1 MVOP 1445 of 2022, dated: 25.03.2026
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL: CUM:
XI ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE, CITY CIVIL COURTS AT
HYDERABAD
DATED THIS THE 25th DAY OF MARCH, 2026
PRESENT: Smt R. DANIE RUTH, XI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
MVOP No.1445 of 2022
Between:
Kartik Agarwal, S/o.Arjun Agarwal, Aged about 23 years, Occ: Presently nil, (Previously doing business in M/s.Sri Balaji Garments and Textiles), R/o.Flat No.708, Necklace Pride Apartments, Kavadiguda, Secunderabad. … Petitioner AND
1. P.Jagadiswar, S/o.P.Subhash, Aged : Major, Occ: Business/Owner cum Driver of Car Bearing No.TS 13 UB 8604, R/o.H.No.12-2-790/167/A/56/1, Sri Ram Nagar, Asifnagar, Hyderbad 500 028.
2. National Insurance Company Ltd., Rep., by its Divisional Manager, T.P.Claims Hub, Jubilee Building, Station Road, Abids, Hyderabad 500001. (Policy No.55300031201345777920
Valid from 18.12.2020 to 17.12.2021) ...Respondents
This petition coming before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri P.Chandra Mouli, Advocate for Petitioner; and that of Sri G.Koteswara Rao, Advocate for Respondent No.2 and respondent No.1 was set exparte; and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Tribunal made the following:
2 MVOP 1445 of 2022, dated: 25.03.2026
: O R D E R :
1.This is a petition filed by the petitioner under section 166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 to grant compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) to the petitioner for the injuries sustained by him in motor vehicle accident, with costs and interest @ 12% per annum from the date of accident till realization.
2.The averments in the petition in nutshell are, as follows:
I. On 27.10.2021 the petitioner was proceeding from airport side towards
Mehdipatnam as inmate in Uber Car bearing No.TS 13 UB 8604 and when the said car going on PVNR express way and reached at near pillar No.282,
Rajendranagar, at the same time one car bearing No.AP 28 BY 7755 had been parked beside divider, but the driver of Uber car bearing No.TS 13 UB 8604 driver drove his car in a rash and negligent manner with high speed without following traffic rules and without observing traffic on road and without blowing horn and lost the control over the same being he was uncontrol speed and hit to the parked car bearing No.AP 28 BY 7755, as a result of which the petitioner sustained fracture injury to left hand and other multiple injuries all over the body. Immediately after the accident, the petitioner was shifted to Care
Hospital, Banjarahills, Hyderabad for treatment and he was admitted as inpatient on 27.10.2021 and during the course of treatment he was undergone surgery and 3 MVOP 1445 of 2022, dated: 25.03.2026 was discharged on 30.10.2021 with an advice of follow up treatment. Thus the petitioner sustained multiple fracture injuries to his left hand and other multiple fracture injuries all over the body in road accident which occurred due to rash and negligent with high speed driving of driver of Uber car bearing No.TS 13
UB 8604 only, hence there is no negligence on the part of the petitioner as he was traveling in the car as inmate.
ii.On the report, Police of Rajendranagar Police Station, Cyberabad registered a case vide Crime No.2206 of 2021, under Section 338 IPC against the driver of the Car Bearing No.TS 13 UB 8604 and assured to alter the provision to 338 of IPC later on. There is no negligence on part of the petitioner.
