,•1 .

[Against final Judgment and Order dated 28.04.2023 passed

in MAGMA No. 637 of 2019 by the High Court ofTelangana
at Hyderabad].

WITH PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF

IN THE MATTER OF:-

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. . ..Petitioner

Versus

Vallepu Laxmi & Anr. ...Respondents

Gs b It
I.A. No.. .......... of 2024: Application for Condonation of

•
Delay ·

61 (, 0
/:}-
r.A. No............ of 2024: Application for Exemption
from filing Certified Copy

[FO~ INDEX KINDLY SEE INSIDE]

ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER: RAJESH K. GUPTA

(CODE: 1192)
 INDEX

SI Particulars of Page No of Part to Remarks

No Documents which rt belongs

Part 1 Part 2

Contents Contents
of Paper- of the Frie
Book alone
Court Fees
1 Office Report on A A
L1m1tat1on

2 Lrstmq Performa A1-A2 A1-A2

3 Cover Page of Paper- A3

Book

4 Index of Record of A4
Proceedrnqs

5 LJmrtabon Report A5
prepared bv the Registry

6 Defect List A6

7 Note Sheet NS 1 to

8 Synopsis and List of B -J

Dates

9 A true copy of the final 1 -22

Judgment and Order
dated 28 04 2023 passed
rn MAGMA No 637 of
2019 by the High Court of
Telangana at Hyderabad

10 Special Leave PetrtJon 23 -35

wrth AffrdaVJt

11 Appendix - 1 (Section 39 -43

166 168 and 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act 1988
 12 Annexure P-1 44-63
A true copy of the Award
dated 7 07 2014 passed
m Ongmal Petrt1on No 37
of 2010 by the Court of
the Chairman, Motor
Vehicle Aoodents Claims
Tnbuna cum II Addi
D1stnct Judge
Kanmnagar at Jgt1al

13 IA No of 2024 64 -67

0 Am2hcatJon for
CondonatJon of Delay

14 IA No of 2024 68 -70
Ao12hcat1on for Exem12t1on
from filing certified co12y of
lm12ugned Judgmen!

15 F/M 71

16 Vakalatnama 72 -73

0
 A
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO OF 2024

IN THE MATTER OF

0 United India Insurance Co Ltd Pet1t1oner

Versus

Vallepu Laxm1 & Anr Respondents

OFFICE REPORT ON LIMITATION

1 The Petition 1s/are within time

2 The Petition 1s barred by time and there 1s delay of 213

days 1n filing the same against order dated 28 04 2023
0 and pet1t1on for condonat1on of 213 days delay has
been filed

3 There 1s delay of _ _ _ days 1n refiling the pet1t1on

and pet1t1on for condonat1on of _ _ _ _ _ days delay
1n ref1l1ng has been filed

Branch Officer

Dated 26 02 2024
 A1
PROFORMA FOR FIRST LISTING
SECTION - IV-A
The case pertains to (Please tick/check the correct box)

0 Central Act (Title) The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

0 Section S 166, S 168 & S 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988

0 Central Rule (Title) NIA

0 Rule No(s) NIA

0 State Act (Title) NIA

0 0 Section NIA
0 State Rule (Title) NIA
0 Rule No(s) NIA
0 Impugned Interim Order (Date) 28 04 2023

0 Impugned Final Order/Decree (Date) NIA

0 High Court I CommIss1on High Court of Telangana at
Hyderabad

0 Name of Judges Hon ble Sn Justice Pulla Karth1k

0 Tnbunal/ Authority (Name) NIA

1 Nature of matter ~C1v1I D Criminal
0 2 (a) Pet1t1oner/appellant No 1 United Insurance Co Ltd
(b) e-mail ID NIA

(c) Mobile phone number N/A

3 (a) Respondent No 1

(b) e-mail ID N/A

(c) Mobile phone number NIA

4 (a) Main category classrf1cat1on 12 Compensation Matters

(b) Sub class1flcat1on 1201 Motor Accident Claim

Matters Involving Permanent D1sab11ity

 A2
5 Not to be listed before NIA

6 (a) S1m1lar disposed off matter with cItat1ons,

1f any, & case details No any matter

(b) S1m1lar pending matters with case details No any matter

7 Criminal Matters NIA

(a) Whether accused/convict has surrendered O Yes 0 No

(b) FIR No _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Date _ _ _ __
(c) Police Station _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

0 (d)
(e)
Sentence Awarded _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Sentence Undergone _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

8 Land Acqu1s1tron Matters N/A

(a) Date of Section 4 notJfJcat1on _ _ _ _ _ __

(b) Date of Section 6 not1ficat1on _ _ _ _ _ __
(c) Date of Section 17 not1ficat1on _ _ _ _ _ __

9 Tax Matters State the tax effect NIA

10 Special Category (first pet1tJoner/appellant only) NIA

0 Senior cItIzen > 65 years O SC/ST O Woman/child O Disabled

0 Legal Aid case O In custody

0 11 Vehicle Number (in case of Motor Accident matters) AP 36 X 1786

Date 26 02 2024 RaJesh K Gupta

AOR for petItIoner
Code No 1192
Mobile 98 110 22032
E-mail raIeshkqupta1@gma1I com
 B
SYNOPSIS

By this Special Leave Pebbon the PetIt1oner herein Is

challenging the impugned final Judgment and Order dated

28 04 2023 passed in MAGMA No 637 of 2019 by the High

Court of Telangana at Hyderabad whereby the High Court

0 below erroneously allowed the Appeal as flied by the

claimant/ respondent no 1 and enhanced the compensation

from Rs 11,32,000/- to Rs 62,03,587/- that Is exorbitant as

per settled law

In R Venkaka Ramana 's case, infra, a 17-year-old student,

whose condition was much worse than a 14 year old student

herein, this Hon'ble Court awarded a total compensation of

Rs 18,75,600/-

0
In R Venkata Ramana v Umted India Insurance Co Ltd,

(2013) 1 O sec 673 the material facts, as outlined by this

Hon'ble Court were as under

"7 We have considered the facts and the Injuries

suffered by RaJanala Rav, Krishna, who was hardly a
17 year old student at the time of the accident Upon
perusal of the evidence, we find that the cond1t1on of
RaJanala Ravi Krishna, after the accident has become
very pathetic Evidence adduced by the neurologist
and other evidence also reveals that RaJanala Ravi
Knshna shall not be in a posItIon to speak for his life
 C
and shall not be in a pos1t1on to do anything except
breathing for his life, unless a miracle happens He
would require care of a person every day so as to see
that he 1s given food, bath, etc and so as to enable
him even 1n the matter of ansvver,ng natural call "

The High Court had reduced the compensation from Rs

18,75,800/- awarded by the Tnbunal to Rs 12,85,800/- In

this case the claimant had lost all the functions of all his four
0
limbs and there was no poss1b11lty of any improvement with

treatment in future This Hon ble held

"11 Though, the High Court has rightly followed the

principle laid down in Sar/a Verma [(2009) 6 SCC 121
, n our :J;::> 1,01, '1e a~o_nt ot con;:ensat 1on
awarded by the Tribunal 1s more Just The Tribunal
awarded a lump sum of Rs 10 lakhs and the amount
of expenditure incurred by the appellants for treating
their son The total amount awarded by the Tribunal
was Rs 18,75,800 which, in our opinion, 1s not too
much and in our opinion, the said amount should be
awarded to the appellants "

0
A] The High Court has held that 'instead of awarding

attendant charges this Court deems 1t proper to award

compensation under the art1f1c1al limbs and maintenance"

and has awarded a total of Rs 32,95,000/- under this head

However, recently, this Hon'ble Court in S1dram v Umted

India Insurance Co Ltd, (2023) 3 sec 439, has awarded

 D
a total sum of Rs 4,32,000/- for attendant charges and held

as under

"(5) Attendant charges

73 So far as this head Is concerned, neither the

Tnbunal nor the High Court thought 1t fit to award
anything The evidence on record indicates that the
appellant Is unable to stand, walk, sit or bend his body
or lift anything heavy It Is not In dispute that the
0 appellant will not be able to work in the same manner
as he used to pnor to the accident Indisputably, the
appellant has suffered from paraplegia on account of
the accident and requires an attendant throughout the
day According to the claimant, the cost of keeping the
attendant would be Rs 4500 per month We fix It at Rs
2000 per month As a result, we award the attendant
charges as under

Rs 2,000 X 12 X18 = Rs 4,32,000/-"

[at page 490]

The High Court herein awarded maintenance charges for

the artJf1c1al limb @ 1,60,000/- every two years and

0 multiplied the same by 18 for a child of 14 years of age

Thus, total amount of Rs 32,95,000/- have been awarded

that includes the cost of the art1f1c1al limb of Rs 4, 15,000/-

and maintenance charges of Rs 28,80,000/- for the same

It Is respectfully submitted that the amount Is exorbitant by

all standards and as per settled law Also, there was no

 E
need for an art1f1c1al limb from Germany especially when the

same are available In Indra

8] For loss of future income the High Court below has

applied the multiplier of 18 while It should be 15 as per the

three Judge Bench dec1s1on of this Hon'ble Court in Lata

Wadhwa V State of B1har, (2001) 8 sec 197 at page 210 n

Further, because of imponderables and uncertainties of life

notional income of a skilled workmen of Rs 4,846/- could

not have been taken for a young child of merely 14 years of

age

C] The High Court also fell into error by enhancing

compensation for pain and suffering etc from Rs 50,000/-

as awarded by the Claims Tnbunal to Rs 10,000,00/- (Rs

0
Ten Lacs)

Again, In Stdram v Umted India Insurance Co Ltd,

(2023) 3 sec 439, this Hon'ble Court, after analysing the

case law on the point, awarded a sum of Rs 1,00,000/-

under the head of pain and suffering'

