Partly allowed

P. Peddanna,minor, rep.by N.F.Guardian, v. C.Ramasubba Reddy

Andhra Pradesh HC13 Sept 2023MACMA/2141/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal in part. The tribunal's finding on rash and negligent driving was affirmed, but the compensation was enhanced from Rs. 20,000 to Rs. 55,000, with an order for deposit of the enhanced amount with interest.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs. 20,000 to Rs. 55,000; interest at 7.5% per annum granted; deposit directed within two months.

P. Peddanna,minor, rep.by N.F.Guardian, Vs… — Motor Accident Claims | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

■ N

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBE
55SHc^
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE / *A ^3
PRESENT IiUiV)o
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA ^ A

¶3

IVI.A.C.M.A.No.2141 OF 2013

¶4

Between:

¶5

KPeddanna,minor, rep by N.F.Guardian,, Father M.Munaiah S/o Subbanna A^ed about 35 years, Thummalapenta Village, Kolimigundia^{Mandal,Kurnool}

¶6

...APPELLANT

¶7

AND

¶8

C.Ramasubba Reddy, S/o C.Pedda Subba Reddy D.No.12/378 C B Raod
Tadipatri Town, ■ • .

¶9

(R1- Dismissed for default vide C.O. Dt: 27.12.2012)

¶10

AnanthapTr'^'^^"^ Company Limited,, Rep.by its Divisional^Manager,

¶11

...RESPONDENTS

¶12

Appeal is filed under Section 173 of M. V. Act being aggrieved by the Order and Decree of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Before the VI. Addl. District Judge) FTC, Anantapur at Gooty made in M.V.O.P.No.25/2004 dated 13*" April 2006.

¶13

This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the Suit and upon hearing the arguments of Sri I. Venkata Prasad for the Appellant and of Sri Gudi Srinivasu for the Respondent No.2.

¶14

This Court doth Order and decree as follows:

¶15

That the Appeal be and the same is hereby allowed in part.

¶16

That the claim amount granted by the Tribunal is hereby enhanced from Rs.20,000/- to Rs.55,000/-, consequently the appellant/claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.35,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum

¶17

That both the respondents are hereby directed to deposit the enhanced compensation with interest within two months from the date of this Judgment

¶18

That on such deposit, the said amount shall be kept in Fixed Deposit in any Nationalised Bank until minor petitioner attains majority, after attaining majority, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the same along with interest there on

¶19

That there shall be no order as to costs in this Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

¶20

SD/- B. CHITTI JOSEPH ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶21

//TRUE COPY//

¶22

SECTK^ OFFICER

¶23

To, 1. The VI Addl. District Judge FTC, Anantapur at Gooty, Anantapur District, Anantapur District.

¶24

Two CD copies.

DPK

ssb

r‘

HIGH COURT

DATED: 13/09/2023

DECREE

MACMA.No.2141 of 2013

¶32

hr Copies

¶33

DSL

¶34

PARTLY ALLOWING THE M.A.C.M.A

¶35

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶36

WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶37

PRESENT

¶38

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

¶39

M.A.C.M.A.No.2141 OF 2013

¶40

Appeal is filed under Section 173 of M V Act being aggrieved by the Order and Decree of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Before^theVI.Addl. District Judge) FTC, Anantapur at Gooty made in M.V.O.P.No. 25/2004 dated 13‘^ April 2006

¶41

Between:

¶42

P. Peddanna, minor, rep.by N.F.Guardian,, Father M.Munaiah S/o Subbanna Aged about 35 years, Thummalapenta Village, Kolimigundia Mandal, Kurnool Dist.

¶43

...APPELLANT

¶44

AND

¶45

C.Ramasubba Reddy, S/o C.Pedda Subba Reddy D.No.12/378^C.B.Raod Tadipatri Town,

¶46

(R1- Dismissed for default vide C.O. Dt: 27.12.2012)

¶47

Oriental Insurance Company Limited,, Rep.by its Divisional Manager, Ananthapur.

¶48

...RESPONDENTS

¶49

Counsel for the Appellant: Sri I. VENKATA PRASAD

¶50

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Sri GUDI SRINIVASU

¶51

The Court made the following:

¶52

¶53

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

¶54

M.A.C.M.A.No.2141 of 2013

¶55

JUDGMENT;

¶56

Aggrieved by the impugned award and order passed in M.V.O.P.No.25 of 2004, on the file of the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Anantapur at Gooty, whereby the^Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.20,000/- towards total compensation to the claimant against both the respondents, this instant appeal is preferred by the claimant for enhancement of compensation.

¶57

For the sake of convenience, both the parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the claim application.

¶58

The aforesaid M.V.O.P.No.25 of 2004 was filed by the claimant, under Sections 140 and 166 of Motor Vehicles^Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.2,30,000/- for the^injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 16.03.2001.

¶59

The brief averments of the claim petition are as follows;

¶60

¶61

The petitioner is aged about six years at the time of accident. On 16.03.2001 at Bugga Village, the petitioner^and his family members were going to the hotel. At that^timea lorry bearing No.AAT 4562 came in a rash and negligent manner and in high speed and dashed the petitioner. The petitioner fell down on the road and the rear wheel^ofthelorry passed on the left leg and he sustained fracture on^theleftleg and became disabled person, The petitioner is not in a position to do any work and he completely bed ridden. Due to the accident the petitioner lost his academic year^education. The accident was occurred due to rash and negligent^drivingof the driver of the lorry. A case in Crime No.35 of 2001 was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle^lorryand subsequently Charge Sheet was laid by the concerned^Police Officer.

¶62

1®^ respondent remained ex parte. 6. 2'^^ respondent filed a counter by denying the claim^ofthe claimant.

¶63

Based on the above pleadings of both the parties,^the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial:

¶64

¶65

¶66

Whether the accident was occurred on 16.03.2001

¶67

due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of^the lorry bearing No.AAT 4562 by its driver and caused injuries^tothe petitioner?

¶68

Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so, what amount and from which of^the

¶69

respondents?

¶70

To what relief?

¶71

During the course of enquiry, on behalf of the claim petitioners, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and got marked Exs.AI to A4 and Ex.XI. On behalf of 2"'^ respondent,^Ex.BI

¶72

was marked.

¶73

At the culmination of the enquiry, on appreciation^ofthe entire evidence on record, the Tribunal awarded an^amountof Rs.20,000/- to the claimant towards total compensation^against r' and 2 nd respondents. Aggrieved thereby, the claimant filed this instant appeal for enhancement of compensation.

¶74

¶75

Heard Sri Ineni Venkata Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Gudi Srinivasu, learned counsel for 2"^^ respondent/Oriental Insurance Company Limited.

¶76

Now, the points for determination are;

¶77

Whether the order passed by the Tribunal needs any interference?

¶78

Whether the claimant is entitled

¶79

the compensation as prayed for?

¶80

POINTS:

¶81

The contention of the petitioner is that due to rash^and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle lorry, he sustained fracture injuries in a motor vehicle accident. In order to prove the rash and negligent driving of the driver^ofthe offending vehicle lorry, the petitioner relied on the^evidenceof P.W.1, P.W.1 is the father of minor petitioner. As per the evidence of P.W.1, he accompanied with the minor petitioner at the time of accident and he is the eye witness to the accident.-His evidence coupled with Ex.A1-Copy of the^First Information Report and Ex.A2-Copy of the Charge Sheet

¶82

¶83

clearly goes to show that the accident was occurred^dueto rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending^vehicle lorry. On appreciation of entire evidence on record, the Tribunal came to the same conclusion that the accident in question is occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle lorry. I do not find any legal flaw or infirmity in the said finding given by the Tribunal. Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the above finding given by the Tribunal.

¶84

Coming to the compensation, in order to prove the nature of injuries, the petitioner relied on the evidence of P.W.2, P.W.2 is the doctor who treated the petitioner. Petitioner also got marked Ex.XI-Case Sheet of the petitioner and Copy of the Insurance Policy on behalf of 2 nd respondent/insurance Company. The evidence of P.W.2 goes to show that the left ankle of the petitioner was operated^on 17.03.2001 and on 06.04.2001 skin drafting was done^tothe petitioner and on 29.04.2001 the petitioner was discharged from the hospital. The evidence of P.W.2-doctor clearly goes to show that the petitioner was admitted as inpatient in the hospital for a period of one month 13 days. The evidence^of

¶85

¶86

P.W.2 coupled with Ex.A3-Wounds Certificate goes to^show that the petitioner sustained grievous injury and the^Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs. 15,000/- towards the said grievous injury and an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering and extra nourishment etc. I am of the considered view that on considering the period of inpatient treatment taken by the minor injured, it is desirable to award an amount of Rs.25,000/towards pain and suffering for sustaining grievous injury and an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards nutrition of food, since he underwent treatment for the period of one month 13 days. It is desirable to award an amount of Rs.6,000/- towards^attendant charges and an amount of RS.5,000/towards transport charges. No medical bills are filed by the petitioner. Since the petitioner sustained grievous injury and he obtained^treatment for a period of more than one month. It is desirable^toawardan amount of Rs.4,000/towards medical expenses and an amount of Rs. 10,000/towards loss of comfort as he sustained grievous injury. Therefore, the appellant/claimant^is entitled total compensation of Rs.55,000/-.

¶87

It is not in dispute by both sides that the offending vehicle is insured with 2"^^ respondent/insurance Company^and

the policy is in force and there are no violations in the policy. In fact, liability is fixed against the insured and insurer by the Tribunal. No appeal is filed by the respondents against^the said finding.

¶92

In the result the appeal is partly allowed, the claim amount granted by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.20,000/to Rs.55,000/-, consequently the appellant/claimant^is entitled enhanced compensation of Rs.35,000/with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. Both the respondents are directed to deposit the enhanced compensation with interest within two months from the date of this Judgment. On such deposit,^the said amount shall be kept in Fixed Deposit in any Nationalised Bank until minor petitioner attains majority, after attaining majority the claimant is entitled to withdraw the same along with interest there on. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶93

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending

¶94

shall stand closed.

¶95

SD/- B. CHITTI JOSEPH ASSISTANTJ^EGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// cV SECTIION OFFICER

¶96

To, 1. The VI Addl. District Judge FTC, Anantapur at Gooty, Anantapur District (with records if any)

¶97

2, One CC to Sri I. Venkata Prasad, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri Gudi Srinivasu, Advocate [OPUC] 4. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court of Andhra^{PradeshatAmaravati} (To dispatch records to lower court) 5. Three CD Copies DPK ssb

HIGH COURT

DATED: 13/09/2023

JUDGMENT+DECREE

MACMA.No.2141 of 2013

¶102

D5U

¶103

PARTLY ALLOWING THE M.A.C.M.A

P. Peddanna,minor, rep.by N.F.Guardian, v. C.Ramasubba Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P. Peddanna,minor, rep.by N.F.Guardian, v. C.Ramasubba Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kamepalli Sitaramaiah Vs Nalluri Krishna Mohan Rao

D.Prabhavathi and 4 Ors. Vs M.Yalladri and Anr.

United India Insurance Co. Ltd, Anantapur Rep. by Dm, Vs S.a.Haroon and Others

The Branch Manager, National Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Nagireddigari Umadevi and 3 Others

Shaik Khaja Peer at Rangasamuddram Khajapeer Vs B.Venkatarayappa

Aksharabharathi Educational Society, Vs Nagothi Gopal Krishna