Ms. N. Amaravathi

1 MVOP 1609 of 2017, Dated: 15.05.2025 MACT-CUM-X Addl.C.J, CCC, HYD

BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL: CUM:

X ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE, CITY CIVIL COURTS AT HYDERABAD

DATED THIS THE 15th DAY OF MAY, 2025

PRESENT: Ms. N. AMARAVATHI, X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

MVOP No.1609 of 2017

Between:

Katarapu Sudha Kiran, W/o. Kosuri Nageswar Rao, aged about 30 years, Occ: Private Teacher (M.Sc), R/o.H.No.1-9 (2/A), Tirumala Kunta, Palvancha, Khammam District – 507301, Telangana State.

...Petitioner

AND

1. Keesara Krishna, S/o. Muthyalu, aged about 31 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Mulkalpally Village and Mandal, Khammam District – 507 115, A.P. (Owner of Auto bearing No.AP 20 TB 2615).

2. The Manager, The New India Assurance Company Limited, represented by its Branch Manager, 2nd Floor, Tirumala Towers, Malakpet, Near Judge’s Colony, Hyderabad (Policy No.61091131160200000670, valid from 11.05.2016 to 10.05.2017). … Respondents

This petition coming before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri S. Chandraiah, Advocate for Petitioner; that of Sri N.J.Sunil Kumar, Advocate for Respondent R2; and that Respondent R1 remained exparte; and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Tribunal made the following:-- 2 MVOP 1609 of 2017, Dated: 15.05.2025 MACT-CUM-X Addl.C.J, CCC, HYD

: O R D E R :

1.The petitioner filed the petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and

Rule-475/1B Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 A.P. M.V.Act, 1989 (herein after referred as M.V.Act and M.V.Rules for brevity) for grant of compensation sum of

Rs.15,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by the petitioner in a road accident which occurred on 11.03.2017.

2. The averments of the petitioner in brief are as follows:

i. On 11.08.2017, around 11:00 A.M, while the petitioner was proceeding as pillion rider on motor cycle bearing No.AP 20 AJ 2183 driven by her husband in order to go to

Sathupally of Khammam District from her village via Ankhapalem, and going on left side of the road at a moderate speed at a curvature towards right side of their way, at that time, the driver of an Auto bearing No.AP 20 TB 2615 drove the same in rash and negligently and dashed behind their motor cycle, due to that, the petitioner fell down on the middle of the road and her husband and the motor cycle fell on the left side. The petitioner sustained fracture injury on her waist and also lumber 1 and 2 and her right leg is fracture, and her husband escaped from injuries. The driver of the auto also escaped from scratches due to turtle of auto causing a sort of small denting. Immediately, after the accident, the petitioner was shifted to Kothagudem, Krishna Orthopedic Center, from there, shifted to

NIMS Hospital, Somajiguda, Hyderabad and was treated by Dr. Raju Ayangar and team, 3 MVOP 1609 of 2017, Dated: 15.05.2025 MACT-CUM-X Addl.C.J, CCC, HYD rods were inserted in right leg and also at waist level. The Petitioner was confined to bed and required rest for two years with frequent medical check ups and she incurred amount of Rs.2,50,000/- towards treatment and medical expenses and also she is suffering with para plegia and is unable to attend her day to day routine works.

ii.On the report, the Police Dhammapeta, Police Station registered a case in Crime

No.49 of 2017 under section 337 IPC against the driver of the crime vehicle i.e., respondent R1. The Petitioner was teacher, studied M.Sc and also type knowing person, and she used to earn Rs.20,000/- per month. But, due to the injuries sustained in accident, she is unable to do the job. Further required maid servant to look after her and she is paying Rs.4,000/- per month to the maid servant. The petitioner having school going children aged about 1 year and 2 ½ years are stopped their education as she sustained injuries. Due to the accident, the petitioner was put to severe mental agony and her family facing the financial problems. The respondent R1 is the owner cum driver of the crime vehicle having insurance with the respondent R2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. Hence, the petition.

3. The respondent R1 did not contest the case and remained exparte.

4.The averments of the counter filed by the respondent R2 in brief are as follows:

i.The Respondent R2 denied the manner of the accident occurred on 11.03.2017, involving the crime vehicle i.e., Auto bearing No.AP 20 TB 2615, drove the same in rash 4 MVOP 1609 of 2017, Dated: 15.05.2025 MACT-CUM-X Addl.C.J, CCC, HYD and negligently with high speed manner and caused the accident. The Respondent R2 denied that the petitioner incurred medical expenses for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident and the petitioner become disabled person. The respondent denied that the driver of the crime vehicle auto having valid driving licence, at the time of accident and that the crime vehicle having insurance with the respondent R2 company and denied to pay compensation to the petitioner. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.

5.Based on the pleadings of both sides on the following issues were framed for consideration:

1. Whether the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle i.e., Auto bearing No.AP 20 TB 2615?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation if so, how much and whom from?

3. To what relief?

6.Heard both side. Perused the material on record.

7.In order to prove the case of the petitioner, the petitioner herself examined as PW1 and filed examination in chief affidavit by reiterating the contents of the petition and documents marked Exs.A1 to A8, the medical officer/PW2 Dr. Ch. Sulapani examined as

PW2. The respondents R2 failed to adduce evidence on their behalf and reported no evidence and marked the document under Ex.B1 with consent. The respondent R1 did not contest the case and remained exparte.

5 MVOP 1609 of 2017, Dated: 15.05.2025 MACT-CUM-X Addl.C.J, CCC, HYD

8.ISSUE NO.1: Perused the evidence of the petitioner i.e. PW1 and PW2 and documents marked i.e. Ex.A1 to A10 that PW1 testified that on 11.08.2017, around 11:00

A.M, while the petitioner was proceeding as pillion rider on motor cycle bearing No.AP 20 AJ 2183 driven by her husband in order to go to Sathupally of Khammam District from her village via Ankhapalem, and going on left side of the road at a moderate speed at a curvature towards right side of their way, at that time the driver of an Auto bearing No.AP 20 TB 2615 drove the same in rash and negligently and dashed behind their motor cycle, due to that, the petitioner fell down on the middle of the road and her husband and the motor cycle fell on the left side. The petitioner sustained fracture injury on her waist and also lumber 1 and 2 and her right leg is fracture, and her husband escaped from injuries.

The driver of the auto also escaped from scratches due to turtle of auto causing a sort of small denting. Immediately, after the accident, the petitioner was shifted to Kothagudem,

Krishna Orthopedic Center, from there shifted to NIMS Hospital, Somajiguda, Hyderabad and was treated by Dr. Raju Ayangar and team, rods were inserted in right leg and also at waist level. The Petitioner was confined to bed and required rest for two years with frequent medical check ups and she incurred amount of Rs.2,50,000/- towards treatment and medical expenses and also she is suffering with para plegia and is unable to attend her day to day routine works.

9.According to PW1, on the report, the Police Dhammapeta, Police Station registered a case in Crime No.49 of 2017 under section 337 IPC against the driver of the crime 6 MVOP 1609 of 2017, Dated: 15.05.2025 MACT-CUM-X Addl.C.J, CCC, HYD vehicle i.e., respondent R1. The Petitioner was teacher, studied M.Sc and also type knowing person, and she used to earn Rs.20,000/- per month. But, due to the injuries sustained in accident she is unable to do the job. Further required maid servant to look after her and she is paying Rs.4,000/- per month to the maid servant. The petitioner having school going children aged about 1 year and 2 ½ years are stopped their education as she sustained injuries. Due to the accident, the petitioner was put to severe mental agony and her family facing the financial problems. The respondent R1 is the owner cum driver of the crime vehicle having insurance with the respondent R2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. Hence, the petition.

10.The burden lies upon the petitioner to prove that, the petitioner sustained injuries in the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle i.e., Auto bearing No.AP 20 TB 2615. PW1 denied the suggestions that there is no negligence on part of the crime vehicle and intentionally suppressed the fact and filed the false case In cross examination of PW1 by the respondent R2, except denials, nothing is elicited from the mouth of PW1.

11.Supporting the evidence of PW1, the document under Ex.A1 shows that the investigation reveals that the accident took place, due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle Auto bearing No.AP 20 TB 2615. It is an admitted fact that the Auto bearing No.AP 20 TB 2615 belongs to the respondent R1 who is the owner cum driver of the same as on the date of the incident.

7 MVOP 1609 of 2017, Dated: 15.05.2025 MACT-CUM-X Addl.C.J, CCC, HYD

12. Now, burden lies upon the respondent R2 to disprove the contention of the petitioner. The respondent R2 failed to illicit any adverse contention in cross examination of PW1. The respondent R2 contended that the respondent R2 filed counter denied the manner of accident involving the crime vehicle. The Respondent R2 denied that the driver of the crime vehicle i.e., respondent R1 drove the same in rash and negligently with high speed manner and caused the accident. The respondent R2 denied that the petitioner incurred medical expenses for the injuries sustained by the petitioner in a road accident.

The Respondent R2 denied that the driver of the crime vehicle having valid driving licence at the time of accident and that the crime vehicle was having insurance with the respondent R2 company and denied their liability. It is strange that the respondent R2 failed to adduce evidence in order to disprove the contention of the petitioner.

13. The evidence of PW1 and the documents under Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 shows that the respondent R3 drove the vehicle in rash and negligently with high speed manner. The documents under Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 disclose that the injured sustained injuries in the accident, due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle i.e., Auto bearing No.AP 20 TB 2615. The respondent R2 without taking care and caution drove the crime vehicle in high speed manner and caused the accident and the respondent R1 is the owner cum driver of the crime vehicle. Hence, the negligent act of the driver of the crime vehicle i.e., respondent R1 who drove the crime vehicle belongs to himself i.e., the respondent R1 is proved. The respondent R1 did not contest the case and remained 8 MVOP 1609 of 2017, Dated: 15.05.2025 MACT-CUM-X Addl.C.J, CCC, HYD exparte. Thatmeans, the evidence of the petitioner/PW1 is unchallenged and unrebutted by the respondent R1. The respondent R2 failed to adduce evidence and got marked the document i.e., policy as Ex.B1 with consent on its behalf. In order to disprove the contention of the petitioner, the respondent R2 only got marked the document under

Ex.B1. The tribunal cannot infer any presumption. In Bimla Devi & others Vs. Himachal

Road Transport Corporation & others reported in 2007(5) ALD 439 the Division Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that:

“It was necessary to be borne in mine that strict proof of accident caused by particular manner may not be possible to be proved by the claimants. The claimants were merely to establish their case on the touch stone of preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied”.

14.In the above circumstances, the petitioner proved that the driver of the crime vehicle drove the same in rash and negligently with high speed manner, in which, the petitioner sustained injuries. Accordingly, issue No.1 is answered infavour of the petitioner.

15.ISSUE NO.2: On considering the above discussion in issue No.1 is decided infavour of the petitioner by holding that the driver of the crime vehicle i.e. Auto bearing

No.AP 20 TB 2615 belongs to the respondent R1 and the same was driven by him in rash and negligent manner, due to which, the accident took place.

16.The petitioner proved that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent 9 MVOP 1609 of 2017, Dated: 15.05.2025 MACT-CUM-X Addl.C.J, CCC, HYD driving of the driver of the crime vehicle and the petitioner sustained injuries and got permanent disability.Hence, the petitioner is entitled for just compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the accident.

17.Now it has to be decided what is the just compensation payable to the petitioner for the injuries sustained by him. The principles with regard to determination of just compensation contemplated under the Act are well settled:

The injuries caused deprivation to body which entitles the claimant to claim damages. The damages may vary according to gravity of injury sustained by the claimant in the accident. On account of the injuries the claimant may suffer consequential losses such as 1) loss of earnings, 2) expenses on treatment which may include medical expenses, transportation, special alice, attendant charges, etc., 3) loss or diminution to the pleasure of life by loss of a particular part of the body and 4) loss of future earning capacity Damages can be pecuniary or non-pecuniary but all have to be assess in rupees and paise.