Hence the present SLP

 F
The list of dates and events leading to filing of the present

Petition are as follows

4 05 2009 It Is alleged by the claimant that on

4 5 2009 she along with her mother, and other

relatives left to Warangal in order to attend the

0 marnage and after attending the marriage at

about 11 00 p m while she along with others

waItmg for conveyance by standing then, the

offending lorry bearing No AP-36-X-1786

insured with the petitioner insurance

company, gave dash to her, due to which she

sustained crush inJunes to her left leg and left

hand Immediately she was taken to M G M

Hospital at Warangal and the doctors

attended her and in the process of treatment

0 the crushed left leg and left hand up to arm

was amputated

2010 The claimant files Ongmal Pet1t1on No 37

of 2010 m the Court of Chairman, Motor

Vehicles Accidents Claims Tnbunal cum II

Addi D1stnct Judge, Kanmnagar at Jagtlal

 G
under Section 166 of MV Act seeking

compensation of Rs 15 Lacs

The pet1t1oner insurance company flies

Written Statement and contested the claim

and Justified repud1at1on on the ground that

the insured had violated the terms a11d 0

cond1t1ons of the Polley

7 07 2014 The Claims Tribunal, v1de its Judgment

cum Award held that the accident in

question took place only due to rash and

negligent dnving of offending lorry

The Tnbunal awarded Rs 11,32,000/- as

total compensation as under

0
I For S~ec1al Damages

a Loss of earnings for the parents Rs 20,000-00

during treatment of the
pet1t1oner
b Transport charges to Hospital Rs 2,000-00

C Extra Nourishment Rs 5,000-00

 H

d Medical Expenses Rs.5,000-00

!!. For General Damages:

a Compensation for the crush Rs.1,00,000-

injuries to left hand and left leg. 00

•
b Compensation for pain and Rs.50.000-00
suffering and mental agony.
C Compensation for loss of Rs.50,000-00
earnings of mother or servant
charges
•d Compensation for future loss Rs.2,00,000-
of earnings on account of 90% 00
disability
e Compensation for loss of Rs. 1,00,000-
marriage prospects. 00
f Compensation for loss of future Rs.1,00,000-
amenities of life and loss of 00
expectation of life and

• g
enjoyment
Cost of artificial limbs and Rs.5,00,000-
expenditure
maintenance
for
for every two
their 00

years (Rs.4, 15,000/- plus

Rs.1,60,000/-)
Total: Rs.
11,32,000-00
 I
A true copy of the Award dated 7 07 2014

passed by the Court of Cha1nnan, Motor

Veh,cles Acc,dants Claims Tr,bunal cum II

Addi District Judge, Kanmnagar at Jagt1al

m Ongmal Petition No 37 of 2010 Is

annexed hereto as Annexure P-1 (Pgs

M to 63)
()
2019 The claimant / respondent no 1 harem

preferred MAGMA No 637 of 2019 before

the High Court of State of Telangana at

Hyderabad

28 04 2023 V1de its impugned final Judgment and

Order dated 28 04 2023 the High Court

below erroneously allows the Appeal and

enhanced the compensation from Rs

11,32,000/- to Rs 62,03,587/- that Is

exorbitant by all standards and Is against

the settled law

The High Court has erroneously awarded,

under the art1f1c1al limbs and maintenance'

 J
a total of Rs 32,95,000/- and a sum of Rs

10,000,00/- towards pam and suffering

and has applied multiplier of 18 against the

settled pnnc1ples at enunciated by this

Hon'ble Court

• 26 02 2024 Hence the present Special Leave Petition

challenging final Judgment and Order

dated 28 04 2023 passed m MACMA No

637 of 2019 by the High Court of

T elangana at Hyderabad
 1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT

HYDERABAD

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO

THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

PRESENT
Tl-IE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

MAGMA NO 637 OF 2019

Appeal Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the Order
and Decree in M VO P No 37 of 2010 dated 07 07 2014 on the file
of the Court of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum
11 P00l{IQn21 DismcT Juage, Karimnagar aT Jagnal

Between

Vallepu Laxm1, D/o BalaJ1, Age 17, Rep by her next fnend and
natural mother Vallepu Peeramma W/o BalaJ1, Rio
Mahalaxminagar, Jagt1al, Kanmnagar District

APPELLANT/ PETITIONER

AND

1 Basha Nazeer Ahmed, s/O Basha, Owner of Lorry No AP-36-X-

1786, Rio H No 26-6, Near JSM High School, Hunter Road,
Warangal 1
2 United India Insurance Co Ltd , Rep by its Br Manager, Br

Office, 235, N M Road, Avad1, Chenna1,

 2

RESPONDENTS / RESPONDENTS 1 & 2

Counsel for the Appellant SRI KOTA SUBBA RAO

Counsel for Respondent No 2 SRI AV K S PRASAD

The Court made the following

0 ORDER

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

MAC MA No 637 of 2019

JUDGMENT

This Motor Accidents C1v1I Miscellaneous Appeal Is filed by the

claimant, aggneved by the Judgment and Decree passed m MVOP

No 37 of 2010, dated 07 07 2014 on the file of the Chairman,

0 Motor Accidents Claims Tnbunal-cum-11 Add1t1onal D1stnct Judge,

Kanmnagar at Jagbal, (for short "the Tnbunal"), wherein the

learned Tribunal had awarded a compensation of Rs 11,32,000/-

as against the claim of Rs 15,00,000/- for amputation of left leg

and left hand due to crush mJunes sustained by the appellant m a

motor vehicle accident that occurred on 4 5 2009

 3

2 The case of the appellant in brief

The appellant 1s a school go Ing girl of 13 years age On

04 05 2009, she along with her mother and other relatives left to

Warangal in order to attend the marriage of the daughter of one

Duvas1 Ravi Kumar After attending the mamage at about 11 00

PM, while she along with others was wa1tmg for conveyance by

standing m front of Santhosh1 Matha Function Hall, then, the

offending lorry bearing No AP 36 X 1786 owned by the first

respondent driven by his j11ver 111 a rash ar~ 1egl gent manne~,

gave dash to her, due to which she sustained crush mJunes to her

left leg and left hand Immediately she was taken to MGM hospital,

Warangal and the doctors attended her, in the process of

treatment, her crushed left leg and left hand upto arm were

amputated It 1s pleaded that in the MGM hospital, she remained

as an inpatient for several days and thereafter she constrained to

take follow up treatment in another hospital at Jagt1al It 1s further

pleaded that due to the accident for the InJUnes she sustained, her

oarents are constrained to suffer with lot of mental agony and

thereby foregrnng their works, attended her round the clock for

months together
 4

3 It 1s further pleaded that due to the amputation of her left upper

arm and left leg, she was totally depending on her parents for

everything and her life 1s totally ruined and she lost her mamage

prospects It 1s further pleaded that an attempt was made to

0 purchase artJflc1al limbs, but due to quoting of heavy pnce her

parents could not purchase the artJf1c1al limbs

4 The first respondent remained exparte before the Tnbunal

5 The second respondenUinsurance company filed its counter,

denying the claim of the appellant and a strict proof 1s sought

Further the 2nd respondent repudiated the claim of the appellant

0 on the premise that the insured I e first respondent 1s violating the

tenns and cond1tmns of the policy

6 In order to substantiate their claim, the appellant examined in all

5 witnesses PW1 1s her mother, who 1s a guardian cum next fnend

of the appellant prosecuted the claim PW 2 1s the eye witness of

the accident PW3 1s the executive of the Upkar Artlf1c1al Limb

Centre PW 4 1s the doctor who apart from 1ssu1ng Ex A2, d1sab1llty

 5

certificate to the appellant also gave the follow up treatment PW5

Is the doctor of MGM hospital, Warangal who attended the

appellant and made the amputation of left arm a'ld left leg and

exh1b1ted Ex A 1 to Ex A 11 documents

7 The second respondent/insurance company examined its 0

executive as RW1 and in his evidence the copy of policy was

marked as Ex B 1

8 On cons1der1ng the evidence and material on record, the

Tnbunal was pleased to allow the petItIon in part and awarded

compensation of Rs 11,32,000/- along with proportionate costs

and interest @ 7 5% per annum from the date of pet1t1on to

26 10 2012 and from 30 1 2014 to till the date of realisation as

0
under

I For Special Damages

a Loss of earnings for the parents during Rs 20,000-00

treatment of the petItIoner
b Transport charges to Hospital Rs 2,000-00

C Extra Nourishment Rs 5,000-00

 6

d Medical Expenses Rs 5,000-00

II For General Damages

a Compensation for the crush inJunes to left Rs 1,00,000-00

0 b
hand and left leg
Compensation for pain and suffenng and Rs 50 000-00
mental agony
C Compensation for loss of earnings of mother Rs 50,000-00
or servant charges
d Compensation for future loss of earnings on Rs 2,00,000-00
account of 90% d1sab1hty
e Compensation for loss of mamage prospects Rs 1,00,000-00
f Compensation for loss of future amenities of Rs 1,00,000-00
hfe and loss of expectation of life and
enJoyment
g Cost of art1f1c1al limbs and expenditure for Rs 5,00,000-00
0 their maintenance for every two years
(Rs 4, 15,000/- plus Rs 1,60,000/-)
Total Rs 11,32,000-
00
 7

9 Heard Sn Kata Subba Rao, learned counsel for appellant and

Sn A V K S Prasad, learned counsel for respondent and perused

the matenal on record

10 The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the n

Tribunal failed to see that the appellant has suffered 100% of loss

of earnings and she Is not able to do anything It 1s further

contended that the Tribunal erred m granting a meagre

compensation of Rs 2,00,000/- under the head of loss of future

eamI:1gs It Is f urt:--e, contended that the T,1bunal had f1Aed her

income and also ought to have added future prospects and after

applying the suitable multiplier the amount ought to have been

granted It Is further contended that the Tnbunal ought to have

awarded a reasonable compensation towards loss of pain and 0

suffenng and mental agony during the treatment period and

subsequently It Is further contended that the Tribunal ought to

have awarded reasonable compensation towards extra

nounshment and medical expenses and towards cost of artJf1c1al

limbs The learned counsel for the appellant relying on the dec1s1on

In a s1m1lar case of Hon'ble Apex Court In KaJal Vs Jagd1sh

Chand', contended that the Hon'ble Apex Court considered the

 8

case on sympathet1cal grounds and awarded a reasonable

compensation and requested to enhance the compensation on

same Imes

11 In contra, the counsel for respondent contends that the

0 Tnbunal had rightly awarded a compensation of Rs 11,32,000/- on

the basis of evidence and matenal on record It Is further

contended that there Is no error in the order of the Tnbunal and

prayed to d1sm1ss the appeal

12 This court has taken note of the subm1ss1ons made by the

respective parties

13 This court has perused the dec1s1on of the Hon'ble Apex Court
0
and disposed off the present appeal by following the dec1s1on of

the Hon'ble Apex Court m KaJal Vs Jagd1sh Chand, •(supra),

wherein 1t Is observed that

The pnnc1ples with regard to determination of Just compensabon

contemplated under the Act are well settled lnJunes cause

depnvat1on to the body which entitles the claimant to claim

 9

damages The damages may vary according to the gravity of the

inJunes sustained by the claimant rn an accident On account of the

inJunes, the claimant may suffer consequential losses such as (1)

loss of earnings, (11) expenses on treatment which may include

medical expenses, transportation, special dret, attendant charges,

etc , (111) loss or d1m1nut1on of tHe pleasures of life by loss of a

0
particular part of the body, and (rv) loss of future earning capacrty

Damages can be pecuniary as well as non- pecuniary, but all have

to be assessed rn rupees and parse

14 I Special Damages (Pecuniary Damages)

(A) Loss of eammgs for the parents durmg the treatment of

the appellant

According to PW1, , e mother of the appellant, she as well as her

husband after the accident by foregoing their respective

avocations attended the appellant round the clock dunng her stay

rn MGM hospital at Warangal and back at home after her

discharge from the hosortal The Tnbunal had made observation

that "the services rendered by the PW1 and her husband to the

appellant are pnce/ess It Is very heartenmg to note about takmg

 10

place of the death of the father of the appellant m the recent past H

PW1 and her husband after the accident must not have attended

their respective avocations for about 3 to 4 months and they

attended only the appellant and hence, keeping that in mind, the

Tnbunal had awarded Rs 20,000/- as compensation Hence, this

0 court Is of the view that the Tnbunal having observed that the

services of the parents of the vIct1m girl are priceless, had not

JUstrf1ed m awarding Rs 20,000/- compensation towards loss of

earnings As observed by the Tribunal both the parents have

attended the vIctIm girl for 4 months in the hospital Hence, as per

the Apex Court Judgment in KaJal's case (supra), both the parents

are entitled Rs 500/- per day each, which amounts to

Rs 1,20,000/- (1 e Rs 15000x2x4) under the head of loss of

earnings
0
(8) Transport charges to Hospital

The Tnbunal had not JUst1f1ed in awarding Rs 2 000/-

compensation towards transportation from Jagt1al to MGM

Hospital, Warangal and after her discharge from MGM hospital

Warangal to Jagt1al Hence, this court Is of the view that as per the
 11

Apex Court dec1s1on in KaJal's case (supra), It Is appropriate to

award Rs 20 000/- towards transportation

(C) Extra Nourishment

Admittedly the appellant has taken treatment In MGM hospital,

Warangal where the hospital authorities provide energy items like 0

bread, eggs, protein food etc at free of cost, after discharge of the

appellant, the parents of the appellant must have made purchase

of bread, eggs, protein food etc while she was in hospital and

back at ro11e after her d,scharge for he, speedy recovery Hence

keeping that in mind, this Court Is inclined to enhance the

compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs 5,000/- to

Rs 25 000/- towards extra nourishment

(D) Medical Expenses

()
Admittedly, the appellant had taken treatment after the accident at

M G M Hospital, Warangal for four months According to PW1,

though the appellant was treated at free of cost In that hospital, but

she was constrained to purchase some medicines at the outside

medical stores which are unavailable in that hospital According to

PW1, they were constrained to take follow up treatment in another

hospital at Jagt1al
 12

By following the Appellate Court's dec1s1on rn KaJal's case (supra),

wherern the Hon'ble court had made observations rn this context

that-

0 "One must remember that amongst people who are not

Government employees and belong to poorer strata of soc,ety,

btlls are not retamed Some of the btl/s have been excluded by the

courts below only on the ground that the name of the patient Is not

wntten on the btlf There ts no dispute with regard to the long

penod of treatment and hosp1taftsat1on of this young girl

lmmedtately after the accident on 18 10 2007 she was admttted m

a hospital m Kamal From there, she was referred to the PG/

Chandigarh, where she remamed admttted from 21 10 2007 t,ff

0 12 11 2007 and, thereafter, she was agam admttted m the hospital

from 12 11 2007 tJ/1 8 12 2007 She was m the hospJta/ for almost

51 days, and both Dr Sameer Aggarwal, PW3 from the hospital at

Kamal and Dr Ra1esh Chhabra, PW4 from PG/, Chandigarh, have

supported this Ltmrtmg the amount only to the bills which have

been paid m the name of the claimant only, would not be

reasonable Therefore, the amount payable for actual medical

 13

expenses Is ,ncreased from Rs 1,38,501/- to Rs 2,00,000/-

Therefore under this head we award Rs 2, 50, 000/- "

In the present case also, as the parents of the appellant being

labour, though they have not produced any medical bills,

medicines, medicine purchase bills etc before the court below and ()
therefore the Tnbunal awarded only Rs 5,000/- Hence, this court

1s of the view that as per the Apex Court dec1s1on m KaJal's case

(supra), 1t 1s appropnate to award Rs 25,000/- towards medical

15 II General Damages

(A) Compensation for the crush mJunes to left hand and left

leg
()
Smee the amputation of left leg and left hand up to the arm 1s not

disputed and such amputation was the outcome of the crush

mJunes which the appellant had in the accident Hence this court

holds that the Tnbunal had 1ustJfied in awarding Rs 1 00 000/-

towards crush mJunes to left hand and left leg

 14

(B) Compensation for pam and suffering, mental agony, loss

of future amenities of ltfe and loss of expectation of hfe and

enJoyment

It can be said that the mJunes which the appellant had sustained m

the accident must have made her to suffer a lot PW5 1e Doctor
0 who attended the appellant at M G M Hospital, deposed the

gravity of the m1unes which the appellant had One can understand

the trauma which the appellant had gone through due to the crush

mJunes received by her m that accident Hence, this court Is of the

view that the Tribunal had not Justrfled m awarding Rs 50,000/- as

compensation towards pam and suffenng and mental agony

Hon'ble Apex Court m Malhkaqun v D1v1s1onal Manager, National

2
Insurance Co Ltd , held that-
0
"This Court while dealmg with the issue of award under this head

held that ,t should be at/east Rs 6, 00, 000/-, if the d1sab1/ity Is more

than 90 per cent As far as the present case Is concerned, m

addlt10n to the 100 per cent physical d1sab1/lty the young girl Is

suffenng from severe mcontmence, she Is suffenng from severe

hystena and above all she Is left with a bram of a 9-month-old

 15

child This Is a case where departure has to be made from the

normal rule and the pam and suffenng suffered by this child Is such

that no amount of compensation can compensate

One factor which must be kept m mmd while assessmg, the

compensation m a case like the present one Is that the claim can
0
be awarded only once The claimant cannot come back to court for

enhancement of award at a later stage praymg that somethmg

extra has been spent Therefore, the courts or the Tnbunals

assessing the compensat,on ,n a case of 100 per cent d,sabi/1ty,

especially where there Is mental d1sab,t,ty also, should take a

l,beral view of the matter when awardmg compensation Wh,le

awardmg this amount we are not only takmg the physical d1sab,t,ty

but also the mental d1sab1!,ty and vanous other factors This child
0
will remam bedndden for Me Her mental age will be that of a 9-

month-old child Effectively, while her body grows, she will remam

a small baby We are dealmg wlfh a girl who will physically become

a woman but will mentally remam a 9-month-old child This girl will

miss out playmg with her fnends She cannot communicate, she

cannot enJoy the pleasures of life, she cannot even be amused by

watchmg cartoons or films, she will miss out the fun of childhood,
 16

the excitement of youth, the pleasures of a manta/ /Jfe, she cannot

have children who she can love let alone grandchildren She will

have no pleasure Hers 1s a vegetable existence Therefore, we

feel m the pecu/Jar facts and circumstances of the case even after

takmg a ve,y conservative view of the matter an amount payable

0 for the pam and suffenng of this child should be at least Rs

15, 00, 0Q0/- n

In the present case, we are dealing with a girl who will be

physically disabled, she cannot enJoy the pleasures of lrfe, and she

will miss out the fun of childhood, the excitement of youth,

pleasures of marital llfe

Certainly 1t can be said that the appellant 1s going to suffer the loss
0 of future amenities As such, 1f any such amputation of left hand

and left leg did not happen, she would have enJoyed the llfe like

any other ordinary person Now, her life cannot be compared with

the life of any other ordinary person She cannot enJoy the

pleasures of lrfe, she will miss out the fun of childhood, the

excitement of youth, pleasures of manta! life

 17

Therefore, this court feels that in the peculiar facts and

circumstances of the case even after taking a very conservative

view of the matter an amount payable for t'1e paI'1 and suffenng of

this child should be at least Rs 10,00,000/-

ln view of the above, this court Is inclined to enhance the

compensation of Rs 50,000/- towards pain and suffering and

g
mental agony to Rs 10,00,000/-

(C) Compensation for future loss of earnings on account of

90% d,sab,l,t.1

Loss of earnings on account of 90% d1sab1llty as per Ex A 10 1e

d1sab1llty cert1f1cate, the appellant had sustained 90% of the

d1sab1llty I e physical and functional In view of the apex court

Judgment in Ka1al Vs Jagad1sh Chand and others (supra), the

income of the appellant Is to be taken at minimum wages to skilled

0
\
workmen I e 4,846/ per month and adding 40% for the future

prospects and It works out to Rs 6,784 40/- per month which Is

Rs 81,412 80/- per annum and applying mult1pl1er 18 1t would come

to Rs 13 18,887/- (1 e Rs 4,846+40%x12x18x90%)

(D) Compensation for loss of marriage prospects

 18

As rightly deposed by PW1 that no one will be dare enough to

marry the appellant, on account of amputation of the left leg and

left hand upto the arm, ,t Is needless to say that the appellant Is

grnng to remain unmarned forever and ,t can be said that she lost

the marnage prospects In view of the Apex court Judgement in

D KaJal's case (supra), the appellant rs entrtled Rs 3,00,000/-

compensat,on for loss of marnage prospects

(E) Compensation for cost of art1f1c1al ltmbs and expenditure

for their maintenance

According to PW3 , e executive of the Upkar art1f1c1al limb center a

quotation cum estImatIon was issued I e Ex A 11 He as well as

another employee of hrs organrsat,on together examined the

appellant He deposed that those artif1c1al limbs have to be

0 imported from Germany by placing an order under Ex A 11, , e

estimation given by Upkar ArtJf1c1al Limb Centre He further

deposed that the quotation under Ex A 11 was given way back m

the year 2009 and the present market value of the art1fic1al limbs

must have increased 20% from the pnce mentioned in the

quotation PW3 further deposed about the need of maintenance to

the art1flc1al limbs for every two years

 19

By cons1denng the evidence of PW3 and also by taking into

account the need of artJflc1al limbs to the appellant, the Tnbur,al

had awarded Rs 5,00,000/- compensation which includes the cost

of maintenance to the art1flc1al limbs for every two years I e

Rs 4, 15,000+Rs 1,60,000 As the accident was occurred in the

month of May, 2009 and the appellant had taken treatment in

MGM hospital for four months, the appellant must have used the

art1flc1al limbs from 2010 According to PW3 maintenance to

art1f1c1a, limbs ror every tvvO yea-s ,S req ... ,red and ,t CCSLS

Rs 1,60,000/- for every two years In these circumstances, as per

KaJal's case (supra) instead of awarding attendant charges, this

Court deems It proper to award compensation under art1f1c1al limbs

and maintenance Hence, this court Is of the view that It Is proper

C)
to award the maintenance charges @ Rs 1,60,000/- for every two

years upto the age of 50 years As per the petItIon, the appellant

was aged 13 years, as on the date of the accident Hence for

calculating compensation under this head, this court Is of the view

that It Is appropriate to take from 14 vears to 50 vears I e for 36

years According to PW3, maintenance to art1f1c1al limbs Is required

for every two years I e 18 times Hence the compensation Is to be

 20

awarded for 18 times upto 50 years of the age of the appellant

Therefore, the amount of compensation will be Rs 32,95,000/- (1 e

Rs 4, 15,000+28,80,000) under the head of Artrr1c1al limbs and its

maintenance

16 Thus, this court Is of the view that the following compensation

Is to be awarded to the appellant

1 For Special Damages

a Loss of earnings for the Rs 1,20,000-
parents during treatment of the 00
appellant
b Transport charges to Hosprtal Rs 20,000-00

C Extra Nourishment Rs 25,000-00

d Medical Expenses Rs 25,000-00

II For General Damages

a Crush mJunes to left hand and Rs 1,00,000-

left leg and amputation 00

b Pain and suffering mental Rs 10,00,000-

 21

agony and loss of future 00

amenities of life and loss of
expectation of life and
enJoyment

C Future loss of earnings on Rs 13, 18,887-

account of 90% d1sab11Ity 00

0
d Loss of mamage prospects Rs 3,00,000,00

e Cost of Art1f1c1al limbs and Rs 32,95,000-

expenditure for their 00
I I

maI,1,enar,c& roI every LWO

years

Total Rs 62,03,887-
00

()
17 With these observations Motor Accidents C1v1I Miscellaneous

Appeal Is allowed The compensation amount awarded by the

learned Tribunal Is hereby enhanced from Rs 11,32,000/- to

Rs 62,03,887/- The enhanced amount will carry interest at 7 5%

p a from the date of petItIon till the date of payment against both
 22

the respondents Jointly and severally subject to the appellants

paying the court fee on the enhanced amount There shall be no

order as to costs

Miscellaneous petitions, 1f any, pending shall stand closed

0

Sd/- K AMMAJI

ASSISTANT REGISTER

SECTION OFFICER

To

0 1 The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II

Add1t1onal D1stnct Judge, Kanmnagar at Jagt1al

2 One CC to Sn Kota Subba Rao Advocate [OPUC)

3 One CC to Sn A V K S Prasad, Advocate (OPUC)

4 Two CD Copies

MSC
Sd/-

//TYPED COPY//
 23
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

(Order XXI Rule 3(1) (a)

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISTICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO OF 2024
(Under Article 136 of the Constitution of lnaia)
With Prayer for lntenm Relief

IN THE MATTER OF

Parties Status of the Status of the

Parties m the parties before
Court below this Hon'ble
Court

United India Insurance Co Ltd

B•a'lch Orr1ce
235 N M ~oad, 6 vad1
Chenna1
TAMIL NAIDU

Through Its
Branch Manager

Now Through

Sumi Sam,
Authonzed Representative
United India Insurance Co Ltd
Regional Office -1 ,
8th Floor, Kanchenjunga Building
18, Barakhamba Road
NEW DELHl-110 001
Respondent No 2 Pet1t1oner

VERSUS
 24

1 Vallepu Laxm1
D/o BalaJI aged 17 yrs, (Minor)
Represented by her next fnend and natural mother
Vallepu Peeramma
W/o BalaJI aged 35 yrs, Caste
R/o Mahalaxminagar, Jagt,al
Kanmnagar d1stnct
TELANGANA
Appellant Contesting
Respondent No 1

2 Basha Nazeer Ahmed

S/o Basha, aged 42 yrs,
0cc Owner of lorry beanng No AP-36-X-1786,
Rio H No 26-6 near JSM High School,
Hunter Road, Warangal - 506 001
TELANGANA

Respondent No 1 Contesting
Respondent No 2

TO

THE HON'Blf CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA

AND HIS HON'BLE COMPANION JUSTICES
OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

The humble pet1t1on of

the petItIoners above
named,

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH

1 The petitioner herein Is filing the present petItIon

under Article 136 of the constItutIon challenging the

 25
impugned final Judgment and Order dated

28 04 2023 passed in MAGMA No 637 of 2019 by

the 1-1,gh Court ofTelangana a+ Yyderabad whereby

the High Court below erroneously allowed the

Appeal of the claimant / respondent no 1 and

enhanced the compensation from Rs 5,24,900/-

awarded by the Tribunal to Rs Rs 16,91,300/- with

interest @ 7 5% p a against the settled law as

enunciated by t'l's Hon'ble Court

or Writ Appeal Is maintainable against the

impugned order and therefore the Pet1t1oner cannot

avail any such remedy

2 QUESTIONS OF LAW ()

The following questions of law arise for cons1derat1on

by this Hon'ble Court

(1) Whether the High Court was rot Ir error in

enhancing the compensation from Rs

11,32,000/- to Rs 62,03,587/- in the facts and

 26
circumstances of the present case when in a

more serious of a 17-year-old student, whose

condition was much worse than a 14 year old

student herein, this Hon'ble Court awarded a

total compensation of Rs.18,75,600/- in R.

Venkata Ramana v. United India Insurance

• co. Ltd., (2013) 1o sec 673?

(ii) Whether the High C urt below was not in error

by holding that "instead of awarding attendant

charges this Court deems it proper to award

compensation under the artificial limbs and

maintenance" and awarding a total of Rs.

32,95,000/- under this head in view of the

decision of this Hon'ble Court in Sidram v.

United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2023) 3 sec

439?

(iii) Whether the High Court was not in error by

applying the multiplier of 18 when it ought to be

15 as per three Judge Bench decision of this

 27
Hon'ble Court in Lata Wadhwa v State of

B1har, (2001) 8 SCC 197 at page 210?

(1,1) Whether, because of imponderables and

uncertainties of hfe, the High Court was not in

error in taking notional income of a young child

of merely 14 years of age equal to the of a skilled

workmen of Rs 4,846/-?

(v) the High Court below was not in error in taking

the notional income of the 14 year old child of a

skilled worl<.men 7

(v1) Whether the High Court was not in error in

enhancing compensation for pain and suffenng

etc from Rs 50,000/- as awarded by the Claims

()
Tribunal to Rs 10,000,00/- (Rs Ten Lacs) in

view of the Judgment in S1dram v Umted India

Insurance Co Ltd, (2023) 3 SCC 439, wherein

this Hon'ble Court, after analysing the case law

on the ooint, awarded a sum of Rs 1,00,000/-

under the head of pain and suffenng'?

 28
(vu) Whether award of interest @ 7 5 % per annum

Is not excessive?

3 DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE 3(2)

The pebtIoner states that no other petItIon seeking

leave to appeal has been filed by him against the

0 impugned final Judgment and Order dated 28 04 2023

passed m MAGMA No 637 of 2019 by the High Court

of Telangana at Hyderabad

4 DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE 5

The Annexures P-1 produced along with the Special

Leave Petition true and I or translated copies of the

pleading/ documents which formed part of the records

of the case in the court below against whose order the

0 leave to appeal Is sough for in this petition

5 GROUNDS

A] BECAUSE the impugned final Judgment and order of

the High Court below Is bad In law

 29
B] BECAUSE the High Court below erroneously allowed

the Appeal as filed by the claimant / respondent no 1 and

enhanced the compensaton from Rs 11,32,000/- to Rs

62,03,587/- that Is exorbitant as per settled law

In R Venkaka Ramana's case, infra, a 17-year-old student,

wl-Jose cond1t1on Vvas much worse than a 14 year old studerit

0
herein, this Hon'ble Court awarded a total compensation of

Rs 18,75,600/-

111 R Venkata RafTlana v Umted India lrisurance Co Ltd

(2013) 1o sec 673 the material facts, as outlined by this

Hon'ble Court were as under

"7 We have considered the facts and the InJunes

suffered by RaJanala Ravi Krishna, who was hardly a
17 year old student at the time of the accident Upon 0
perusal of the evidence, we find that the cond1t1on of
RaJanala Ravi Knshna, after the accident has become
very pathetic Evidence adduced by the neurologist
and other evidence also reveals that RaJanala Ravi
Krishna shall not be in a posItIon to speak for his life
and shall not be In a posItIon to do anything except
breathing for his life, unless a miracle happens He
would require care of a person every day so as to see
that he Is given food, bath, etc and so as to enable
him even 111 the matter of answering natural call "
 30
The High Court hJd reduced the compensation from Rs

18,75,800/- awarded by the Tnbunal to Rs 12,85,800/- In

this case the claimant had lost all the functions of all his four

limbs and there was no poss1b1hty of any improvement with

treatment m future This Hon'ble held

0 "11 Though, the High Court has nghtly followed the

pnnc1ple laid down m Sarfa Verma [(2009) 6 sec 121
, m our opinion, the amount of compensation
awarded by the Tribunal Is more Just The Tribunal
awarded a lump sum of Rs 10 lakhs and the amount
of expenditure incurred by the appellants for treating
their son The total amount awarded by the Tribunal
was Rs 18, 75,800 which, m our opinion, Is not too
much and m our opinion, the said amount should be
awarded to the appellants "

BECAUSE the High Court has held that "instead of

awarding attendant charges this Court deems It proper to

award compensation under the artJf1c1al limbs and

0 maintenance" and has awarded a total of Rs 32,95,000/-

under this head

However, recently, this Hon'ble Court m S1dram v Umted

India Insurance Co Ltd, (2023) 3 sec 439, has awarded

a total sum of Rs 4,32,000/- for attendant charges and held

as under
 31

"(5) Attendant charges

73 So far as this head Is concerned, neither the

Tribunal nor the H1gn Coun mougm n fn m award
anything The evidence on record 1nd1cates that the
appellant Is unable to stand, walk, sit or bend his body
or Ifft anything tieavy It Is not in dispute that the
appellant will not be able to work m the same manner
as he used to prior to the accident Indisputably, the
appellant has suffered from paraplegia on account of
the accident and requires an attendanL throughout the
day Accord,ng to the claimant, the cost of heepmg the
0
attendant would be Rs 4500 per month We fix It at Rs
2000 per month As a result, we award the attendant
charges as under

Rs 2,000 X 12 X18 = Rs 4,32,000/-"

[at page 490]

The 1--1,gh Court herein awarded ma,ntenance charges for

the art1f1c1al limb @ 1,60,000/- every two years and

multiplied the same by 18 for a child of 14 years of age

Thus, total amount of Rs 32,95,000/- have been awarded

that includes the cost of the artlf1c1al limb of Rs 4, 15,000/-

and maintenance charges of Rs 28,80,000/- for the same

It Is respectfully submitted that the amount Is exorbitant by

all standards and as per settled law Also, there was no

need for an art1f1c1al limb from Germany especially when the

same are available m India

 32
D] BECAUSE for loss of future income the High Court

below has applied the mult1pl1er of 18 while It should be 15

as per the three Judge Bench dec1s1on of this Hon'ble Court

in Lata Wadhwa v State of B1har, (2001) 8 SCC 197 at

page 210

E] BECAUSE of imponderables and uncertainties of life

0 the High Court was 1n error in taking the notional income of

a skilled workmen of Rs 4,846/- for a young child of merely

14 years of age

F] BECAUSE the High Court fell into error by enhancing

compensation for pain and suffenng etc from Rs 50,000/-

as awarded by the Claims Tribunal to Rs 10,000,00/- (Rs

Ten Lacs)

0 In S1dram v Umted India Insurance Co Ltd, (2023) 3

sec 439, this Hon'ble Court, after analysing the case law

on the point, awarded a sum of Rs 1,00,000/- under the

head of 'pain and suffenng'

G] BECAUSE the High Court in error in awarding interest

@ 9% per annum 1n view of the prevailing interest rates

 33
6 GROUNDS FOR INTERIM RELIEF

The petIt1oners have set out all the relevant facts in

detail in the accompanying Synopsis and List of Dates

and the pet1t1oners crave leave that the same may be

treated as part and parcel of this paragraph also as the

same are not being repeated herein for the sake of

brevity 0

a It 1s submitted that there 1s a pnma fac1e case in

below has passed the impugned Order against the

settled pos1t1on in law and against the prov1s1ons of

the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

b It 1s submitted that the balance of convenience 1s ()

also in favour of the pet1t1oner in as much as the

impugned Judgment 1s against the settled law and

the pet1t1onPr hPmg ;:i public body and as such

custodian of public funds Therefore, unless the

impugned Judgment 1s stayed, the petitioner will

 34
suffer irreparable hann Injury and financial loss

and senous prejudice

It 1s therefore submitted thar 1t 1s in the interest of

justice that dunng the pendency of the present

proceedings in this Hon'ble Court, the intenm relief as

prayed for herein be granted or else the petitioners

0
shall suffer irreparable loss

7 MAIN PRAYER

It 1s, therefore, most respectfully, prayed that this

Hon'ble Court may be pleased to -

a Grant Special Leave to Appeal against final

Judgment and Order dated 28 04 2023 passed

in MAGMA No 637 of 2019 by the High Court of

0 Telangana at Hyderabad

b Pass such other and further order as this

Hon'ble deems fit and proper under the facts and

in the circumstances of the case

 35
8 PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF

It Is, therefore, most respectfully, prayed that this

Hon'ble Court may be pleased to -

a Grant Stay of the operation of the impugned final

Judgment and Order dated 28 04 2023 passed

MAGMA No 637 of 2019 by the High Court of

0 in

Telangana at Hyderabad

b Pass such other and further orders as this

Hon'ble deems fit and proper under the facts and

In the circumstances of the case

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE PETITIONERS

SHALL AS IN DUTY BOUND EVER PRAY

0 DRAWN AND FILED BY

RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA

FILED ON 26 02 2024 Advocate for the Pet1t1oner
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISTICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO OF 2024

IN THE MATTER OF -

Urnted India Insurance Co Ltd Pet1t1oner

Versus

Vallepu Laxm1 & Anr Respondents

0 CERTIFICATE

Cert1f1ed that the Special Leave Pet1t1on 1s confined only to

the pleadings before the court whose order 1s challenged

and the other documents relied upon 1n those proceedings

No add1t1onal facts, documents or grounds have been taken

therein or relied upon in the Special Leave Pet1t1on It 1s

further certrfled that the copies of documents/Annexures

attached to the Special Leave Pet1t1on are necessary to

answer the question of law raised 1n the pet1t1on or to make

0 out grounds urged in the Special Leave Pet1t1on for

cons1derat1on of this Hon'ble Court This cert1f1cate 1s given

on the basis of the 1nstruct1ons given by the pet1t1oner whose

affidavit 1s filed ,n support of the Special Leave Pet1t1on

RAJESH K GUPTA
NEW DELHI Advocate for Pet1t1oner
DATED 26 02 2024
 37
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No OF 2024

IN THE MATTER OF -

United Indra Insurance Co Ltd Pet1t1oner

Versus
Vallepu Lasm1 & Anr Respondents

0 I
AFFIDAVIT

I, Sumi Sarni, do hereby solemnly affirm and state as under -

1 That I am employed as Assistant Manager at the New

Delhi - RO -I office at 18 Barakhamba Road, 8 th Floor,

KanchenJunga Building, New Delhi - 110 001 of the

petIt1oner and am fam1l1ar with the facts and

circumstances of the present case based on record

and am competent to depose as under -

I say that I have read and understood the contents of

the accompanying List of Dates at pages B to J and

paragraphs 1 to 8 of the Special Leave Pet1t1on at

pages 23 - 35 and the accompanying Appl1cat1ons

for Condonat,on of Delay and Exemption from filing

certified copy of impugned Judgment and say that the

 38
facts stated therein are true and correct to my

knowledge and belief

3 I say that the Annexure/s annexed to the Special

Leave Pet1t1on are true copy of ,ts original and forms

part of the records below

0
VERIFICATION

Verified at New Delhi on th,s the d ~ ~ CA.. Df 2024

that the contents of the above affidavit are true and correct
to the best of my knowledge and belief No part of 1t rs false
and nothing material has been concealed there from

~
DEPONENT
0 ~~
SUNILSAINI
lll!o~~~~~
 39
APPENDIX

CHAPTER XII
CLAIMS TRIBUNALS

166. Application for compensation. - (1) An application

for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature

• specified in sub-section ( 1) of section 165 may be made -

(a) by the person who hns sustained the injury; or

(b) by the owner of the property; or

(c) where death has resulted from the accident, by all

or any of the legal representatives of the deceased; or

(d) by any agent duly authorised by the person

injured or all or any of the legal representatives of the

deceased, as the case may be

Provided that where all the legal representatives of the

deceased have not joined in any suc;:h application for

compensation, the application shall be made on behalf

of or for the benefit of all the legal representatives of

the deceased and the legal representatives who have

not so joined, shall be impleaded as respondents to

the application.
 40
(2) Every application under sub - section (1) shall be

made, at the option of the claimant, either to the

Claims Tribunal having 1unsd1ctJon over the area in

which the accident occurred or to the Claims Tribunal

within the local limits of whose 1unsd1ctJon the claimant

resides, or cames on business or wrthin the local l1m1ts

of whose 1urisd1ct1on the defendant resides and shall

0 be 1n such form and contain such particulars as may

be prescnbed

Provided that where no claim for compensation under

section 140 1s made in such application, the

appl1cat1on shall contain a separate statement to that

effect 1mmed1ately before the signature of the

applicant]

0
(4) The Claims Tribunal shall treat any report of

accidents forwarded to 1t under sub-section (6) of

section 158 as an application for compensation under

this Act]

168 Award of the Claims Tribunal - (1) On receipt

of an application for compensation made under

 41
section 166, the Claims Tnbunal shall, after giving

notice of the application to the insurer and after giving

the parties {,nclud,ng the ,nsurer) an opportun,ty of

being heard, hold an inquiry into the claim or, as the

case may be, each of the claims and, subJect to the

provIsIons of section 162 may make an award

detenn1n1rig the aniount of cornpel"'satJ011 "vh1ch

0
appears to It to be Just and specifying the person or

persons to whom compensat,on shall be paid and in

making the award the Claims Tribunal shall specify the

amount which sliall be paid bv the insurer or owrier or

driver of the vehicle ,nvolved in the accident or by all

or any of them, as the case may be

Provided that where such application makes a claim

for compensation under section 140 in respect of the ()

death or permanent disablement of any person, such

claim and any other claim {whether made in such

apphcat1on or otherwise) for compensation in respect

of such death or permanent disablement shall be

disposed of in accordance with the orovIsIons of

Chapter X
 42
(2) The Claim Tnbunal shall arrange to deliver copies

of the award to the parties concerned exped1t1ously

and m any case within a penod of fifteen days from the

date of the award

(3) When an award Is made under this sectJon, the

0 person who Is required to pay any amount m terms of

such award shall, within thirty days of the date of

announcing the award by the Claims Tribunal, deposit

the entire amount awarded rn such manner as the

Claims Tnbunal may direct

173 Appeals - (1) Subject to the provIsIons of sub-

section (2), any person aggneved by an award of a

Claims Tribunal may, w1th1r ninety days from the date

0 of the award, prefer an appeal to the High Court

Provided that no appeal by the person who Is required

to pay any amount rn terms of such award shall be

entertained by the High Court, unless he has

deposited with It twenty-five thousand rupees of frfty

per cent, of the amount so awarded, whichever Is less,

rn the manner directed by the High Court

 43
Provided further that the High Court may entertain the

appeal after the expiry of the said penod of ninety

days, ,f ,t •s sat 1sfied that t11e appellart 'Vas prevented

oy suff1c1ent cause tram prefemng the appeal in time

(2) No appeal shall he against any award of a Claims

Tribunal 1f the amount 1n d1soute in the appeal 1s less

than ten thousand rupees

()
 44

ANNEXURE P-1

IN THE COURT OF THE CHAIRMAN, MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENTS

CLAIMS TRIBUNAL - cum II ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE,
KARIMNAGAR AT JAGTIAL

PRESENT SRI D SHAAM MOHAN RAO,

Chairman, MACT-cum-11-Addl D1stnct Judge,
Kanmnagar at JAGTIAL

0 MONDAY, THE 7th DAY OF JULY, 2014

ORIGINAL PETITION NO 37 of 201 O

Between

Vallepu Laxm, D/o BalaJ1 aged 13 yrs, (Minor) represented by her next
fnend and natural mother Vallepu Peeramma W/o BalaJ1 aged 35 yrs,
Caste Waddera Rio Mahalaxmrnagar, JagtJal Kanmnagar district

Petitioner

AND

1 Basha Nazeer Ahmed S/o Basha, aged 42 yrs, 0cc Owner of lorry
beanng No AP-36-X-1786, Rio H No 26-6, near JSM High School,
Hunter road, Warangal - 506 001
0 2 United lnrd1a Insurance Company L1m1ted, represented by ,ts Branch
Manager, branch Office 235, N M , Road, Avad,, Chennar-54,
Tam1lnadu State, (Polley No 012004/31/09/01/00001414 valid from
17 4 2009 to 16 4 2010)
Respondents

Petition filed under Section 166(1 )(a) of M V Act

 45

This petItIon Is coming on 2 7 2014 before me for final hearing in the

presence of Sn D Laxma Reddy and of Sn P Janardhana Reddy,

Pdvocates for the petitioner and of Sn B Gnana Prakash Advocate for

Pespondent t- Io 2, and tre respondent No 1 remained exparte, having

heard and having stood over for cons1derat1on to this day the Court

delivered the following

A\J\f,ARD

1 It Is the say of the pet1tIoner, that she Is a school going girl, having

the age of 13 vears and on 4 5 2009 she along with her mother,

and other relatives left to Warangal in order to attend the

mamage of the daughter of one Duvas1 Ravi Kumar and after

a"en □ ,ng ,ne marriage a, aooul 1 1 00 o m wn1Ie sne aIong wIm

others waItIng for conveyance by standing in front of Santhosh1

Maatha Function Hall, then the offending lorry bearing No AP-36-

X-1786 owned by first respondent and dnven by his dnver in rash

and negligent manner gave dash to her, due to which she

sustained crush In1uries to her left leg and left hand Immediately n
she was taken to M G M Hospital at Warangal and the doctors

attended her and in the process of treatment the crushed left leg

and left hand up to arm was amputated In the M G M Hospital

she remained as an inpatient for several days and thereafter she

constrained to take follow up treatment in another hospital at

Jagt1al Due to the accident and for the inJunes which she had
 46

her parents constrained to suffer with lot of mental agony and

they by foregoing their works, attended her around the clock for

months together

Against that emng dnver a crime was registered by the police and

after a thorough investIgatIon that dnver was charge sheeted for

the offence punishable under Section 338 IPC and under Section

134(a)(b) r/w Secbon 187 of M V Act Due to the amputation of

her left upper arm and the left leg, she at present totally

depending on her parents for everything and her life totally ruined

and she lost her mamage prospects An attempt was made to

purchase artIfic1al limbs, but due to quoting of heavy pnce her

parents could not purchase the artrfic1al limbs The first

respondent Is the owner of the offending vehicle and he got It

insured with second respondent and the insurance policy issued

by second respondent with third party llab1l1ty was in force on the

date of accident and both the respondents under vanous heads

liable to pay an amount of Rs 15,00 000/- as compensation to

her, which Is Just and reasonable

2 The first respondent remained exparte and the second

respondent obtained permIssIon of this court to avail all the

defences available to insured and In the counter the second

 47

respondent denied the claim of petitioner and a strict proof Is

sought Further, the second respondent repudiated the claim of

the petitioner on the premise the insured I e first respondent

violating the terms and cond1t1ons of the policy

3 Basing on the pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial

n
-....
1 Whether the accident had occurred due to rash and

negligent driving of the offending vehicle bearing No AP-36-

X-1786 by its dnver?

2 Whether the petItIoner Is entitled for compensation, 1f so to

.vna, amoum ana rrom v-..hom?

3 To what relief?

4 In order to substantiate the claim, the petitioner examined in all

five witnesses The PW 1 Is none else than her mother who as a

guardian cum next fnend of the pet1tIoner prosecuted the claim

Cl
The PW 2 Is the eye witnesses of the accident The PW 3 Is the

executive of Upkar ArtrficIal Limb Centre The PW 4 Is the doctor

who apart from issuing the Ex A 2 d1sab1hty certificate to the

petitioner also gave the follow-up treatment The PW5 Is the

doctor of M G M Hospital Warangal who attended the petItIoner,

 48

who made the amputation of let arm and the left leg The

petItIoner m all exh1b1ted 11 documents

5 The 2 nd respondent insurance company examined its executive

as RW 1 and m his evidence the copy of the policy marked as

Ex B 1

6 Heard both ::.ides

7 ISSUE No 1 Whether the accident had occurred due to rash

and negligent drivmg of the offend mg vehicle beanng No AP-

36-X- 1786 by its dnver?

The mother of the petitioner who prosecuted the claim and who

examined herself as PW 1 fairly admitted m the cross-

exammatIon about she not eye witnessing the actual occurrence

It Is said by her, she, at that time remammg inside of the marriage

hall and she com mg out of the pall when she came to know about

the accident The PW 2, who Is an eye witness of the accident In

his evidence detailed the manner m which the accident took

place It Is said by him about the dnver of the offending lorry

dnvmg It with high speed, in a rash and negligent manner and he

making the lorry with speed to get down from black top road and

(
 49

giving dash to the pet1t1oner who was standing aside of the road

In the cross- examination of PW 2 several questions were posed

to impress that the accident in question was not in the manner

stated by this PW 2, b PW 2 has given a very little room to doubt

his testimony In fact, the 4/12 executive of second respondent

1e , the RW 1 in his evidence in chief in expliat terms not stated

that the acc 1derit in question was not due to ~ash and negl,gent

dnving of the lorry by its driver The honest and trustworthy

evidence of PW 2 and the crime record exh1b1ted on behalf of the

petrt1oner sufflaent enough to say that the accident in question

was the result of rash and negligent driving of the offending

ven,c1e by "s ar,ver

Hence, this issue No 1 answered in favour of petitioner

8 Issue No 2 Whether the petitioner 1s entitled for

compensation, 1f so, to what amount and from whom?

Ex B 1 1s the policy and the contents of this document disclosing

that 1t was issued 1n the name of first respondent with third party

llab1l1ty In the cross-exam1nat1on the RW 1 fairly admitted that

Ex B 1 policy having force with third party llab11Jty on the date of

accident He also admitted the status of pet1t1oner as a third party

 50

to the Ex B 1 policy The first respondent I e , insured being the

owner of offending vehicle mvanably liable to pay the

compensation since the accident m quesbon was on account of

rash and negligent act of his dnver The first respondent 1s

vicanously liable for the act of his driver Of-course the llab1llty of

second respondent insurance company 1s subJect to non-

0 violation of the terms and cond1t1ons of the policy and this Court

constrained to say that except pleading in the counter the second

respondent insurance company failed to bnng on record through

the evidence of its execut1Ve to the sat1sfact1on of this court about

the insured v1olatmg the terms and condrt1ons of the policy The

RW 1 except giving a bald statement to the effect the insured

violating the terms and cond1t1ons of the policy, he did not say as

to what are those v1olat1ons which the insured alleged to have

been committed When 1t 1s not established by the 2nd

respondent insurance company the v1olabon of any of the terms

0 and cond1t1ons of the policy, then, the 2nd respondent insurance

company has to be saddled along with first respondent in paying

the compensation to the petitioner

9 Now let us see as to how much of compensation the pebtJoner

entitled for In all, under different heads the pet1boner sought an

 51

amount of Rs 15,00,000/- as compensation and the breakup

figures of that amount Is hereunder

For Special Damages

a Loss of earnings for the parents Rs 30,000-00

during treatment of the pet1t1oner

0
b Transport cfiarges to l--losp1tal Rs 2,500-00

C Extra Nourishment Rs 20 000-00

f----_,_ - - ---
d MeaIcaI Expenses Ps 20 000-00

II For General Damages

a Compensation for the crush inJunes Rs 1 00 000-00

to left hand and left leg

b Compensation for pain and suffenng Rs 1,00,000-00

and mental agony

C Compensation for loss of earnings of Rs 2,50,000-00

mother or servant charges

d Compensation for loss of future loss Rs 2,02,500-00

of eam,ng son account of 90%
d1sab11ity
 52

e Compensation for loss of mamage Rs 1,00,000-00

prospects

f Compensation for loss of future Rs 1,00,000-00

amenities of lrfe and loss of
expectation of life and enJoyment

0 g Cost of artrflc1al limbs

expenditure for their maintenance for
and Rs 5, 75,000-00

every two years Rs 4, 15 000/- plus

Rs 1,60,000/-)

TOTAL Rs 15,00,000-00

(a) She sought Rs 30,000/- as compensation towards loss of income

of her parents According to PW 1, that she as well as her

husband after the accident by foregrnng their respective

0 avocations attended the petitioner round the clock dunng her stay

in the M G M Hospital at Warangal and back at home after her

discharge from the hospital As nghtly submitted by the counsel

for pet1t1oner, the services rendered by the PW 1, her husband to

the petitioner are valueless It Is very heartening to note about

taking place of the death of the father of the petIt1oner in the

recent past If assumed for a while, that per day the parents of the
 53

pet1t1oner used to earn Rs 100/-, then, per month the income of

her parents shall be Rs 6,000/- The PW 1 and her husband for

about 3 to 4 months after the accident must not attended to their

respective avocations and they attended only the petitioner

Hence, keeping that in mind, this court under this head inclined to

award Rs 20,000/- as compensation

(b) The pet1t1oner sought an amount of Rs 2,500/- as compensation

towards transportat1or, and tt,e parents of petitioner must have

made payments for transportation of the pet1t1oner after her

discharge from the M G M Hospital at Warangal to come down to

Jagt1a1 Keeping ,haL 111 mind towards transportation expenses

this court inclined to award Rs 2 000/- as compensation

(c) An amount of Rs 20 000/- 1s sought as compensation towards

extra-nourishment If not at the MGM Hospital at Warangal where

the hospital authorities provide energy items like bread, eggs,

()
proteins etc at free of cost, at least back at home after the

discharge the parents of the pet1t1oner must have made purchase

of such items for the speedy recovery of pet1t1oner Hence,

keeping that 1n mind this court towards extra nourishment inclined

to award Rs 5,000/- as compensation

 54

(d) An amount of Rs 20 000/- Is sought as compensabon towards

medical expenses No medical bills exh1b1ted on behalf of the

petitioner Admittedly she was treated after the accident at MGM

Hospital Warangal where the treatment shall be provided at free

of costs According to the PW 1, though her daughter was treated

at free of costs in that hospital, but she constrained to purchase

some medicines at the outside medical stores which medicines

0 unavailable in that hospital By taking into cons1derat1on, this

particular statement of PW 1 this court, under this head inclined to

award an amount of Rs 5,000/- as compensation though the

pebtloner not exh1b1ted any medical bills, medicine purchase bills

etc

(e) The pet1boner sought an amount of Rs 1 00,000/- as

compensation for crush in3ur1es to her left hand and left leg

Without any second thought, this court inclined to award that

0 much of amount as compensation to the pebt1oner under this

head since the amputation of left leg and the left hand up to the

arm Is not disputed and such amputation was the outcome of

crush inJunes which the pebtIoner had in that accident

(f) The petItIoner sought an amount of Rs 1 00,000/- as

compensation towards pain and suffenng and for mental agony

 55

Without any hes1tat1on, 1t can be said that the mJunes which the

pet1t1oner had 1n that accident must made her to suffer a lot The

PW 5 who attended at M G M Hospital deposed the gravity of the

JnJU'les which the pet1t1oner had One can understand the trauma

which the petitioner gone due to the crush mJunes received by her

in that accident So this court under this head inclined to award

ar a111ourit of Rs 50,000'- as CO"lpersat•on,

0
(g) The pet1t1oner sought an amount of Rs 2,50,000/- as

compensation for attendant charges As 1nd1cated supra, the

mother of the pet1t1oner I e PW 1 in her evidence deposed about

sne as v.Jei. as ner aeceasea nusoana atLena,ng lne pellL1oner ,n

the hospnal and thereafter at their home after her discharge This

Court had an occasion to see the pet1t1oner in person while

recording the statement of PW 1 and she entered into the court

hall by limping with one leg and all the while the mother of the

pet1t1oner I e , Pw 1 attended her I e made her to sit and stand n

etc As a mother the PW 1 rendered the services as attendant of

petitioner at free of cost If anyone 1s engaged by paying for

rendenng such services, then certainly such person will charge a

minimum or Rs 5 000/- per month for the services Hence

keeping in mind that aspect this court under this head inclined to
 56

award an amount of Rs 50,000/-compensat1on which Is in fact

very meager amount

(h) The petitioner sought an amount of Rs 2 02,500/- as

compensation towards future loss of earnings on account of 90%

d1sab11ity Had the petitioner not lost her left leg and hand up to

arm, then, certainly she should have earned a lot on her own by
0 attend mg to any type of unskilled works The Ex A 10 Is the

d1sab11ity certrflcate and the PW 4 Is the one of the signatory of

Ex A 10 and he in his evidence stated the d1sab1lrty which the

petItIoner had as a functional d1sab11ity which Is going to remain

for the rest of the life of pet1tIoner Keeping that m mind and also

the future life span of the petItIoner, this court under this head

inclined to award, an amount of Rs 2,00,000/- as compensation

(1) The petitioner sought an amount of Rs 1,00,000/- as

0 compensation for the loss of mamage prospects As nghtly

deposed by PW 1 in her evidence that no one will be dare enough

to marry the petitioner m future on account of her not having a left

leg and the left hand up to the arm It Is needless to say the

petitioner Is going to remain unmamed forever Without any doubt

It can be said that she lost the marriage prospects of her Hence
 57

this court inclined to award Rs 1,00,000/- as compensation to the

pet1tIoner under this head as sought by her

G) The petitioner sought an amount of Rs 1,00,000/- as

compensation towards loss of future amenities and enjoyment

etc Certainly, 1t can be said that the petitioner Is going to suffer

"'11th ti,e loss of future amernt•es, as such If no such a'T'putat•or of

()
left leg and left hand took place, then she would have been

enjoyed all the amenities of her lrfe like another ordinary person

Now the lrfe of the petitioner cannot be compared with the life of

an ordinary person Hence, this court, under this head inclined to

awara ~s , OG,OOG;- as compensat,on lO lne oet,tIoner

(k) An amount of Rs 5,75,000/- Is sought as compensation towards

the costs of artrflc1al limbs and for their maintenance, Ex A 11 Is

the quotation cum estImat1on issued by Upkar Artrflc1al Limb

center and the PW 3, Executive of that Upkar Art1flc1al Limb

Center in his evidence deposed the contents of Ex A 11 He said

about he as well as another employee of his organization together

examining the petIt1oner and then giving the quotation It Is said

by him that those art1f1c1al limbs have to be imported from

Germany by placing an order He said that quotation under

Ex A 11 was given way back m the year 2009 and the present
 58

market value of the artrflc1al limbs must have increased 20% from

the pnce mentioned in that quotation It 1s also said by the PW 3

about the need of maintenance to the artrf1c1al\ limbs for every two

years In the cross- examination of PW 3, the second

respondent/insurance company made some attempts to impress

that the Ex A 11 was given in order to please the parents of

petitioner This Court 1s of the considered view that the present

0 rate of the art1fic1al limbs must be that much as deposed by the

PW 3 in his evidence So by considering the evidence of PW 3

and also by taking into account the need of artrfic1al limbs to the

petitioner, this court under this head inclined to award an amount

of Rs 5,00,000/- compensation

Thus the total amount of compensation which awarded to the

petitioner 1s of Rs 11,32,000/- and the break up figures of the

awarded amount are hereunder

0
L For S~ec1al Damages

a Loss of earnings for the parents dunng Rs 20,000-00

treatment of the pet1t1oner
b Transport charges to Hospital Rs 2,000-00

C Extra Nourishment Rs 5 000-00

 59

d Medical Expenses Rs 5 000-00

n_ For General Damages

a Compensation for the crush mJunes to left Rs 1,00,000-00

hand and left leg
b Compensation for oam and suffering and Rs 50 000-00
mental agony
C Compensation for loss of earnings of mother Rs 50,000-00 Q
,)

or servant charges
d Compensation for future loss of earnings on Rs 2 00 000-00
account of 90% d1sab11ity
e Compensation for loss of marriage prospects Rs 1,00 000-00

life and loss of expectation of life and

enJoyment
g Cost of art1f1c1al limbs and expenditure for Rs 5,00,000-00
their maintenance for every two years
(Rs 4, 15,000/- plus Rs 1,60,000/-)
Total Rs 11 32,000-00

10 The learned counsel for the petitioner 1n support of his contention

relied upon the following four c1tat1ons

1 2013 ACJ 2733 m benveen Sa11oba11u lllaz 1 rbba1 Mirza

and others, Appellants Vs Ahmedabad Municipal

Transport Service, Respondent

 60

2 2013 AIAR (C1v1I) 887 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA m

between K1shan Gopal and other, appellants Vs Lala &

others, respondents

3 2013 ACJ 2564 m between Reliance General Insurance

0 Company L1m1ted 1 Appellants Vs Neera1 and others,

Respondents

4 2013 ACJ 2503 m between Faizal, Appellant Vs Balwan

Smgh and another, Respondents

The principles which underlaid 1n these citations are not in dispute

and this Court 1s of the considered view that there 1s no need to

fall back over the pnnc1ples of these c1tat1ons in awarding

0 compensation to the pet1t1oner as such this court has taken

liberal view m awarding the compensation by keeping in mind the

age, social status and the future lrfe of the pet1t1oner

As indicated supra, respondents No 1 and 2 are Jrnntly and

severally able to pay the awarded compensation amount

Issue answered accordingly

 61

11 ISSUE NO 3 To what relief?

In the result, the claim petition ,s allowed in part and a compensation of

Rs 11,32,000/- (Rupees Eleven Lakhs and thirty two thousand only) 1s

awarded along with proportionate costs and interest 5% per annum

0
from t'1e date of petition to 26 10 2012 and from 30 1 2014 to till date of

realization No interest ,s awarded for Interregnum penod , e , from

27 10 2012 to 29 1 2014 during which penod the pet1t1on was d1sm1ssed

for default The respondents No 1 and 2 who are Jointly and severally

liable to pay the awarded compensation amount are directed to deposit

the same a,ong w11:n COSlS ana Jnleresl ,mo ,nis Cuu,L w1,li1•1 LNC ,,,011,l,s

from the date of this award

Upon such deposit, the awarded compensation amount of Rs

11,32,000/- shall be kept in Fixed Deposit in any nationalized bank till n

the time the pet1t1oner attains maJority and after she attaining maJority

can withdraw that amount on her own after seeking discharge of her

next friend and guardian , e mother

However, the mother of the pet1t1oner who prosecuted the pet1t1on on

tenant of minor pet1t1oner 1s permitted to withdraw the costs and interest

 62

in order to meet the expenses which incurred so far for prosecuting the

claim of petitioner

The Advocate fee 1s fJXed as Rs 11,000/-

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcnbed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 7th day of July, 2014

Sd/-

Charrman, MACT-Cum-

11-ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE

Kanmnagar at JAGTIAL

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For the petitioner For the Respondents

RW 1 V Sainath
PW 1 Vallepu Peeramma

PW 2 Koppu Sathyam

PW 3 Manne Raghu Kumar

PW 4 Dr B B1kshapath1

PW 5 Dr P V1Jay Chander Reddy

 63

EXHIBITS MARKED

For the petItIoner

Ex A 1 CC of FIR
ExA2 C C of Charge Sheet
ExA3 C C of Expert opinion
ExA4 C C of Crime Details form
ExA5 C C of wound certificate
ExA6 C C of docket order In CC No 97 of 2009
Ex A 7 CC of Part II Statements of WILnesses (5)
ExA8 Ongmal Discharge summary
ExA9 Original Prescription chit
Ex A10 D1sab11lty certrflcate
Ex A11 Est1mat1on given by Upkar Art1f1c1al Limb Centre

For the respondents

Ex B 1 Copy of policy

Copyist Examiner

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE COURT

JAGTIAL
Sd/-
Cha1rman, MACT-Cum-
11-ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE
Kanmnagar at JAGTIAL
COPY APPLICATION NO 1379/2014
The apphcat1on was made on 08-07-2014

//TYPED COPY//
 64

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
63696
I A NO OF 2024
IN

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Nos OF 2024

IN THE MATTER OF -

0 United India Insurance Co Ltd Pet1t1oner

Versus

Vallepu Laxm, & Anr Respondents

APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN

FILING OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION

TO

THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA

AND HIS HON'BLE COMPANION JUSTICES
OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
0
The humble appl1cat1on
of the pet1t1oner above
named,

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH

1 That the Pet1t1oner herein 1s filing the accompanying

Special Leave Pet1t1on against final Judgment and

Order dated 28 04 2023 passed in MAGMA No 637 of

 65
2019 by the High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad

the contents of which are not being repeated herein for

the sake of brev,ty and may be read as part and parcel

of this paragraph also

2 It Is respectfully submitted that the pet1t1oner herein

'1as pan •'7d•a operation and in order to ensure t!,at

0
only appropriate cases are filed before this Hon'ble

Court the case file of the present matter was sent to

the Head Office of the petIt1oner in Chenna1 for opinion

of two I8\1\t\/ers for aoproval In this process however

due to inadvertent lapse, the record of the Claims

Tnbunal got misplaced along with certified copy of the

impugned Judgment Therefore, the same was

requested from the counsel who dealt with the matter

at the Tribunal The copies of the same were

forwarded and received by tre concerned office at

R0-1 of the pet1tIoner company at New Delhi on

February 19, 2024 and the present SLP Is being filed

on February 26, 2024

3 That It Is respectfully submitted that no preJud1ce

would be caused to the respondents 1f this Hon ble

 66
Court condones the delay in filing of the present

Special Leave Pet1t1on However, the petitioner

herein, who 1s a custodian of public money, will suffer

irreparable loss and inJury 1f the delay 1s not condoned

PRAYER

0 It 1s, therefore, most respectfully, prayed that this

Hon'ble Court may be pleased to -

PRAYER

It 1s, therefore, most respectfully, prayed that this

Hon'ble Court may be pleased to -

a Condone the delay of 2 J3 days 1n filing of the

0
present Special Leave Pet1t1on against the final

Judgment and Order dated 28 04 2023 passed

1n MACMA No 637 of 2019 by the High Court of

Telangana at Hyderabad
 67
b Pass such other and further order as this

Hon'ble deems fit and proper under the facts and

1n the circumstances of the case

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE PETITIONERS

SHALL AS IN DUTY BOUND EVER PRAY

0
DRAWN AND FILED BY

RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA

FILED ON 26 02 2024 Advocate for the Pet1t1oner

0
 68

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
63697
I A NO OF 2024
IN

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Nos OF 2024

IN THE MATTER OF -

United India Insurance Co Ltd Petitioner

Versus

Vallepu Laxm1 & Anr Respondents

APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING OF

CERTIFIED COPY OF IMPUGNED JUDGMENT

TO

THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA

AND HIS HON'BLE COMPANION JUSTICES
OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

The humble application

of the petitioner above
named,

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH

1 That the Petitioner herein Is filing the accompanying

Special Leave Petition against final Judgment and

Order dated 28 04 2023 passed m MAGMA No 637 of

2019 by the High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad

 69
the contents of which are not being repeated herein for

the sake of brevity and may be read as part and parcel

of th,s paragraph a Iso

2 It Is respectfully submitted that the certified copy of the

impugned Judgment has been misplaced in the office

of the petitioner insurance company The petitioner Is

therefore flhng true copy of the impugned Judgment

and undertakes to file certrf1ed copy 1f directed by this

Hon'ble Court and 1t Is m the interest of Justice that the

oresent apohcat1on be allowed

PRAYER

It 1s, therefore, most respectfully, prayed that this

Hon'ble Court may be pleased to -

a Exempt the petitioner from f1hng certified copy of

the impugned Judgment I e final Judgment and

Order dated 28 04 2023 passed m MAGMA No

637 of 2019 by the High Court of Telangana at

Hyderabad
 70
b Pass such other and further order as this

Hon'ble deems fit and proper under the facts and

in the circumstances of the case

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE PETITIONERS

SHALL AS IN DUTY BOUND EVER PRAY

0 DRAWN AND FILED BY

RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA

FILED ON 26 02 2024 Advocate for the Pet1t1oner