IN THE COURT OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
-CUM- II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, NIZAMABAD
Present: Sri S. Narayana, Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum-II Addl. District Judge, Nizamabad.
Dated this the 04th day of May, 2026
MVOP.No.197 of 2022
Between:- Shivarala Narsimloo S/o: Mallaiah, Aged about: 30 years, Occu: Labourer, R/o: H.No.4-57/9, Wadlakonda Warangal 506167 (T.S.), presently residing at H.No.1-75/10, Mubaraknagar, Nizamabad ….Petitioner.
And
1. Mr. Pedawar Erranna S/o: Govind Rao, Aged: Major, R/o: H.No.10-9-542/9, Santosh Nagar, Varni Road, Nizamabad- 503001 (T.S.) (Owner of the Van bearing No.TS.16.uc.2837)
2. The Manager, New India Assurance Company Limited, Subhashnagar, Opposite Zilla Parishad, Nizamabad-503001 (T.S.) (Insurer of the Van bearing No.TS.16.UC.2837 vide Policy No.610600312001100004119 valid from 28-01-2021 to 27.01.2022)
.... Respondents.
Sub:- Petition filed u/s 166 (1) (a) of the M.V. Act, 1988 for a total compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by the petitioner in a motor accident.
The petition is coming up before me for final hearing on 01-05-2026 in the presence of Sri G. Gangaram, Advocate for the petitioner and of Sri Birla Rama Rao, Advocate for the respondent No.2 and the respondent No.1 remained exparte and upon perusing the material on record, the Tribunal delivered the following:-
A W A R D
This claim petition is filed u/Sec.166 (1) (a) of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter be referred to as 'the M.V. Act' in short) r/w Rule 455 of the T.S.M.V. Rules, 1989 (in short 'M.V.
Rules') seeking a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- from the respondents 1 and 2 for the injuries suffered by him in a road accident occurred on 04-03-2021.
2.The case of the claimant as averred in his claim petition, of which the facts are succinctly stated as follows:-
On 04-03-2021, the petitioner along with Badnate Suresh and Badnate Vittal were travelling in Van bearing
No.TS.16.UC.3837 along with 50 goats to sell the same in
Kamareddy. At about 0900 hours, when they reached in their car at Terkriyal village shivar, District Kamareddy, the driver of the van drove the van with a high speed in a rash and negligent manner and the tyre of the said van was bursted on the road.
As a result of which, the petitioner and other inmates fell down from the van on ground, and the petitioner and other inmates sustained multiple and grievous injuries.
The petitioner sustained grievous injury on his head, abrasion on the left shoulder, contusion on the left parietal region, injuries on the hands, leg and back and also received injuries other parts of his body. After the accident the father of petitioner went to Devanpally Police Station and lodged written complaint and the police registered a case in Cr.No.153/2021 under section 337 IPC against the respondent No.1 herein. After the accident the petitioner went to the Government Hospital,
Kamareddy, from there he went to Wellness Hospital,
Hyderabad where he took the treatment. Again petitioner was shifted to NIMS Hospital where he underwent to head surgery by incurring expenditure more than Rs.1,20,000/- towards medicines and for extra nourishment.
Prior to the accident, the petitioner was hale and healthy and was aged 30 years and working as labour and getting income of Rs.20,000/- per month. Since the petitioner sustained grievous injury on his head, underwent head surgery and sustained permanent partial disability, lost his earning power and became depending upon others. The petitioner has been suffered with pain and still the petitioner is suffering with giddiness.
The accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offender vehicle car bearing
No.TS.16.UC.2837. The respondent No.1 being the owner of the van, the respondent No.2 being the insured of the van are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner. After completion of investigation, Police Devanpally filed charge sheet against the respondent NO.1 under section 337 IPC. The petitioner is also seeking the costs of the petition and also the subsequent interest at 24% per annum on the compensation payable to the petitioners, from the date of the accident till the date of realization.
3.On the receipt of the notices issued by the Tribunal, the respondent No.1 remained exparte. The respondent No.2 made his appearance through his advocate. The contentions raised by the respondent No.2 in the claim petition.
4.The contentions raised by the second respondent in the counter are summarily stated as follows:-
This respondent denied the liability to pay the compensation to the petitioner and also further denied the negligence on the part of R.1 in driving the insured van. It is an alternative plea taken by this respondent that R.1 had no valid driving licence and that the insured van had no road permit to ply on the road at the relevant time of the accident and by committing these breaches to the terms of the insurance policy, the owner of the vehicle was violated the terms of the policy and that breach committed by owner of the vehicle absolved the liability of this respondent to pay any compensation to the petitioners. This respondent termed the compensation claimed by the petitioner as excessive and exorbitant. With these main contentions, this respondent prayed the Tribunal to dismiss the petition with costs.
5.Upon the pleadings of both the parties, the following issues were settled on 16-02-2024:-
(i)Whether the pleaded injuries are received by the petitioner in an accident caused by the driver of the van bearing
No.TS.16.UC.2837 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner on 04-03-2021?
(ii)Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondent?
(iii) To what relief?
During the course of enquiry, Petitioner himself examined as Pw.1 and also adused evidencde of PW2 the doctor and
Ex.A1 to A4, Ex.C1 were marked on behalf of the petitioner. No witnesses were examined on behalf of respondent No.2 and
Ex.B1 was marked on behalf of respondent No.2.
8.After the completion of the enquiry, the learned counsel for both sides submitted arguments and, thereafter, the petition is coming for the passing of award.
9.Issue No.1
Whether the pleaded injuries are received by the petitioner in an accident caused by the driver of the van bearing
No.TS.16.UC.2837 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner on 04-03-2021?
The issue relate to the ascertainment of the fact as to on whose negligence the accident took place. According to the petitioner, the accident took place as a result of the rashness and negligence on the part of R.1 being the driver of the van involved in the accident and, on the other hand, it is the contention of the Pw.1 that the respondent No.1 due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 drove the van with high speed in a rash and negligent manner due to which the tyre of the van burst and the van was turned turtle and caused the accident and sustained injuries. During the cross examination Pw.1 denied the suggestion that he was gracious passenger and the respondent No.2 not liable to pay the compensation. He admitted that he has not filed any record to show his income of Rs.20,000/-.
Pw.2 Dr. Chandrashekar deposed that Pw.1 came to their hospital on 04-03-2021 at 2.00 p.m., he examined Pw.1 and found (I) abrasion on right knee, (ii) abrasion on right hand, (iii) abrasion on left shoulder, (iv) abrasion on left side on abdomen,
(v) head injury with LOC (Loss of conscious) ENT bleed. He further deposed that the injury Nos.1 to 4 are simple in nature and injury No.5 is grievous in nature. Pw.1 was treated as inpatient from 04-03-2021 to 08-03-2021 and he incurred an expenditure of Rs.3,50,000/- for treatment.
10.PW.1 is the direct witness to the accident and he is the injured in the accident. As could be seen from Ex.A2 certified copy of the charge sheet filed by the S.I of Police, Devanpally
P.S., Lws.2 and 3 these two witnesses are cited as the list witnesses 2 and 3 in the charge sheet to speak about the occurrence of the accident and they also sustained injuries.
PW.1 deposed in his evidence that the accident occurred due to the rashness and negligence on the part of R.1 and that they fell down from the van due to burst the tyre of van and sustained injuries. PW.1 has also further relied upon the documentary evidence relating to the investigation done by the
S.I of Police into the accident for the purpose of filing a charge sheet under the original of Ex.A2. Ex.A1 is the certified copy of the F.I.R., registered by the police at Devanpally on a report lodged by the father of PW.1 about the accident, Ex.A2 is the certified copy of the charge sheet filed by the S.I of Police,
Devanpally P.S., against R.1 for the offence u/sec.337 of IPC
before the Second Class Judicial Magistrate, Kamareddy and
Ex.A3 is the medical bills. As per the conclusions arrived at by the S.I of Police, Devanpally P.S., on a full-fledged investigation, the accident occurred as a result of the rashness and negligence on the part of R.1 being the driver of the van and there is no whisper anywhere in the charge sheet about any contributory negligence on the part of PW.1. Besides these documents, the claimant has also filed the other documents which relate to the treatment undergone by PW.1 in other private hospitals, which are not the documents enclosed to the charge sheet under the original of Ex.A2 and upon which the police had not placed reliance, but those are the documents which relate to the present claim petitions. Except giving suggestions to PW.1 that the accident did not occur due to the rashness and negligence on the part of R.1, the respondent
No.2 did not choose to place any evidence to prove and substantiate the stand of the respondents. Nothing prevented the respondent No.2 from examining the first respondent who will be the best witness to speak about the ocular version of the accident but, the respondent No.2, for the reasons best known to him, did not do so and he did not enter into witness box to disprove the contention of respondent No.2. In the absence of any iota of evidence placed by the respondent No.2 to disprove, discredit and discard the testimony of PW.1 about the manner of the accident, the bald contentions of the respondent
No.2 against the evidence of PW.1 cannot be given any credence. The evidence of PW.1 coupled with the documentary evidence referred above, proved the case of the claimant about the manner of the accident and, more especially, about the rashness and negligence on the part of R.1 in causing the accident. Since the petitioner could prove that he sustained injuries in the accident, he is entitled to seek the compensation for the injuries sustained in the accident. The liability of the respondents to pay the compensation will be discussed under separate issues hereunder, but so far as the present issues are concerned, it is decided that the accident occurred as a result of the rashness and negligence on the part of R.1 being the driver of the van and that the petitioner is entitled to seek the compensation for the injuries sustained. Accordingly, the issue is decided in favour of the claimant and against the respondents.
11.Issue No.2
(ii)Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondent?
The issues relate to the liability of the respondents 1 and to pay the compensation to the petitioner. Having held in the foregoing discussion under the issue 1 above, that the accident occurred as a result of the rashness and negligence on the part of R.1 in driving the van and that the petitioner is entitled to seek the compensation for the injuries sustained in the accident, now, it is the endeavour of the Tribunal to decide the liability of the respondents to pay the compensation to the petitioner.
12.The claimant deposed about his injuries sustained in the accident and he also adduced the medical evidence of PW.1 in support of the documentary evidence placed by the petitioner.
PW.2 Dr. Chandrashekar of Wellness Hospital, Ameerpet,
Hyderabad deposed that on 04-03-2021 at 2.00 p.m., Pw.1 came to their hospital for treatment. He examined Pw.1 and found (i) abrasion on right knee, (ii) abrasion on right hand, (iii) abrasion on left shoulder, (iv) abrasion on left side on abdomen,
(v) head injury with LOC (Loss of conscious) ENT bleed. He further deposed that the injury Nos.1 to 4 are simple in nature and injury No.5 is grievous in nature. Pw.1 was treated as inpatient from 04-03-2021 to 08-03-2021 and he incurred an expenditure of Rs.3,50,000/- for treatment. As could be seen from the medical evidence of the petitioner consisting of both oral evidence of the doctor coupled with the documentary evidence including Ex.A3, which is a certificate issued by the
Wellness Hospital authorities on the examination of PW.1, it is clear that PW.1 sustained four simple injuries and one grievous injury. Ex.A3 are the medical bills issued by Wellness Hospital,
Ameerpet, Hyderabad, of which PW.2 deposed in his evidence.
13.PW.1 made the self-serving oral statements in his evidence that he was earning Rs.20,000/- per month working as labour and, as admitted by him in his respective examination- in-cross, he did not place any iota of evidence to prove his income by the date of the accident. PW.1 has also not placed any evidence before the Tribunal to show that he was working as labour and earned an amount of Rs.25,000/- per month.
Since it is the fact seen from the record that PW.1 sustained four simple injuries and one grievous injury, PW.1 is entitled to some reasonable amount towards the compensation. For the one grievous injuries sustained by PW.1 to that effect he has not placed before the court that Pw.1 received grievous injury but except the evidence of Pw.2. Pw.1 is awarded a compensation of Rs.15,000/- for grievous injury towards the pain and suffering. The claimant claiming total compensation
Rs.12,33,000/- out of which claiming only a sum of
Rs.3,00,000/-. He is also granted a reasonable sum of
Rs.1,29,170/- towards the medical expenses under Ex.A3 medical bills. The loss of income and the expenses on nutritious diet, transportation and the costs of attendant are estimated at
Rs.40,000/- and this amount is added to the compensations arrived above. Thus, PW.1 is entitled to Rs.1,84,170/- towards the compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the accident.
14.Coming to the ascertainment of the liability of the respondents 1 and 2, they failed to prove anything against their liability except taking a bald contention in the counter that he is not liable to pay the compensation but the respondent No.1 only is liable to pay the compensation amount to the petitioner.
This Tribunal has no doubt in holding that respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner.
18.Issue No.3 Issues 1 and 2 are decided in favour of the petitioners.
In the result, the petition is partly allowed with proportionate costs, thereby awarding a compensation of
Rs.1,84,170/- (Rupees one lakh eighty four thousand one hundred and seventy only) to the petitioner along with an interest thereon @ 9% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization. The respondents shall deposit this amount of compensation within thirty days from the date of this award as mandated u/Sec.168 (3) of the M.V. Act and, upon such deposit, the petitioner is permitted to receive the entire amount. The fee of the counsel for the petitioner is fixed at
Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only).
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 04th day of May, 2026.
Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum-II Addl. District Judge, Nizamabad.
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined
For Petitioner:-
PW.1:Shivarla Narsimloo PW.2:Dr. Chandra Shekar
For Respondents:-
--Nil--
Exhibits Marked.
For Petitioner:
Ex.A1C.C. of the F.I.R., in Cr.No.153/2021 of P.S. Devanpally
Ex.A2C.C of the charge sheet,
Ex.A3Medical Bills of Wellness Hospital, Hyderabad
Ex.A4Copy of insurance policy
For Respondents:
Ex.B1Policy copy with terms and conditions,
Ex.C1Case sheet
Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum-II Addl. District Judge, Nizamabad.