iii.Prior to the accident, the petitioner was hale and healthy, aged about 23 years, and he was a business man and was running the business under the name and style M/s Sri Balaji Garments and Textiles at Secunderabad, and he used to earn Rs.5,00,000/- per annum and contribute the entire earnings for the welfare of his family. But he already wind up due to multiple fracture injuries sustained by him in a road accident, as he is not in a position to run the same. However, on account of the injuries sustained in the accident, he is suffering with total permanent disability along with 100% functional disability, as he is not in a position to do his business as prior to the accident and he also not in a position to take care for his personnel care as prior to the accident, as such the petitioner 4 MVOP 1445 of 2022, dated: 25.03.2026 constrained to engage one attendant to take of him round the clock being he constrained to bed since from the date of accident. The petitioner incurred and incurring huge expenditure towards hospitalization, medical treatment, transport, extra nourishment, attendant etc., Still he is undergoing treatment and he lost his entire earnings throughout his remaining life. He became total permanent disabled person at an young age 23 years only and he lost his amenities and social status. He and his entire family members all are experiencing mental agony due to the accident injuries. The petitioner is facing a lot of financial crisis for his day to day expenses as he incurred more than a sumo of
Rs.1,00,000/- for his treatment. Therefore, the petitioner claiming a sum of
Rs.10,00,000/- towards compensation.
iv.That the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Car Bearing No.TS 13 UB 8604, the respondent No.1 is the owner- cum-driver and respondent No.2 is the insurance company. Therefore, the respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. If the petitioner is entitled to more than the claim the same may be awarded and the petitioner undertakes to pay Court Fee. Hence, the petition.
3.On receipt of notice respondents appeared through its counsel and filed counter denying the material allegations regarding manner of accident, involving of crime vehicle and that the petitioner sustained injuries in the said accident and 5 MVOP 1445 of 2022, dated: 25.03.2026 that he took treatment for the injuries.
4.Respondents denied the age, income and occupation of petitioner at the time of accident and that respondent No.2 is not aware of registration of crime
No.104 of 2019 by P.S. Mattapalli against the driver of the Car Bearing No.TS 13 UB 8604. Respondents denied that the petitioner the injuries sustained i.e.,1.Right Distal 3rd humerus closed comminuted fracture with radial nerve injury, 2. head injury, 3. face injury and other injuries all over the body and immediately shifted to Care hospital, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad and further denied that the petitioner incurred losses and incurred expenditure as averred in the claim petition and that petitioner is not entitled to claim amount of
Rs.10,00,000/- on vague allegations and that respondents are not liable to pay compensation to the petitioner as the accident was not occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the car. The respondent No.2 further stated that in the event if insurance premium payment is made through cheque, and in consequences thereof any policy was issued by the respondent company, on the policy itself clearly mentioned that “in case dishonour of cheque, the document automatically cancelled ab-initio”, as such the respondent No.2 is not liable to pay any compensation and reserves their rights contemplated under Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988.
5.The respondent No.2 further stated that non compliance of the Section 6 MVOP 1445 of 2022, dated: 25.03.2026 158(5) of the M.V.Act 1988 by the said police does entail the petitioners had proved the accident, as such, the petitioners are called upon to examine the investigating officer of such crime and prove the charge sheet leveled by them against the respondent No.1. Further the respondent No.2 denied that the person who drove the UBER car bearing No.TS 13 UB 8604 at the time of accident was having valid subsisting driving license to drive such vehicle and the vehicle was road worthy to ply and having permit, fitness to drive at the alleged place.
6.Respondent No.2 pleaded to take all defences under Section 147 and 149 of M.V.Act which are available to respondent No.2. The claim of Rs.10,00,000/- is highly excessive and exorbitant. Hence, prayed to dismiss petition against this respondent with costs.
7.Basing on the pleading on both side the following issues have been framed for trial:
1. Whether the pleaded accident had occurred resulting in injuries
to the petitioner due to the rash and negligent driving of the car
bearing No.TS 13 UB 8604 by its driver?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation and, if
so, at what quantum and what is the liability of the
respondents?
3. To what relief?
7 MVOP 1445 of 2022, dated: 25.03.2026
8.During the course of trial P.W-1 to P.W-3 were examined and Ex.A-1 to
Ex.A-10 and Ex.X1 and X2 were exhibited. No witnesses are examined on behalf of respondents and no documents marked.
9.This tribunal heard the arguments on both sides.
10.The petitioner counsel filed written arguments and argued that the petitioner sustained injuries in the road accident and it is established through the documents filed by the petitioner and he sustained permanent disability and as such he is entitle for compensation.
11.ISSUE No.1: In the proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1998, the finding of negligence has to be recorded on preponderance of probabilities.
Therefore, both petitioners and respondents must lead appropriate evidence in support of their claim. The general purport of the word “res ipsa loquitor” is that the accident “speaks for itself ” or “ tells its own story”. The right of the victim in a road accident to claim compensation is a statutory one.
12.Petitioner herself examined as PW1 and filed an affidavit in lieu of her chief examination as contemplated under Order-XVIII, Rule-4 (1) of C.P.C. His evidence is nothing but replica of petition pleadings.
13.According to P.W-1 that on 27.10.2021 the petitioner was proceeding 8 MVOP 1445 of 2022, dated: 25.03.2026 from airport side towards Mehdipatnam as inmate in Uber Car bearing No.TS 13
UB 8604 and when the said car going on PVNR express way and reached at near pillar No.282, Rajendranagar, at the same time one car bearing No.AP 28
BY 7755 had been parked beside divider, but the driver of Uber car bearing
No.TS 13 UB 8604 driver drove his car in a rash and negligent manner with high speed without following traffic rules and without observing traffic on road and without blowing horn and lost the control over the same being he was uncontrol speed and hit to the parked car bearing No.AP 28 BY 7755, as a result of which the petitioner sustained fracture injury to left hand and other multiple injuries all over the body. Immediately after the accident, the petitioner was shifted to Care Hospital, Banjarahills, Hyderabad for treatment and he was admitted as inpatient on 27.10.2021 and during the course of treatment he was undergone surgery and was discharged on 30.10.2021 with an advice of follow up treatment. Thus the petitioner sustained multiple fracture injuries i.e., Right distal 3rd humerus closed comminuted fracture with radial nerve injury, head injury, face injury and other multiple fracture injuries all over the body in road accident which occurred due to rash and negligent with high speed driving of driver of Uber car bearing No.TS 13 UB 8604 only, hence there is no negligence on the part of the petitioner as he was travelling in the car as inmate.
9 MVOP 1445 of 2022, dated: 25.03.2026
14.PW1 further testified that he incurred more than a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards his treatment and hospitalization etc, but he lost some of his medical bills while travelling. He has to undergo further surgery for which he has to incur more than a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- towards the same. Due to injuries sustained by him, he is not in a position to take care his day to day needs, as such he constrained to engage one attendant by paying an amount of Rs.12,000/- per month for a period of 6 months. He further states that he was suffering with 45% permanent disability but whereas he was suffering with 100% functional disability being he is not in a position to do his business or to do any other work as prior to the accident. Thus, he became totally permanent disabled person at the age of 23 years only.
15.PW1 further testified that on the report, Police of Rajendranagar,
Cyberabad Police Station, registered a case vide Crime No.2206 of 2021, under
Section 338 IPC against the driver of the Car Bearing No.TS 13 UB 8604 and further stated that there is no negligence on part of the petitioner.
16.PW1 further testified that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Car Bearing No.TS 13 UB 8604, the respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 is Insured company.
Therefore, the respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner.
10 MVOP 1445 of 2022, dated: 25.03.2026
17.P.W-1 further categorically stated that the accident was occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle i.e., Car
Bearing No.TS 13 UB 8604 only and there is no negligence on the part of the petitioner. He further stated that prior to the accident, he was carrying out textile business by name and style M/s.Sri Balaji Garments & Textiles, Secunderabad and it is his own shop and he has not filed any document to show that he is the proprietor of the said shop, except GST Registration certificate and IT returns towards income proof. P.W-1 admitted that he was not wearing seat belt, as he was sitting back seat of car. Except hurling suggestions nothing worthwhile is elicited during the cross examination of P.W-1 to disbelieve his version. Except the vague assertion the respondents did not place any iota of evidence to show that the accident was occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the crime vehicle i.e., Car Bearing No.TS 13 UB 8604. This tribunal finds no reason to disbelieve the version of P.W-1.
18.In Bimla Devi & Others V. Himachal Road Transport Corporation &
Others1, Kaushnumma Begum and others v/s New India Assurance
Company Limited2 and in National Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Pushpa Rana3, it has been held that “the negligence has to be decided on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and a holistic view is to be taken. It has been 1 (2009) 13 SC 530 22001 ACJ 421 SC 32009 ACJ 287 11 MVOP 1445 of 2022, dated: 25.03.2026 further held that the proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act are not akin to the proceedings in a Civil Suit and hence, strict rules of evidence are not applicable”.
19.It is pertinent to see that the petitioner have filed certified copies of first information report (Ex.A-1) and charge sheet (Ex.A-2). It is not in dispute that the Police Cyberabad, Rajendranagar Police Station, registered a case in Crime
No.2206/2021 under section 337 IPC and later it was altered under Section 338
IPC against the driver of the crime vehicle. After completion of investigation the investigating officer filed charge sheet against the driver of the Car Bearing
No.TS 13 UB 8604 stating that the accident was occurred due to the negligent act of the driver of the car who drove the same in rash and negligent manner and dashed to the stationed Car Bearing No.TS 13 UB 8604.
20.From the material on record, it is clear that the petitioner sustained injuries in road accident. In view of the evidence of P.W-1 coupled with the
Ex.A-1 and Ex.A-2 this tribunal is not hesitant to hold that the petitioner established that he sustained injuries in the accident due to the rash and negligent driving of driver of Car Bearing No.TS 13 UB 8604. Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
21.ISSUE No.2: As issue No.1 is decided in favour of petitioner by holding 12 MVOP 1445 of 2022, dated: 25.03.2026 that the driver of the crime vehicle i.e., Car Bearing No.TS 13 UB 8604 was driven by the driver in a rash and negligent manner which resulted in the said accident.
22.The petitioner proved that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle i.e., Car Bearing No.TS 13 UB 8604 and the petitioner sustained grievous injury. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the accident.
23.Now, it has to be decided what is the just compensation payable to the petitioner for the injuries sustained by him in the accident.
24.Loss of Earning and deduction towards personal expenses: According to the petitioner, petitioner was hale and healthy prior to the accident. Prior to the accident, the petitioner was doing business under name and style in M/s. Sri
Balaji Garments and Textiles at Secunderabad and used to earn Rs.5,00,000/- per annum and contributing the entire amount for the welfare of his family. That on account of the accident, petitioner is confined to bed and he was constrained to close his shop. To prove the income of the petitioner, he has filed Income tax returns for the assessment year 2019-2020, 2020- 2021 and 2021-2022. On perusal of Ex.A10 income tax returns for the year 2019-2020 and 2020-2021 it goes to show that the petitioner’s income is Rs.2,95,450/- per annum in the year 13 MVOP 1445 of 2022, dated: 25.03.2026 2019-2020. However, since the petitioner himself pleaded his income as
Rs.2,95,450/- the income of the petitioner is considered as Rs.23,000/- per month and the loss of earning is Rs.23,000/- x 4 months = Rs.92,000/-
25.Disability: It is the case of the petitioner that he sustained grievous injuries i.e., closed comminuted fracture distal 3rd right humeur, with radial nerve injury, ORIF done with Neurolysis of Radial nerve, Malunion of fracture with weakness of right humeur grip due to neuroproxia and other multiple injuries all over the body.
26.In support of the case, petitioner got examined Dr.G.Subhash Rao,
Orthopedic Surgeon as P.W-2 deposed that the petitioner sustained closed fracture communited fracture of distal 3rd of right Humerus with Radial Nerve
Injury and he was operated open reduction and internal fixation with plate and screws with neurosis’s of radial nerve done. Subsequently the patient developed malunion of fracture with weakness of right ankle due to neuro proxia. He also developed wasting of right upper limb muscle. PW2 further deposed that due to the said injuries, he has developed moderate stiffness of right elbow with range of movements 0º to 100º. Because of the above problem he cannot do normal and heavy work with right upper limb. He estimated 45% permanent disability.
The injuries sustained by the patient grievous in nature under Ex.A8.
14 MVOP 1445 of 2022, dated: 25.03.2026
27.PW2 further deposed that the in his cross examination, his registration
No.6826 the AP State Medical Counsel and he has not holding any identity such as the registration certificate and the identity card issued by State Medical
Counsel. The date of accident occurred on 27.10.2021 and as per Ex.A4, the discharge summary they did open reduction operated for humeral fracture and radial nerve injury and at the time of discharge the patient was stable and he examined the patient clinically. He verified the x-ray dated 10.01.2023 and discharge summary of Care Hospital i.e., Ex.A4. This type of fracture will take 4 to 6 months for union. He denied the suggestion that the fracture was union in normal position. On the basis of physical examination of the injured limb.
Range of movement of the elbow which he measured with the help of Gonio
Meter. Mal Union of the fractured bones with vesting of upper limb. Muscles and he assessed the 45% permanent disability. Except right upper limb bone i.e., humerus the remaining bones and joints of the body normal. PW2 admitted that Ex.A4, A5, A6, A7, A8 and part of Ex.A9 pertains to their
Hospital.
28.Nothing elicited during the cross examination of these witnesses to disbelieve their evidence. Considering the evidence of P.W2, PW3 coupled with
Ex.A3 to Ex.A9 and Ex.X1 this Tribunal held that the injuries sustained by the petitioner are grievous in nature. Though he filed the disability certificate, it 15 MVOP 1445 of 2022, dated: 25.03.2026 clearly shows that the injuries are partial disability, it does not amounts to amputation. The Tribunal, upon careful appreciation of the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3, coupled with Ex.A3 to Ex.A9 and Ex.X1, rightly came to the conclusion that the petitioner sustained grievous injuries in the accident. The disability certificate placed on record discloses that the petitioner suffered 45% partial permanent disability. However, the Tribunal observed that the said disability does not amount to amputation and is only partial in nature. The
Tribunal further took into consideration the occupation of the petitioner, who is running a shop at Secunderabad. It was of the view that the nature of his work does not require strenuous physical activity, as his primary duty would be to sit at the cash counter and manage collections. On that premise, the Tribunal assessed that the functional disability affecting his earning capacity would be much lower than the medical disability certified.
29.Accordingly, though the medical evidence indicates 45% disability, the
Tribunal considered only 5% partial and permanent disability for the purpose of calculating compensation towards loss of earning capacity, holding that the injuries would not substantially affect his day-to-day business activities. Hence this Tribunal feels the disability to be taken as 5% as he can do work as the fractures would be healed. Accordingly he is entitled for 5% of Disability.
(Rs.23,000 x 5% = 1,150 x 12 = Rs.13,800 x 18= Rs.2,48,400/-).
16 MVOP 1445 of 2022, dated: 25.03.2026
30.Age of the petitioner: According to the petitioner, he is aged about 23 years at the time of accident. To prove the age of the petitioner, petitioner has not filed any documents to show that he is aged about 23 years as on the date of accident. Since the petitioner failed to file any documentary evidence to prove that he is aged about 23 years as on the date of accident, this court on perusing the medical records considered that the petitioner is aged about 23 years as on the date of accident and the same is considered for calculation of compensation towards disability.
31.Since the age of the petitioner was 23 years as on the date of accident multiplier to be applied as per Sarla Verma’s Case is 18 for ascertaining loss, as the petitioner is in the age group of 15 to 20, 20 to 25 years.
32.Transport to hospital: Admittedly, the accident was taken place on 27.10.2021 at about 16.30 hours at pillar No.282, Rajendranager and immediately after the accident, he was shifted to Care Hospital, Banjarahills where he was treated as inpatient and underwent surgeries. Even though the petitioner did not produce bill with regard to transportation and did not examine any person, considering the nature of the injuries sustained by the petitioner and also the place of accident this Tribunal feels that a reasonable amount has to be awarded under this head and this Tribunal found that an amount of Rs.10,000/- is considered to be reasonable. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to claim an 17 MVOP 1445 of 2022, dated: 25.03.2026 amount of Rs.10,000/- under the head of transport expenditure.
33.Extra Nourishment:Though the petitioner proved that she sustained injuries in the accident and she was admitted hospital, there is no evidence
before this Tribunal that the doctor prescribed to take vitamin food and other
medicines for energy. Anyhow, considering the nature of the injuries received by the petitioner, her age and nature of disability, though there is no evidence
before this Tribunal, this Tribunal feels that an amount of Rs.10,000/- is found to
be reasonable amount. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to claim an amount of
Rs.10,000/- under the head of extra nourishment.
34.Medical expenditure: It is the case of the petitioner that immediately after the accident the petitioner was shifted to Care Hospital, Banjara Hills and where he treated as inpatient and underwent surgeries. To prove the same, petitioner got examined Dr.Ajit Singh, Medical Superintendent of Care Hospital,
Banjara Hills as PW3. PW3 deposed that the patient/petitioner by name Karthik
Agarwal admitted in their hospital on 27.10.2021 due to RTA after clinical and radiologically examination the patient injured with right distal 3rd humerus closed comminuted fracture with Radial Nerve Injury. The injuries are grievous injuries. PW3 further stated that on 28.10.2021 he underwent operation to Right
Humerus Orif + AP Procedure + Plating + Neurolysis of Radial Nerve Done under Regional Anaesthesia and discharged on 30.10.2021 with followup advise.
18 MVOP 1445 of 2022, dated: 25.03.2026
During the course of treatment patient paid an amount of Rs.1,19,423/- by way of cash apart from that Rs.23,257/- towards OP consultation and Pharmacy paid to their hospital. The patient visited their hospital for regular followup. Ex.A3,
Ex.4, Ex.A5, Ex.A7 and Ex.A9 are issued by their hospital. Ex.X1 IP Bill and
Ex.X2 case sheet was marked by PW3. In cross-examination, PW3 categorically stated that during the course in patient of treatment the patient paid an amount of
Rs.1,19,423/- and no discount have been provided by their hospital. He has admitted under Star Health Insurance and the entire amount of Rs.1,19,423/- is paid by the Star Health Insurance Company. As per Ex.X1/IP bill the patient had not paid any amount from his pocket the entire amount is paid by the Star
Health Insurance. Ex.X1 is signed by one of their the then billing incharges and
Rs.23,257/- towards OP consultation and pharmacy paid to their hospital according to pharmacy bills and OP bills.
35.The contention of the respondent No.2 in cross-examination of PW3 is that the petitioner has not paid the hospital bills, the Star Health Insurance has paid the same. In Bombay High Court (Full Bench) - New India Assurance
Co. Ltd. vs. Dolly Satish Gandhi (2025): In a major ruling, a Full Bench held that Mediclaim benefits are irrelevant to motor accident compensation. The court noted that these benefits are a "return for making payment of premiums" and should not result in the "unjust enrichment" of the respondent insurance 19 MVOP 1445 of 2022, dated: 25.03.2026 company.
36. Therefore, the petitioner proves that he incurred a sum of Rs.1,49,930/- towards medical expenses under Ex.A5 and Rs.1,19,423/- under Ex.X1. P.W-2 and P.W-3 was cross examined by the counsel for the respondents but nothing is elicited from their mouth to disbelieve their evidence. Therefore, considering the evidence of P.W-2 and P.W-3 coupled with Ex.A3 to Ex.A9 and Ex.X1 and other medical bills this Tribunal held that the petitioner incurred a sum of
Rs.2,69,353/- and the petitioner is entitled for the same towards medical expenses.
37.Pain and suffering: It is the case of petitioner, that due to the injuries she suffered permanent disability and completely bed ridden. It is in the evidence of
P.W-2 and PW-3 that the petitioner suffered 45% disability and was unable to do any work due to the physical disability. Therefore, considering the evidence of
P.W-2 and 3, this court inclined to grant a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards pain and sufferings.
38.In view of above circumstances and discussion this tribunal holds that the petitioner is entitled for compensation under different heads as per the following table:
20 MVOP 1445 of 2022, dated: 25.03.2026
Compensation Sl. No. Heads Amount
1.Compensation towards Loss of earnings Rs.92,000-00
2.Compensation towards disabilityRs.2,48,400-00
3.Compensation towards transportationRs.10,000-00
4.Compensation towards extra nourishmentRs.10,000-00
5.Compensation towards Medical expenditureRs.2,69,353-00
6.Compensation towards pain and sufferingRs.1,00,000-00 TOTAL: Rs. 7,29,753-00
39.The claim petitioner is entitled to claim a total compensation of
Rs.7,29,753/-.
40.Liability: According to the petitioner, the 1st respondent is the crime vehicle owner-cum-driver, 2nd respondent is the insurer of crime vehicle. The respondents No.1 was remained exparte. No witness was examined on behalf of respondent No.2, though filed Ex.B1 which was marked with consent. From
Ex.B1 it is clear that the crime vehicle was insured with respondent No.2 and the policy was in force from 18.12.2020 to 17.12.2021. Admittedly the accident occurred on 27.10.2021. Hence the policy was in force as on the date of accident. It is the contention of the respondents that due to the negligence of the petitioner only and there is no fault on the part of the driver of the crime vehicle.
The respondent No.2 further stated that in the event if insurance premium payment is made through cheque, and in consequences thereof any policy was issued by the respondent company, on the policy itself clearly mentioned that “in 21 MVOP 1445 of 2022, dated: 25.03.2026 case dishonour of cheque, the document automatically cancelled ab-initio”, as such the respondent No.2 is not liable to pay any compensation and reserves their rights contemplated under Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988.
However, as there is no evidence on behalf of the respondents this Tribunal holds that the respondents No.1 and 2 being owner and insurer of the crime vehicle are liable to pay the compensation. Hence they are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner.
41.Rate of interest: As per the principles laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in New India Assurance Company Limited–Appellant V. Charlie and another, reported in 2005 ACJ 1131, this Tribunal award an interest @ 7.5% per annum on the compensation amount. Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
42. ISSUE No.3:In view of findings and conclusions on the above issues, this Tribunal holds that the petitioner is entitled for compensation against respondents No.1 and 2. Accordingly, this issue is answered.
IN THE RESULT, petition filed by the petitioner is allowed by awarding a total compensation of Rs.7,29,753/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Twenty Nine
Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty Three only) with proportionate costs against the respondents and they are jointly and severally with subsequent 22 MVOP 1445 of 2022, dated: 25.03.2026 interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of deposit of the amount;
The respondents No.1 and 2 are directed to deposit the awarded amount within one month from the date of this Award.
After deposit, father of petitioner is permitted to withdraw the awarded amount of compensation with costs and interest.
Petitioner paid court of Rs.9,360/- on the claim amount of Rs.10,00,000/- and now petitioner is directed to pay court fee, if any.
The office is directed to prepare decree on payment of court fee.
The Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.10,000/-.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 25 th day of March, 2026.
CHAIRMAN,
MACT - cum - XI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PETITIONER
P.W-1: Kartik Agarwal P.W-2: Dr. G.Subhash Rao P.W-3: Dr.Ajit Singh.
23 MVOP 1445 of 2022, dated: 25.03.2026
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR RESPONDENTS
- NONE -
DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PETITIONERS
Ex.A-1 Certified copy of first information report with complaint.
Ex.A-2 Certified copy of charge sheet.
Ex.A-3 Certified copy of MLC
Ex.A-4 Discharge Summary
Ex.A-5 Bunch of Medical Bills for tune of Rs.1,49,930/-
Ex.A-6 OP Follow up tickets ( No.2)
Ex.A-7 OP Follow up record books (Nos.3)
Ex.A-8 Disability Certificate
Ex.A-9 X ray films (Nos.19)
Ex.A-10 Income tax returns for the assessment year 2019-2020, 2020-2021.
Ex.X1:IP Bill
Ex.X2:Case Sheet
DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR RESPONDENTS
- Nil -
CHAIRMAN,
MACT - cum - XI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad