.

Sd/-

XXVI Additional Chief Judge

City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONERS: FOR RESPONDENTS:

PW1: M. Rajeshwari - None- PW2: Tanneeru Durga PW3: Nalla Yellamma

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PETITIONER

Ex.A1: Certified copy of FIR along with complaint. Ex.A2: Certified copy of memo for alteration of section Law. Ex.A3: Copy of injury certificate of the petitioner issued by the Military hospital, Secunderabad (attested by SHO, Pentapadu). Ex.A4: Certified copy of charge sheet. Ex.A5: Certified copy of docket proceedings in C.C.No.40 of 2020 on the file of the Hon’ble I Additional JFCM, Tadepallygudem. (accused convicted). Ex.A6: Original certificate issued by KIMS hospital. Ex.A7: Original discharge summary, dt.07.01.2019 issued by the KIMS hospital, Rajahmundry. Ex.A8: Original hospital discharge slip of the petitioner issued by the Military hospital, Secunderabad, dt.23.01.2019.

-15- dt.19.05.2025 Orders in MVOP No.417 of 2019 of MACT cum

XXVI ACJ, CCC, HYD

Ex.A9: Original disability certificate of the petitioner issued by the Military hospital, Secunderabad dt.28.04.2021. Ex.A10: Original discharge summary of the petitioner issued by the Srikara Hospital, Secunderabad dt.03.03.2022. Ex.A11: Original discharge summary of the petitioner issued by the Sunshine hospital, Secunderabad dt.25.04.2022. Ex.A12: Original inpatient final bill for Rs.15,300/- issued by the KIMS hospital, Rajahmundry. Ex.A13: Original medical bills, number in (80) amount in Rs.1,98,985/-. Ex.A14: Original ambulance service bills Number in (5) amount is Rs.58,000/-. Ex.A15: Original cash payment receipts o the person care taking attendant of the petitioner number in (69) amounting to Rs.14,06,500/-. Ex.A16: Original advance payment receipt issued by KIMS hospital, Rajahmundry. Ex.A17: Original doctor prescriptions (2) issued by the Srikara hospital, Secunderabad. Ex.A18: Photographs number in (8) along with pen drive contains soft copy photos and videos of the injured petitioner. Ex.A19: MRI films number in (14) of the petitioner. Ex.A20: Original digital CT-Scan films number in (8) of the petitioner. Ex.A21: Copy of insurance policy of the crim vehicle. Ex.A22: Certified copy of out patient assessment record of the petitioner issued by KIMS hospital, Secunderabad.

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR RESPONDENT No.3 Ex.B1: Insurance Policy.

Sd/-

XXVI Additional Chief Judge City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

-1- dt.19.05.2025 Orders in MVOP No.419 of 2019 of MACT cum

XXVI ACJ, CCC, HYD

BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-CUM- XXVI

ADDL. CHIEF JUDGE, CITY CIVIL COURT AT HYDERABAD

Present: Sri M.Venkateswara Rao

Chairman MACT-cum-XXVI Addl.Chief Judge

Monday, on this 19th day of May, 2025

M.V.O.P. No. 419 of 2019

Between: Lt.Col. M. Satyanarayana Raju, S/o. M. Narayana Raju, age 71 years, Occ: Retired Army Officer, presently working as Senior Manager Operation for Adequity (Central). Career Technologies Private Limited, Opp: S.P.College, Road No.13, Chandrayan Buildings, Padma Rao Nagar, Hyderabad R/o. Plot No.32, Shanthi Vihar, Near Greenpark Enclave, Kapra, E.C.I.L, Hyderabad.

… Petitioner

AND

1. Shri Nookala Venkata Ratnam, S/o. Satyanarayana, age: Major, Owner of Tipper Lorry bearing No. AP-37-TE-3636, D.No.1-36, Arugolanu village, Tadepalligudem Mandal, West Godavari District.

2. Angarapu Satyanarayana, S/o. R. Raghavulu, aged about 60 years, Occ: Driver, R/o.H.No.6-131, Unguturu (Post and Mandal) West Godavari.

3. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, rep. by Regional Manager, T.P. Clams Hub, Snehalatha Complex, 6-3-871, 2nd floor, Greenland Road, Begumpet, Hyderabad.

(Certificate-cum-policy No.462600/31/2019/642 valid from 27.06.2018 to 26.06.2019)

... Respondents

This petition came before me on this day for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri K. Venkat Ram REddy, learned counsel for Petitioner; Sri K. Bhaskar Dev, learned counsel for Respondent No.3; Respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained absent and was set ex parte, upon hearing both the counsel and on perusing the material on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:

-2- dt.19.05.2025 Orders in MVOP No.419 of 2019 of MACT cum

XXVI ACJ, CCC, HYD

:: O R D E R ::

1.This petition is filed under Section 166 of the MV Act, 1988, by the petitioner seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- against respondents jointly and severally along with interest 18% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of realization by him in the motor vehicle accident which occurred on 06.01.2019 at about 01- 45 P.M. Subsequently the petitioner filed petition to enhance the compensation to Rs.10,00,000/- and this court allowed the petition vide

I.A.No. 2334 of 2023 dt.05.02.2024.

2.The averments of petition, in brief are summarized as under:

i. On 06.01.2019 at about 1.45 P.M the petitioner along with his wife were proceeding in Santro Car bearing No.AP-29-AH- 7595 from Hyderabad to Narsipatnam.

ii. The petitioner alleged that when they reached near Auto

Nagar Prathipadu Village, Pentapadu, at the material time the driver of Lorry bearing No. AP 37-TE-3636 drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner while taking U-turn without any precautions dashed to petitioner Car from front side.

iii. Due to which, the petitioner and his wife sustained injuries all over the body.

-3- dt.19.05.2025 Orders in MVOP No.419 of 2019 of MACT cum

XXVI ACJ, CCC, HYD

iv. Immediately after the said accident petitioner was shifted to Government hospital, Tadepalligudem for treatment and after first aid the injured was shifted to Sri Sai Swetha Hospital,

Tanuku and from there the petitioner was shifted to KIMS Hospital,

Rajamundry for further treatment, and there the petitioner was shifted to Military Hospital, Secunderabad in Ambulance for better, as such the petitioner incurred huge amount towards medical expenses and the petitioner was not in a position to attend his regular duties for a period of two months.

v. The police station Pentapadu, West Godavari District,

Andhra Pradesh State registered a crime No. 4 of 2019 under Sec.337 of IPC against the driver crime vehicle.

vi.At the time of accident the petitioner was aged about 71 years and was hale and healthy at the time of accident and the petitioner is a Retired Army Officer and was working as Senior

Manager, In charge of Central India and earning an amount of

Rs.1,00,000/- per month as salary.

vii.The respondent No.1 being owner, respondent No.2 being the driver and respondent No.3 being insurer of crime vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner.

3. Summons served to respondents, but Respondent No.1 and 2 remained exparte.

-4- dt.19.05.2025 Orders in MVOP No.419 of 2019 of MACT cum

XXVI ACJ, CCC, HYD

4. Respondent No.3/insurance company has filed

counter opposing the relief claimed in this petition, inter alia

by contending as under:

i. This respondent denied the income, age, avocation and manner of accident.

ii. The respondent No.3 alleged that the respondent No.1 had not issued any notice about the alleged accident to this respondent in collusion with the petitioner and this respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner.

iii. That, as per Section 134 (C) of the M.V. Act, 1988, it is the mandatory duty of respondent No.1/owner to furnish the particulars of the policy, date, time, and place of the accident, as well as the particulars of the driving license, but the respondent

No.1/owner has not complied with the statutory demand. Hence, this

Respondent is not liable to pay any compensation, and the case should be dismissed against this Respondent for non-compliance with the statutory demand.

iv. The petitioner and the first Respondent, the owner of the vehicle, were using the vehicle following the traffic rules as per

A.P.M.V. Rules. The petitioner and the first Respondent are further put to strict proof that there was no violation of any sections of the M.V.

Act, 1939, and its subsequent amendments.

-5- dt.19.05.2025 Orders in MVOP No.419 of 2019 of MACT cum

XXVI ACJ, CCC, HYD

v. Respondent No. 2 seeks protection under Sections 147 & 149 of the M.V. Act.

vi. Respondent No. 3 further submits that, as per Section 158(6) of the M.V. Act, 1988, it is the mandatory duty of the concerned insurer to forward the documents within 30 days from the date of information. However, the police station and the insured have failed to forward the documents and have not complied with the statutory demand for which they are liable for contempt of court.

vii. This respondent further alleged that the liability of this respondent arises only when the vehicle owner complied with policy conditions and statutory obligation of M.C.Act as regards to driver having been duly licensed to drive the vehicle was being used in compliance of road permit, without such compliance this respondent cannot be held liable under law or under the terms and conditions of policy. Hence prayed to dismiss the petition with exemplary costs.

5.On the basis of above pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial:

1. Whether the alleged accident dt.06.01.2019 resulting in injuries to the petitioner i.e., Lt.Col.M.Satyanarayana Raju occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Tipper Lorry bearing Registration No. AP 37 TE 3636?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so, from whom and to what extent?

-6- dt.19.05.2025 Orders in MVOP No.419 of 2019 of MACT cum

XXVI ACJ, CCC, HYD

3. To what relief?

6. To substantiate the case of the petitioner, the petitioner himself examined as PW1 and marked Ex.A1 to A21. On behalf of respondents, no oral or documentary evidence adduced to substantiate their case, but Ex.B1 policy is marked with consent.

7.Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and Respondent

No.3. Perused the material on record including written arguments of both sides.

8. Issue No.1:- Since trial of MVOP is summary in nature, the sum and substance of evidence has to be considered.

9.The case of the petitioner that, the accident was occurred by the negligent driving of the Respondent No.3. In support of the same, petitioner himself examined as PW1 and marked Ex.A1-

Certified copy of FIR, Ex.A4-Certified copy of charge sheet. Evidence of PW.1 coupled with Ex. A1 and Ex.A4, even after test of cross examination, are establishing that at relevant time driver of crime vehicle drove the crime vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. The

Respondent No.1 and 2 did not contest the case. There is no cogent evidence placed by respondents to show the negligence of petitioner.

10. Therefore, in view of above discussion and for the reasons stated above it can be safely held that, petitioner sustained injuries in -7- dt.19.05.2025 Orders in MVOP No.419 of 2019 of MACT cum

XXVI ACJ, CCC, HYD

a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 06.01-2019 at about 1.45

P.M, when they reached near Auto Nagar Prathipadu Village,

Pentapadu and at the material time the driver of Lorry bearing No. AP 37-TE-3636 drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner while taking U-turn without any precautions dashed to petitioner Car from front side, and accident taken placed only due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of offending crime vehicle Lorry bearing No.AP 37-TE-3636. Issue No.1 is answered accordingly.

11.Issue No.2: It is the case of the original petitioner claiming a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. Subsequently it was enhanced to Rs.10,00,000/- on the ground that he incurred more

Rs.5,00,000/- towards medical expenses and other amounts are claimed towards pain and suffering, etc.

a) Age of the injured:

12.The petitioner contended that he is aged about 71 years.

No other evidence is placed to prove the correct age of injured.

Therefore, considering material on record, the age of injured is taken as ‘71’ years.

b) Income of injured:

13.The injured claimed that he was retired Army Officer and now the petitioner is working as Senior Manager, Incharge of Central

India and earning an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- lakh per month.

-8- dt.19.05.2025 Orders in MVOP No.419 of 2019 of MACT cum

XXVI ACJ, CCC, HYD

14.PW1 in his chief examination stated that after his retirement the petitioner joined in Eduquity Career Technologies

Private Limited and worked as Center Manager at the time of accident and use to earn amount of Rs1,00,000/-. Ex.A.12 shows that the petitioner was appointed as center manager on consolidated pay of Rs.25,000/- per month. In Ex.A.13 it was mentioned that his salary has been increased to Rs.3,60,000/-. But, it is not mentioned whether it is monthly or yearly salary. Ex.A.16 shows that yearly income of injured was shown as Rs.10,82,650/- for the assessment year 2020-21. As such, basing on age and circumstances of the case the income of injured is assessed as Rs.90,000/- per month notionally which cannot be said to be higher or lower side.

15. Therefore, following amounts can be awarded towards compensation.

I-PECUNIARY DAMAGES:

a) Medical Expenses:

16.The petitioner contended that he spent Rs.5,00,000/- towards medical expenses, transport to hospital, extra nourishment etc.,. In support of his contention, petitioner filed Ex.A7 and A8 for an amount of Rs.21,855/-. The other medical expenditure is admittedly reimbursed on his employment. Therefore, this court holds that the petitioner is entitled Rs.21,855/- only towards medical bills.

-9- dt.19.05.2025 Orders in MVOP No.419 of 2019 of MACT cum

XXVI ACJ, CCC, HYD

b) Loss of income during laid up period:

17. It is the case of the petitioner that he suffered loss of income because of the accident. Since the petitioner suffered fractures, it requires at least two months rest and during said period the petitioner could have suffered loss of income for two months. Therefore, this court holds that the petitioner is entitled for Rs.1,80,000/- towards loss of income during laid up period.

c) Permanent disability or Future prospects;

18. Further, it is to be noted that the petitioner has not suffered any permanent disability as a result of the injuries sustained in the accident, as held supra. Therefore, no compensation can be awarded on this count.

19. II-NON-PECUNIARY DAMAGES:

a) Pain and suffering:

20.The petitioner with a grievous injury of fracture of left ribs and head injury. In these circumstances, this court feels that it is fit case to award a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards pain and suffering.

b) Loss of amenities:

21. The petitioner can be awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards loss of amenities, transport charges, attendant charges during treatment, for extra nourishment.

22. However, considering the nature of injuries, this court is inclined to Award Rs.30,000/- towards transport and amenities.

-10- dt.19.05.2025 Orders in MVOP No.419 of 2019 of MACT cum

XXVI ACJ, CCC, HYD

23.In all, the just compensation that can be awarded to the petitioner is enumerated as follows:-

Pecuniary Damages Amount in Rs.

1. Loss of Income ₹ 1,80,000/-

2. Medical Expenses ₹ 21,855 /- Non-pecuniary damages:

3. Pain and suffering ₹ 1,50,000/-

4. Loss of amenities and ₹ 50,000/- extra nourishment etc.

5. Transport and amenities ₹ 30,000/- Total ₹ 4,31,855/- Rounded to ₹ 4, 32, 000/-

24.On behalf of respondent No.3 no evidence is adduced to refute the evidence lead by the petitioner. Further there is no denial of issuance of policy. Admittedly, it is held that the accident was caused due to negligence driving of driver of the crime vehicle. Respondent No.1 being owner, Respondent No.2 being driver and Respondent No.3 being insurer of crime vehicle are liable to pay compensation to the petitioner jointly and severally. Though respondents No.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the aforesaid compensation amount to the petitioner, the respondent No.3 being the insurer of offending vehicle is liable to pay the above determined compensation amount to the petitioner with costs and interest. Issue No.2 is answered accordingly.

-11- dt.19.05.2025 Orders in MVOP No.419 of 2019 of MACT cum

XXVI ACJ, CCC, HYD

25.Issue No.3:-In view of finding on Issues No.1 and 2, this court holds that petition is to be allowed with costs. Issue No.3 is answered accordingly.

26. In the result, i. The petition is allowed with costs directing respondents

No.1 to 3 jointly and severally to pay the petitioner a sum of

Rs.4,32,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs thirty two thousands only) towards compensation with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim till date of realization.

ii. Respondent No.3 is directed to deposit the above compensation amount within a period of one month from today, failing which the petitioner is entitled to recover the same by following due process of law.

iii. Upon such deposit, the petitioner is entitled to withdraw entire amount along with costs and interest without furnishing any security.

iv.The advocate fee is fixed as Rs.2,000/-.

-12- dt.19.05.2025 Orders in MVOP No.419 of 2019 of MACT cum

XXVI ACJ, CCC, HYD

v. Decree to be prepared upon payment of deficit court fee it any. Or else, it shall be recovered from the decretal amount after deposit.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Grade-I, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 19th day of May, 2025.

Sd/-

XXVI Additional Chief Judge

City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONERS: FOR RESPONDENTS:

PW1: M. Satyanarayana Raju - None-

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PETITIONER

Ex.A1: Certified copy of FIR along with complaint. Ex.A2: Certified copy of memo for alteration of section Law (Attested by SHO Pentapadu). Ex.A3: Copy of injury certificate of the petitioner issued by Military hospital, Secunderabad (attested by SHO, Pentapadu). Ex.A4: Certified copy of charge sheet (Attested by SHO, Pentapadu). Ex.A5: Certified copy of docket proceedings in C.C.No.40 of 2020 on the file of the Hon’ble I Additional JFCM, Tadepallygudem. (accused convicted). Ex.A6: Original certificate issued by KIMS hospital. Ex.A7: Original in patient final bill for Rs.10,709/- issued by KIMS hospital Rajahmundry. Ex.A8: Original medical bill number in (14) amounting to Rs.11,146/-.

-13- dt.19.05.2025 Orders in MVOP No.419 of 2019 of MACT cum

XXVI ACJ, CCC, HYD

Ex.A9: Original discharge summary issued by the KIMS hospital, Hyderabad dt.03.02.2023. Ex.A10: Original discharge summary issued by Sunshine hospital, Hyderabad dt.24.06.2023. Ex.A11: Self attested copy of I.D.Card and service particulars booklet of the petitioner issued by the Defence Services, Government of India. Ex.A12: Original appointment order of the petitioner dt.01.03.2009 issued by the Eduquity Career Technologies Private Limited. Ex.A13: Original emolument of revision of salary of the petitioner dt.24.09.2009 issued by the Eduquity Career Technologies Private Limited. Ex.A14: Form No.16A TDS particulars pertaining to the petitioner issued by the Income Tax Department number in (8). Ex.A15: Annual Tax Statement for the academic year 2021-22 of the petitioner issued by the Income Tax Department. Ex.A16: Income Tax returns for the academic year 2020-21, 2021-22, 2022-23. Ex.A17: Original digital X-ray report of the petitioner. Ex.A18: Self attested copy of driving licenses of the petitioner. Ex.A19: Photograph of the injured petitioner. Ex.A20: Copy of insurance policy of the crime vehicle. Ex.A21: Original CT scan and X-ray films (17) of the petitioner DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR RESPONDENT No.3 Ex.B1: Insurance Policy.

Sd/-

XXVI Additional Chief Judge City Civil Court, Hyderabad.