18.It is impossible to equate human suffering and personal deprivation without money.

The Tribunal has to make judicious attempt to avoid damages, so as to compensate the injured for the loss suffered by him. On one hand, the compensation should not be assessed very conservatively, and on the other hand compensation should also not be assessed in so liberal fashion, so as to make it as a bounty to the claimant.

19.In the above back drop, the Tribunal has to be assessed by applying the principles to award compensation to the injured as laid down by the M.V. Act. Rajkumar Vs. Ajay 10 MVOP 1609 of 2017, Dated: 15.05.2025 MACT-CUM-X Addl.C.J, CCC, HYD

Kumar and another decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court 2011 ACJ 1. All injuries, expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation.

20.In order to prove the injuries sustained by the petitioner and disability sustained by the petitioner, the petitioner examined the medical officer Dr. Ch. Sulapani, Orthopedic

Surgeon as PW2 who testified that the petitioner/PW1 came to him for obtaining disability certificate on 10.05.2017 and that after examining the petitioner/PW1, it is found that the petitioner/PW1 sustained burst fracture T12, fracture of right 3rd tibia of right leg with plating, and that she suffered partial permanent disability of 60% as per the

MC bridge scale. It is impossible to attend teacher job while standing, since vertical fracture burst one and it is malunion it required further operation may be possibility of 50% reconstruction, as such, it is difficult and also it is not possible to do typist job while sitting hours. The petitioner has to take rest frequently. It is difficult to sit in floor and squatting since there is stiffness right tibia caused with fracture. Pain and inconvenience will be there for the two fractures which are grievous in nature and it is not possible for long walking as suffering from limping. Ex.A5 is the disability certificate issued by PW2.

Hence, the percentage of disability mentioned in disability certificate under Ex.A5 is taken into consideration, as the respondent R2 failed to rebut the evidence of the petitioner.

21.In order to prove the injuries sustained by the petitioner, as per the injury certificate under Ex.A2 shows that the petitioner sustained two grievous injuries and during the 11 MVOP 1609 of 2017, Dated: 15.05.2025 MACT-CUM-X Addl.C.J, CCC, HYD course of her treatment she underwent surgery. Therefore, the evidence of PW1 coupled with the documents under Ex.A3 and Ex.A5 proved that the petitioner sustained injuries which are grievous in nature.

22.The petitioner claiming compensation towards medical expenses for treatment of injuries sustained by her. The petitioner proved that she sustained grievous injuries under

Ex.A2 and Ex.A5. To prove the medical expenses incurred by the petitioner, the petitioner got relied upon the document under Ex.A6 which shows that the petitioner spent an amount of Rs.31,557/-. Therefore, the petitioner proved that she spent an amount for treatment as per final medical bill under Ex.A6. As such, the court is of view that the compensation amount can be granted to the petitioner for pain and sufferings, as the petitioner undergone treatment. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.31,557/- towards medical expenses.

23.For deciding loss of earnings, the petitioner claimed compensation towards loss of earnings. According to PW1, she used to earn more than Rs.20,000/- per month by doing teaching work and typing work, but not filed any documentary evidence. The respondent failed to adduce evidence regarding the earnings of the petitioner/PW1 and also failed to elicit the adverse version of the petitioner/PW1. Though, the petitioner/PW1 failed to file the documentary proof regarding the earnings of the petitioner, but in general, pvt teacher can earn Rs.10,000/- to Rs.15,000/- per month and the person knowing typing can also earn Rs.5,000/- to Rs.10,000/- per month. Hence, the tribunal considered the evidence of 12 MVOP 1609 of 2017, Dated: 15.05.2025 MACT-CUM-X Addl.C.J, CCC, HYD the petitioner and fixed the earnings of the petitioner notionally @ Rs.20,000/- per month from teaching work as well as typing work and the same is considered for calculation of loss of earnings. Admittedly, the petitioner sustained injuries and admitted in hospital as inpatient in NIMS Hospital. In this connection, she has to take bed rest for atleast six months. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for sum of Rs.1,20,000/- (20,000 x 6) towards loss of earnings.

24.The evidence of the petitioner is that she could not able to attend the work due to the injuries sustained by him which is supported by the medical officer PW2. The petitioner filed disability certificate under Ex.A6 issued by the medical officer PW2 which reveals that she suffered 60% of partial permanent in nature. In absence of any rebuttal evidence by the respondent R2, the tribunal considered the same and the same is taken into consideration.

25.The petitioner claimed compensation towards disability. According to PW1, she is aged about 29 years at the time of accident. Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 also reveals that the petitioner is aged about 29 years and the same can be considered for assessing compensation to be awarded in this case. Since, the age of the petitioner was 29 years multiplier to be applied as per Sarla Verma Case is 17 for ascertaining compensation towards disability.

26.The annual income of the petitioner comes to Rs.2,40,000/- (20,000 X 12). After 13 MVOP 1609 of 2017, Dated: 15.05.2025 MACT-CUM-X Addl.C.J, CCC, HYD applying 17 multiplier the income of the petitioner comes to Rs.40,80,000/-. On calculation of 60% permanent disability the petitioner is entitled for a sum of

Rs.24,48,000/- and the petitioner is entitled for the same towards functional disability.

27.Admittedly, after the accident, the petitioner/PW1 was immediately shifted to the

Krishna Orthopedic Hospital, Kothagude, and from there shifted to NIMS Hospital,

Hyderabad, where she underwent surgery. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for compensation sum of Rs.50,000/- towards transportation. The petitioner further entitled for sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards extra nourishment during treatment.

28.Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for compensation under the following heads:

1.Compensation towards pain and sufferings:2,00,000-00

2.Compensation towards Medical expenses:31,557-00

3.Compensation towards Loss of earnings:1,20,000-00

4.Compensation towards loss of earnings for suffering24,48,000-00 throughout the life:

5.Compensation towards Transportation:50,000-00

6.Compensation towards extra nourishment:1,00,000-00

29.In total, the petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.29,49,557/- towards compensation.

30.The present claim petition is filed under section 166 of M.V. Act-1988. It is 14 MVOP 1609 of 2017, Dated: 15.05.2025 MACT-CUM-X Addl.C.J, CCC, HYD pertinent to mention here is that in claim petition under section 163-A or 166 of M.V. Act the motor accident claim tribunal is empowered by Section 171 of M.V. Act to award interest, in the eventuality of claim petition being allowed from the date of making the claim at such rate as may be entitled by it.

31. In Puttamma and others Vs. K.L. Narayana Reddy and another 2014 (1) RCR (Civil) 443, (2013) 15 SCC 45 Hon'ble Apex Court observed in Para 62 as under:

“This Court in Abati Bezbaruah Vs. Deputy Director General Geological Survey of India and another (2003) 3 SCC 148 noticed that varying rates of interest are being awarded by the Tribunals, High Courts and this Court. In the said case, this Court held that the rate of interest must be just and reasonable depending on the facts and circumstances of the case and should be decided after taking into consideration relevant factors like inflation, change in economy, policy being adopted by Reserve Bank of India from time to time, how long the case is pending, loss of enjoyment of life, etc.”

32. In Benson George Vs. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited and another 2022 ACJ 948, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reduced rate of interest from 9% to 6% per annum awarded by the Hon'ble High Court. By placing reliance on the above judgments discussed, this tribunal is of considered view to award interest at the rate of 6% per annum.

33.Now, it has to be decided who has to pay compensation awarded to the petitioner.

The petitioner/PW1 claimed compensation against the respondent R1 and R2 as the respondent R1 is the driver cum owner of the crime vehicle and the respondent R2 is the 15 MVOP 1609 of 2017, Dated: 15.05.2025 MACT-CUM-X Addl.C.J, CCC, HYD insurance company. The respondent R1 did not contest the case and remained exparte.

34.Moreover, the respondent R2 filed counter. During the course of cross examination by the counsel for the respondent R2, except denials, nothing elicited from the mouth of the petitioner/PW1. In view of the above, it is clear that the respondent R1 is the driver of the crime vehicle belongs to himself, drove the crime vehicle having insurance with the respondent R2. Therefore, the respondent R1 being the owner cum driver of the crime vehicle having insurance with the respondent R2 are liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner/PW1. Accordingly, issue No.2 is answered infavour of the petitioner and against the respondents R1 to R2.

35.ISSUE No.3: In the result, the petition is allowed with proportionate costs and the petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.29,49,557/- (Rupees Twenty Nine Lakhs Forty

Nine Thousand Five Hundred and Fifty Seven only) towards compensation with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization with proportionate costs.

The respondents R1 and R2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.

The Respondents R1 and R2 are directed to pay the awarded amount to the petitioner.

The respondents R1 and R2 are directed to deposit the awarded amount within 30 days from the date of this order.

16 MVOP 1609 of 2017, Dated: 15.05.2025 MACT-CUM-X Addl.C.J, CCC, HYD

After such deposit, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the awarded amount with proportionate costs and interest.

The Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.20,000/-.

The Petitioner filed the petition vide I.A No.3031 of 2017 and as per the Orders in the said IA exempted for payment of court fee of Rs.14,360/- on the claim amount of

Rs.15,00,000/- vide its order dated: 03.07.2017. Therefore, the petitioner is directed to pay Court fee of Rs.14,360/- and court fee on the more compensation awarded to him within 30 days from the date of this order.

The office is directed to prepare decree after payment of deficit court fee if any, by the petitioners.

Typed to my dictation by stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 15th day of May, 2025.

Sd/- xxx

CHAIRMAN,

MACT - cum - X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PETITIONER:

PW1: Katarapu Sudha Kiran.

PW2: Dr. Ch. Sulapani.

17 MVOP 1609 of 2017, Dated: 15.05.2025 MACT-CUM-X Addl.C.J, CCC, HYD

FOR THE RESPONDENTS:

- NONE -

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PETITIONER:

ExA1 :Certified copy of FIR in Crime No.49 of 2017.

ExA2 :Certified copy of MLC issued by NIMS Hospital.

ExA3 :Certified copy of charge sheet.

ExA4 :Certified copy of Lok Adalat order compromising with the respondent.

ExA5 :Original disability certificate.

ExA6 :Bunch of medical bills for Rs.34,656/- (29 in number).

ExA7 :Bunch of photographs.

ExA8 :Bunch of X-Rays (4 in number).

FOR THE RESPONDENTS:

- NIL -

Sd/- xxx

CHAIRMAN,

MACT - cum - X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad

1 MVOP 1273 of 2019, Dated: 20.05.2025 MACT-CUM-X Addl.C.J, CCC, HYD

BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL: CUM:

X ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE, CITY CIVIL COURTS AT HYDERABAD

DATED THIS THE 20th DAY OF MAY, 2025

PRESENT: Ms. N. AMARAVATHI, X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

MVOP No.1273 of 2019

Between:

Islavath Ravi, S/o. Islavath Laxman, aged about 28 years, Occ: Auto Driver, R/o Prashanthpuri Thanda, R/m. Chinthapally, Nalgonda District. … Petitioner

And

1. Damera Sheker, S/o. Bazar, aged about 23 years, Occu: Driver, R/o Harjanapuram, Chinthapally, R/m Chinthapally, Dist. Nalgonda. (Driver of Lorry No. AP 26 TB 8229)

2. Devulapally Narsimha, S/o. Mahankalaiah, Major, Occ: Business, R/o H. No. 1-58, Chigurupadu, Atchampet, Dist. Mahaboobnager. (Owner of Lorry No. AP 26 TB 8229).

3. The New India Assurance Company Limited, represented by its Manager, Divisional Office-610300, II Floor, Santhoshima Complex, RTC X Road, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. (Policy No. 61320331180100000299, Valid from 04.05.2018 to 03.05.2019) … Respondents

This petition coming before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri Ghulam Amjad, Advocate for Petitioner; that of Sri M. Srinivas, Advocate for Respondent R3; and that Respondents R1 and R2 remained exparte; and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Tribunal made the following:-- 2 MVOP 1273 of 2019, Dated: 20.05.2025 MACT-CUM-X Addl.C.J, CCC, HYD

: O R D E R :

1.The petitioner filed the petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and

Rule-475/1B of Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 (herein after referred as

M.V.Act and M.V.Rules for brevity) for grant of compensation sum of Rs.4,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by the petitioner in a road accident which occurred on 05.01.2019.

2. The averments of the petitioner in brief are as follows:

i. On 05.01.2019, around 10.00 A.M., while the petitioner was proceeding to

Gollapally village, on his motor bike No.AP 24 AB 4498, to get the Govt, ration rice and when he reached the outskirts of Prashanthapuri Thanda, on the state high way of

Nagarjunasager to Hyderabad, at that time, the driver of the Lorry bearing No.AP 26 TB 8229, causing from Konda Mallepally side, proceeding to Hyderabad, drove the same in rash and negligently with high speed manner and dashed to the motor cycle of the petitioner, due to that, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries as his left hand fractured, right leg fractured and also sustained other injuries all over the body. Immediately, after the accident, the petitioner was shifted to the Govt. Hospital, Devarakonda and again he was shifted and admitted in a private hospital, i.e., Abhinav Hospital, Hyderabad and also took treatment in V.K. Hospital, Devarakonda, for better treatment. The petitioner was treated as inpatient for about one month and took treatment and undergone, surgery, for which, the petitioner incurred sum of Rs.2,00,000/- for his treatment and for nutritional 3 MVOP 1273 of 2019, Dated: 20.05.2025 MACT-CUM-X Addl.C.J, CCC, HYD food. The accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of crime vehicle Lorry No.AP 26 TB 8229 i.e., the respondent R1.

ii.On the report, the Police Chinthapally Police Station of Nalgonda District registered case in crime No.21 of 2019, under Section 338 of IPC against the driver of crime vehicle i.e., Lorry No. AP 26 TB 8229 i.e., the respondent R1. Prior to the occurrence of the accident the petitioner was hale and healthy, aged about 28 years and he used to earn Rs.20,000/- per month, by driving the auto and used to contribute the same to his family. Due to the accident, the petitioner could not able to drive the auto and there lost his earnings. The family of the petitioner having financial problem and mental agony.

The petitioner claiming compensation against the respondent R1 to R3 as the respondent

R1 being the driver of the crime vehicle belongs to the respondent R2 having insurance with the respondent R3 are liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. Hence, the petition.

3.The respondents R1 and R2 did not contest the case and remained exparte.

4.The averments of the counter filed by the respondent R3 in brief are as follows:

i.The Respondent R3 denied the manner of the accident involving the crime vehicle i.e., Lorry No.AP 26 TB 8229, drove the the same in rash and negligently with high speed manner and caused the accident. The Respondent R3 denied that the petitioner incurred medical expenses for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident. The 4 MVOP 1273 of 2019, Dated: 20.05.2025 MACT-CUM-X Addl.C.J, CCC, HYD respondent denied that the driver of the crime vehicle having valid driving licence, at the time of accident and that the crime vehicle having insurance with the respondent R3 and denied to pay compensation to the petitioner. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.

5.Based on the pleadings of both sides, the following issues were framed for consideration:

1. Whether the accident occurred on 05.01.2019 at about 10:00 hours near

Prashanthapuri due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of

the Lorry bearing No.AP 26 TB 8229 resulting which the injured

petitioner Islavath Ravi sustained fracture injuries and permanent

disability?

2. Whether the driver of the vehicle is in possession of valid driving licence?

3. Whether the vehicle involved in the accident have insurance?

4. Whether the petitioner is entitled for the compensation as prayed for, if so, to what quantum and for whom?

5. To what relief?

6.Heard both side. Perused the material on record.

7.In order to prove the case of the petitioner, the petitioner himself examined as PW1 and filed examination in chief affidavit by reiterating the contents of the petition and documents marked Exs.A1 to A21, the medical officer Dr. V. Ravi Kumar and Dr. Venu

Gopal Palakuthi examined as PW2 and PW3. The respondent R3 examined Administrative

Officer of their company as RW1 and the documents marked i.e., Ex.B1 and B2.

5 MVOP 1273 of 2019, Dated: 20.05.2025 MACT-CUM-X Addl.C.J, CCC, HYD

8.ISSUE NO.1: Perused the evidence of the petitioner i.e. PW1 to PW3 and documents marked i.e. Ex.A1 to A21 that PW1 testified that On 05.01.2019, around 10.00

A.M., while the petitioner was proceeding to Gollapally village, on his motor bike No.AP 24 AB 4498, to get the Govt, ration rice and when he reached the outskirts of

Prashanthapuri Thanda, on the state high way of Nagarjunasager to Hyderabad, at that time, the driver of the Lorry bearing No.AP 26 TB 8229, causing from Konda Mallepally side, proceeding to Hyderabad, drove the same in rash and negligently with high speed manner and dashed to the motor cycle of the petitioner, due to that, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries as his left hand fractured, right leg fractured and also sustained other injuries all over the body. Immediately, after the accident, the petitioner was shifted to the Govt. Hospital, Devarakonda and again he was shifted and admitted in a private hospital, i.e., Abhinav Hospital, Hyderabad and also took treatment in V.K.

Hospital, Devarakonda, for better treatment. The petitioner was treated as inpatient for about one month and took treatment and undergone, surgery, for which, the petitioner incurred sum of Rs.2,00,000/- for his treatment and for nutritional food. The accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of crime vehicle Lorry No.AP 26 TB 8229 i.e., the respondent R1.

9.According to PW1, on the report, the Police Chinthapally Police Station of

Nalgonda District registered case in crime No.21 of 2019, under Section 338 of IPC against the driver of crime vehicle i.e., Lorry No. AP 26 TB 8229 i.e., the respondent R1.

6 MVOP 1273 of 2019, Dated: 20.05.2025 MACT-CUM-X Addl.C.J, CCC, HYD

Prior to the occurrence of the accident the petitioner was hale and healthy, aged about 28 years and he used to earn Rs.20,000/- per month, by driving the auto and used to contribute the same to his family. Due to the accident, the petitioner could not able to drive the auto and he lost his earnings. The family of the petitioner having financial problem and mental agony. The petitioner claiming compensation agaisnt the respondent

R1 to R3 as the respondent R1 being the driver of the crime vehicle belongs to the respondent R2 having insurance with the respondent R3 are liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. Hence, the petition.

10.Supporting the evidence of PW1, the document under Ex.A1 shows that the investigation reveals that the accident took place, due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle i.e., Lorry No. AP 26 TB 8229. It is an admitted fact that the Lorry No. AP 26 TB 8229 belongs to the respondent R2 and the respondent R1 is the driver of the same as on the date of the incident.

11. Now, the burden lies upon the respondent R3 to disprove the contention of the petitioner. The respondent R3 failed to illicit any adverse contention in cross examination of PW1. The respondent denied the manner of accident involving the crime vehicle. The

Respondent R3 also denied that the driver of the crime vehicle i.e., respondent R1 drove the same in rash and negligent manner and caused the accident and the petitioner incurred medical expenses for the injuries sustained by the petitioner in a road accident. The

Respondent R3 also denied that the driver of the crime vehicle having valid driving 7 MVOP 1273 of 2019, Dated: 20.05.2025 MACT-CUM-X Addl.C.J, CCC, HYD licence at the time of accident and that the crime vehicle having insurance with the respondent R3 company and denied their liability. It is strange that the respondent R3 failed to adduce evidence in order to disprove the contention of the petitioner.

12.The evidence of PW1 and the documents under Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 shows that the respondent R3 drove the vehicle in rash and negligent manner. The documents under

Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 disclose that the injured sustained injuries in the accident, due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle i.e., Lorry No. AP 26 TB 8229. The respondent R1 without taking care and caution drove the crime vehicle in high speed manner and caused the accident and the respondent R2 is the owner of the crime vehicle. Hence, the negligent act of the driver of the crime vehicle i.e., respondent R1 who drove the crime vehicle belongs to the respondent R1 is proved. The respondent R1 and R2 failed to contest the case in order to disprove the contention of the petitioner and remained exparte. Thatmeans, the evidence of PW1 is unchallenged and unrebutted by the respondent R1 and R2. The respondent R3 examined their Administrative officer as RW1 and got marked the document i.e., Ex.B1 and B2 on its behalf. In order to disprove the contention of the petitioner, except denials, nothing elicited from the mouth of PW1. The tribunal cannot infer any presumption. In Bimla Devi & others Vs. Himachal Road

Transport Corporation & others reported in 2007(5) ALD 439 the Division Bench of

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that:

“It was necessary to be borne in mine that strict proof of accident caused by particular manner may not be possible to be proved by the 8 MVOP 1273 of 2019, Dated: 20.05.2025 MACT-CUM-X Addl.C.J, CCC, HYD claimants. The claimants were merely to establish their case on the touch stone of preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied”.

13.In the above circumstances, the petitioner proved that the driver of the crime vehicle drove the crime vehicle in rash and negligently with high speed manner, in which, the petitioner sustained injuries. Accordingly, issue No.1 is answered infavour of the petitioner.

14.ISSUE No.2 to 4: On considering the above discussion in issue No.1 is decided infavour of the petitioner by holding that the driver of the crime vehicle i.e. Lorry No. AP 26 TB 8229 belongs to the respondent R2 and the same was driven by the respondent R1 in rash and negligently with high speed manner and caused accident.

15.The petitioner proved that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle, in which, the petitioner sustained injuries.

Hence, the petitioner is entitled for just compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the accident.

16.Now it has to be decided what is the just compensation payable to the petitioner for the injuries sustained by him. The principles with regard to determination of just compensation contemplated under the Act are well settled:

The injuries caused deprivation to body which entitles the claimant to claim damages. The damages may vary according to gravity of injury 9 MVOP 1273 of 2019, Dated: 20.05.2025 MACT-CUM-X Addl.C.J, CCC, HYD sustained by the claimant in the accident. On account of the injuries the claimant may suffer consequential losses such as 1) loss of earnings, 2) expenses on treatment which may include medical expenses, transportation, special alice, attendant charges, etc., 3) loss or diminution to the pleasure of life by loss of a particular part of the body and 4) loss of future earning capacity Damages can be pecuniary or non-pecuniary but all have to be assess in rupees and paise.

17.It is impossible to equate human suffering and personal deprivation without money.

The Tribunal has to make judicious attempt to avoid damages, so as to compensate the injured for the loss suffered by him. On one hand, the compensation should not be assessed very conservatively, and on the other hand compensation should also not be assessed in so liberal fashion, so as to make it as a bounty to the claimant.

18.In the above back drop, the Tribunal has to be assessed by applying the principles to award compensation to the injured as laid down by the M.V. Act. Rajkumar Vs. Ajay

Kumar and another decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court 2011 ACJ 1. All injuries, expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation.

19.To prove the injuries sustained by the petitioner, the petitioner examined the medical officer Dr. V. Ravi Kumar, Orthopedic Surgeon as PW2 who testified that the petitioner came to their hospital on 05.02.2019 and on examination it is found that the petitioner sustained lateral malleolus fracture which are grievous in nature and the petitioner admitted on the same day in their hospital and during his stay he gave treatment to the petitioner/PW1. PW2 further testified that the petitioner/PW1 was treated with IV 10 MVOP 1273 of 2019, Dated: 20.05.2025 MACT-CUM-X Addl.C.J, CCC, HYD fluids, IV antibiotics and analgesis and he was discharged on 14.02.2019 and at the time of discharge, the petitioner/PW1 paid an amount of Rs.39,700/- towards hospital expenditure. PW2 admitted the issuance of Ex.A8 and Ex.A9 by him. Hence, the evidence of PW2 coupled with the Ex.A8 and Ex.A9 is taken into consideration, as the respondent R3 failed to rebut the evidence of the petitioner.

20.Further to prove the injuries, the petitioner got examined Dr. Venugopal Palakurthi,

Orthopedic Surgeon as PW3 who testified that the petitioner came to their hospital on 06.01.2019 for treatment and on examination it is found that the petitioner sustained lacerated wound left shoulder acromico clavicular disruption and lateral malleolus fracture left and the petitioner was admitted on the same day and he was undergone surgery on 07.01.2019. Lacerated wound repair done and kept synthetic cast, and discharged from the hospital on 11.01.2019 and he paid Rs.60,000/- towards hospital expenditure. PW3 admitted the issuance of Ex.A5 to Ex.A7 by him.

21.Therefore, the evidence of PW1 to PW3 coupled with the documents under Ex.A5 to Ex.A9 proved that the petitioner/PW1 sustained injuries which are grievous in nature.

The petitioner claiming compensation towards medical expenses for treatment of injuries sustained by him proved under Ex.A5 to Ex.A9. To prove the medical expenses incurred by the petitioner, the petitioner relied upon the document under Ex.A5, Ex.A10 and

Ex.A13 which disclose that the petitioner spent an amount of Rs.1,06,450/-. Therefore, the petitioner proved that he spent an amount of Rs. 1,06,450/- for treatment under Ex.A5, 11 MVOP 1273 of 2019, Dated: 20.05.2025 MACT-CUM-X Addl.C.J, CCC, HYD

Ex.A10 and Ex.A13. As such, the tribunal is of view that the compensation amount can be granted to the petitioner for pain and sufferings and also medical expenses as the petitioner undergone treatment. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.1,06,450/- towards medical expenses.

22.For deciding loss of earnings, the petitioner claimed compensation towards loss of earnings. According to Petitioner/PW1, he used to earn more than Rs.20,000/- per month as auto driver. But, failed to file the documentary evidence regarding the earnings of the petitioner/PW1. In general, an auto driver can earn Rs. 10,000/- per month. Hence, the tribunal considered the earning of the petitioner fixed notionally as Rs.10,000/- per month and the same is considered for calculation of loss of earnings. Admittedly, the petitioner sustained injuries and admitted in hospital and took treatment. In this connection, he has to take bed rest for atleast six months. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for sum of Rs.60,000/- (10,000 x 6) towards loss of earnings.

23.Admittedly, after the accident, the petitioner/PW1 was immediately shifted to the

Government Hospital, Devarakonda and thereafter, shifted to Abinav Hospital, Hyderabad and thereafter shifted to V.K. Hospital, Devarakonda and underwent surgery. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for compensation sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards transportation.

The petitioner further entitled for sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards extra nourishment during treatment.

12 MVOP 1273 of 2019, Dated: 20.05.2025 MACT-CUM-X Addl.C.J, CCC, HYD

24.Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for compensation under the following heads:

1.Compensation towards pain and sufferings:3,00,000-00

2.Compensation towards Medical expenses:1,06,450-00

3.Compensation towards Loss of earnings:60,000-00

5.Compensation towards Transportation:1,00,000-00

6.Compensation towards extra nourishment:1,00,000-00

25.In total, the petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.6,66,450/- towards compensation.

26.The present claim petition is filed under section 166 of M.V. Act-1988. It is pertinent to mention here is that in claim petition under section 163-A or 166 of M.V. Act the motor accident claim tribunal is empowered by Section 171 of M.V. Act to award interest, in the eventuality of claim petition being allowed from the date of making the claim at such rate as may be entitled by it.

27. In Puttamma and others Vs. K.L. Narayana Reddy and another 2014 (1) RCR (Civil) 443, (2013) 15 SCC 45 Hon'ble Apex Court observed in Para 62 as under:

“This Court in Abati Bezbaruah Vs. Deputy Director General Geological Survey of India and another (2003) 3 SCC 148 noticed that varying rates of interest are being awarded by the Tribunals, High Courts and this Court. In the said case, this Court held that the rate of interest must be just and reasonable depending on the facts and circumstances of the case and should be decided after taking into consideration relevant factors like inflation, change in economy, policy being adopted by Reserve Bank of India from time to time, how long the case is pending, loss of enjoyment of life, etc.” 13 MVOP 1273 of 2019, Dated: 20.05.2025 MACT-CUM-X Addl.C.J, CCC, HYD

28.In Benson George Vs. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited and another 2022 ACJ 948, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reduced rate of interest from 9% to 6% per annum awarded by the Hon'ble High Court. By placing reliance on the above judgments discussed, this tribunal is of considered view to award interest at the rate of 6% per annum.

29.Now, it has to be decided who has to pay compensation awarded to the petitioner.

The petitioner claimed compensation against the respondent R1 who is the driver of the crime vehicle and the respondent R2, who is owner of the crime vehicle and also insurance company i.e., respondent R3. The respondent R1 and R2 did not contest the case and remained exparte.

30.Moreover, the respondent R3 filed counter. During the course of cross examination by the counsel for the respondent R3, except denials, nothing elicited from the mouth of the petitioner/PW1. In view of the above, it is clear that the respondent R1 is the driver of the crime vehicle belongs to the respondent R2, who allowed the driver of the crime vehicle respondent R1 to drove the crime vehicle having insurance with the respondent

R1. On behalf of respondent R3, their Administrative Officer examined as RW1 and documents marked Ex.B1 and Ex.B2. Ex.B1 is the copy of policy schedule cum certificate of insurance which is valid as on the date of accident.

14 MVOP 1273 of 2019, Dated: 20.05.2025 MACT-CUM-X Addl.C.J, CCC, HYD

31.RW1 testified that the driver of the crime vehicle drove the same without holding valid driving license. Ex.A2 also disclose that the driver of the crime vehicle not having valid driving license drove the crime vehicle as on the date of accident. Hence, there is no liability on part of the insurance company i.e., the respondent R3. However, the insurance company is directed to pay the quantum of compensation and recover the same from the driver and owner of the vehicle i.e., the respondent R1 and R2. As such, at first, the respondent R3 insurance company is liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.

Thereafter, it can recover the compensation from the respondent R1 and R2 who are the driver and owner of the crime vehicle without filing as separate suit for the said purpose.

Accordingly, Issue No.2 is answered infavour of the petitioner and against the respondent

R1 and R2. Inview of the above findings, the petition is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, the issue no. 2 to 4 are answered.

32.ISSUE NO.5: In the result, the petition is allowed with proportionate costs and the petitioner is entitled for sum of Rs.6,66,450/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Sixty Six Thousand

Four Hundred and Fifty only) as compensation with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization with proportionate costs.

The respondents R1 & R2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner.

15 MVOP 1273 of 2019, Dated: 20.05.2025 MACT-CUM-X Addl.C.J, CCC, HYD

The respondent R3 is directed to first pay the awarded amount to the petitioners and then recover the same from the respondents R1 and R2 by initiating proceedings without filing a separate suit for the said purpose.

The respondent R3 is directed to deposit the awarded amount within 30 days from the date of this order.

On such deposit, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the awarded compensation amount with proportionate costs and interest.

The Advocate fee is fixed Rs.6,000/-.

The Petitioner filed the petition vide I.A No.3273 of 2019 and as per the Orders in the said IA exempted for payment of court fee of Rs.3,360/- on the claim amount of

Rs.4,00,000/- vide its order dated: 17.07.2019. Therefore, the petitioner is directed to pay

Court fee of Rs.3,360/- and court fee on the more compensation awarded to him within 30 days from the date of this order.

Typed to my dictation by stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 20th day of May, 2025.

SD/- xxx

CHAIRMAN,

MACT - cum - X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad 16 MVOP 1273 of 2019, Dated: 20.05.2025 MACT-CUM-X Addl.C.J, CCC, HYD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PETITIONER:

PW1: Islavath Ravi.

PW2: Dr. V. Ravi Kumar.

PW2: Dr. Venugopal Palakurthi.

FOR THE RESPONDENTS:

RW1: Satyasri Burla.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PETITIONER:

ExA1 :Certified copy of FIR in Crime No.21 of 2019.

ExA2 :Certified copy of charge sheet.

ExA3 :Medico legal certificate, dated: 06.01.2019.

ExA4 :Discharge summary of I. Ravi.

ExA5 :Essentiality certificate issued by Dr. Venugopal Palakurthi.

ExA6 :IP final bill issued by Dr. Venugopal Palakurthi.

ExA7 :Cash receipt, dated: 06.01.2019.

ExA8 :Cash receipt, dated: 11.01.2019.

ExA9 :Discharge summary of I Ravi pertaining to Vijay Krishna, Ortho and Dental Hospital.

ExA10 :Discharge bill.

ExA11 :Requisition dated: 12.01.2019.

ExA12 :Medical receipt, dated: 12.01.2019.

ExA13 :Bunch of medical receipts, requisition cum receipt, OP bill cum receipt.

17 MVOP 1273 of 2019, Dated: 20.05.2025 MACT-CUM-X Addl.C.J, CCC, HYD

ExA14 :Outpatient record (2 in number).

ExA15 :Medical prescriptions (2 in number).

ExA16 :Medical receipt, dated: 03.03.2019.

ExA17 :Medical prescriptions, dated: 08.05.2024.

ExA18 : Medical reports (3 in number).

ExA19 :Medical prescriptions 06.01.2019.

ExA20 :Medical prescriptions 05.01.2019.

ExA21 :X-Ray films (5 in number).

FOR THE RESPONDENTS:

ExB1 :Certified copy of policy schedule cum certificate of insurance.

Ex.B2:Authorization letter, dated: 08.04.2025.

SD/- xxx

CHAIRMAN,

MACT - cum - X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad

IN THE COURT OF THE X ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE:

CITY CIVIL COURT: HYDERABAD

DATED THIS THE 21st DAY OF MAY, 2025

PRESENT: Ms N. AMARAVATHI, X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

MVOP. No.2033 of 2021

Between:

Hakeem Pasha, S/o. Goresab,

Aged about 35 years, Occ: Business,

Owner of Lorry Cement Tanker No. AP 28Y 1210,

R/o. H.No. 1-5, Gouthapur Village, Tandur Mandal,

Vikarabad District.

Presently residing at H.N o. 13-5-610/23/3,

Yousuf Nagar, Tappachabutra, Hyderabad-67.

...Petitioner

A n d

1. M. Ravi Kumar, s/o. M. Chandrashekar,

Aged Major, Occ: Driver of Lorry Cement Tanker

Bearing No. AP 28?Y 1210,

R/o.H.No. 1-30, Perur Village, Deverakadira Manda,

Mahaboobnagar District – 509 204.

2. The New India Assurance Company Limited

Rep.by its Manager, Office at New India Bhavan,

Plot no. 1,2 & 3, Industrial Area, Beside the

Hindu daily News Paper Office, I.D.A. Uppal,

Habsiguda Uppal R.R.District.

(Policy No. 61020231190100000843

Valid from 27.11.2019 to 26.11.2020)

...Respondents

Claim : This petition is filed under section 163-A of the M.V. Act.1988 and rule 455 of A.P. Motor Vehicle Rules 1989 R/W Section 140 of M.V. Act.1989.

This petition is coming on this day before me in the presence of Sri. N. Narotham Reddy, Advocate for petitioner; and that of K. Karam Chandra Reddy, advocate for Respondent no.1; and B. Sudhakar, advocate for Respondent no.2; and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:

D O C K E T O R D E R

Both sides present. I.A.No.1094 of 2025 disposed off. In view of orders in I.A.No.1094 of 2025, dt.21.05.2025, the MVOP is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file the same

before appropriate forum of law.

Written and Dictation and pronounced by me in open court on this the 21 st day of May, 2025.

Sd/-

X ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD.