Allowed

Nandyala Chandra Sekhara Reddy v. Malempati Prasad Rao

Andhra Pradesh HC19 Nov 2024MACMA/369/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The appellant appealed against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award enhancing compensation. The High Court found the Tribunal erred in reducing medical expenses without proper reason despite submitted evidence. The appeal was allowed, modifying medical expenses and setting total compensation at Rs. 2,90,070/-.

What did the court decide?

Appellant entitled to Rs. 2,90,070/- towards compensation.

Nandyala Chandra Sekhara Reddy Vs Malempati… — Motor Accident Claims | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF NOVEMBER

¶3

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS

¶6

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 369 OF 2018

¶7

Between:

¶8

Nandyala Chandra Sekhara Reddy, S/o.Chandra Reddy, aged 33 years, R/o.Ginjupalli Village, Atchampet Mandal, Guntur District now temporarily Residing at Jaggaiahpet village and Mandal, Krishna District.

¶9

...Appellant/Petitioner

¶10

AND

¶11

Malempati Prasad Rao, S/o.Subba Rao, aged about 43 years. Owner of the Tractor and Trailer No.AP-16-AM-3978 and AP-16-X-3396, R/o.Cheruvukommupalem Village, Nandigama Mandal, Krishna^District

¶12

United India insurance Company Limited, Rep by its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, OPP- Amma Hotel, I Town, Vijayawada, Krishna District

¶13

S.Naga Raju, S/o.yagalu, Aged about 53 years. Owner of the Auto Bearing No.AP-16-TV-901, Vedadri village, Jaggaiahpet Mandal, Krishna District

¶14

Reliance General Insurance company Limited, Rep By its Branch Manager, 40-1-21/3, 4th Floor, Surya Towers, Near Hotel^Kandhari, M.G.Road, Vijayawada, Krishna District.

¶15

¶16

(Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are not necessary parties)

¶17

...Respondents/Respondents

¶18

Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 01.12.2016 passed in M.V.O.P. No. 412 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal cum XIII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada Krishna District.

¶19

Appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the^Memorandumof Appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the lower Court^and the material evidence on record and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Challa Ajay Kumar, Advocate for the Appellant and Sri S V R Subrahmanyam for the Respondent No.2, and none appeared for other Respondents

¶20

This Court doth order and decree as follows:

¶21

That the Appeal be and is hereby Allowed;

¶22

That the petitioner be and is hereby entitled for Rs.2,90,070/- towards compensation, and he is permitted to withdraw the compensation amount:

¶23

That there be no order as to costs.

¶24

Sd/- G HELA NAIDU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal^-cum-XIII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada Krishna District

¶29

Three CD Copies

SAM sree

HIGH COURT

DATED:20/11/2024

DECREE

MACMA.No.369 of 2018

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

¶36

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶37

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶38

PRESENT

¶39

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS

¶40

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 369 OF 2018

¶41

Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act. aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 01.12.2016 passed in M.V.O.P. No. 412 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal cum XIII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada Krishna District.

¶42

Between:

¶43

¶44

...Appellant/Petitioner

¶45

AND

¶46

Malempati Prasad Rao, S/o.Subba Rao, aged about 43 years. Owner of the Tractor and Trailer No.AP-16-AM-3978 and AP-16-X-3396, R/o.Cheruvukommupalem Village, Nandigama Mandal, Krishna District

¶47

United India Insurance Company Limited, Rep by its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, 0pp. Amma Hotel, I Town, Vijayawada, Krishna District

¶48

S.Naga Raju, S/o.yagalu, Aged about 53 years, Owner of the Auto v’ Bearing No.AP-16-TV-901, Vedadri village, Jaggaiahpet Mandal, Krishna District

¶49

Reliance General Insurance company Limited, Rep By its Branch Manager, 40-1-21/3, 4th Floor, Surya Towers, Near Hotel Kandhari, M.G.Road, Vijayawada, Krishna District.

¶50

(Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are not necessary parties)

¶51

...Respondents/Respondents

¶52

Counsel for the Appellant: Sri Challa Ajay Kumar

¶53

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Sri S V R Subrahmanyam

¶54

Counsel for other Respondents: None Appeared

¶55

The Court made the following:

¶56

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS

¶57

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 369/2018

¶58

JUDGMENT:

¶59

This appeal is filed against the order, dated 01.12.2016, passed in M.V.O.P.No.412 of 2008 on the file of the Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XIII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna (hereinafter called as ‘the Tribunal’).

¶60

The appellant is injured in the accident occurred on 14.01.2008 claimed total compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-^fromthe respondents and the Tribunal after considering the^materialon record, awarded an amount of Rs.2,37,000/towards compensation.

¶61

Challenging the said award, the claimant preferred the present appeal for enhancement of compensation. However,^the respondents contended before this court that the award passed by the Tribunal does not warrant any interference.

¶62

Now, the point that arise for consideration in this appeal is whether the award passed by the tribunal is liable to be set aside, if so, to what extent?

¶63

Point:- This Court perused the evidence of PW1 and PW2, along with exhibits Ex.A2, A6 to A10, and Ex.XI which indicate

¶64

¶65

that the petitioner incurred expenses amounting to Rs. 2,05,070/towards medical treatment. When the details of the treatment provided to the petitioner were submitted and the Ex.A1 final bill receipt, dated 14.03.2008 clearly establishes the fact that Rs.2,05,078/- was spent. On verifying the award, it^isfoundwhen petitioner/claimant spent an amount of Rs.2,05,070/-, but the tribunal thought it fit that Rs.1,50,000/- is a reasonable amount. but the Tribunal did not provide any proper reason for reducing the amount claimed for medical expenses despite the petitioner submitted the necessary documents in support of his^claim. 6. This Court found the petitioner spent an amount of Rs.2,05,070/-, that amount is entitled to by the claimant/appell^ant from the respondents. The respondents though objected the appeal, no substantive argument placed on record to negate the claim of the ciaimant/appellant.

¶66

For the reasons stated above this Court finds it appropriate to modify the award and the petitioner is entitled for Rs.2,05,070/towards medical expenses instead of Rs.1,50,000/-.^The other amounts which were granted by the tribunal need not require any modification. Thus, the appellant is entitled for the following heads;

¶67

¶68

S.No.	Nature of Head	Amount
1.	Medical Expenditure	Rs.2,05,070/-
2.	Grievous Injuries (Rs.15,000/- x 3)	Rs.45,000/-
3.	Pain and suffering	Rs.8,000/-
4.	Extra nourishment	Rs.10,000/-
5.	Loss of earnings	Rs.10,000/-
6.	Mental agony	Rs.6,000/-
7.	Medical attendant	Rs.6,000/-
	Total	Rs.2,90,070/-

¶69

In the result, this appeal is allowed. The petitioner is entitled for" Rs.2,90,070/towards compensation, and he is

¶70

-perrriTtted t5 Withdraw the compensation amount. There^shallbe no order as to costs. Pending petitions, if any, shall^standclosed.

¶71

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand^closed.

¶72

Sd/- G HELA NAIDU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// 1^

¶73

I SECTION OFFICER

¶74

To. 1. The Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - XIII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada Krishna District, (with records if any)

¶75

¶76

One CC to Sri Challa Ajay Kumar, Advocate [OPUC]

¶77

One CC to Sri S V R Subrahmanyam, Advocate [OPUC] 4. The Section Officer, V.R. Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh.

¶78

Three CD Copies

SAM sree

HIGH COURT

DATED:20/11/2024

JUDGMENT + DECREE

MACMA.No.369 of 2018

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

Nandyala Chandra Sekhara Reddy v. Malempati Prasad Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nandyala Chandra Sekhara Reddy v. Malempati Prasad Rao

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

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs Chekuri Vijaya

P.P., Hyd Vs Chengata Chinnakannu Vasu, Chittoor Dist.

D.Venkata Kumar Vs Pallam Padmaja & Another

Apsrtc, Hyderabad Vs Pagilla Srinivasa Rao, Krishna Dist & 2 Others

Mukkola Pavani, W/o Krishna Rao, Vs The State of a.P., rep. by its

Dr.v.Nageswara Rao, Hyd., Vs State of Ap., Rep. Pp & 2 Otrs.