Shaik Rizwan Vs M/S Sujala Pipes Pvt. Ltd., and Another

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

TUESDAY .THE SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS

¶5

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 87 OF 2025

¶6

Between:

¶7

Shaik Rizwan, D/o S.Abdul Salam, Aged about 21 years, Muslim, coolie now disabled, resident of H.No 1-3-6A,Tirupadu Village, Gadivemula Mandal, Kurnool Dist

¶8

...Appellant/Petitioner

¶9

AND

¶10

M/S Sujala Pipes Pvt Ltd., Represented by SPY Reddy,C-1,^Industrial Estate, Nandyal, Kurnool District.

¶11

National Insurance Company Limited, Represented By its Branch Manager, D.No 40/344,Tuia Complex, Gandhi Nagar, Kurnool.

¶12

...Respondents/ Respondents

¶13

Appeal filed under Section 173(1) of M.V Act, aggrieved by the order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- V Additional District Judge, Kurnool, passed in M.V.O.P No.206/2012 dt.13.Q3.2015.

¶14

This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and material papers in the Suit and upon hearing arguments of Sri. G Sravan Kumar, Advocate for the Appellant and of Smt A Jayanthi, Advocate for Respondent No.2

¶15

This Court doth Order and decree as follows:

¶16

'That the M.A.C.M.A. be and is hereby allowed in part;

¶17

That the compensation be and is hereby enhanced from Rs.9,99,852/to. Rs'.l 1,00,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum, from the date of fjetltion till the date of realization against respondent Nos.1 and 2;

¶18

That the respondent No.2/insurer be and is hereby directed to deposit the compensation amount within two months from the date of this judgment before the Tribunal;

¶19

That on such deposit, the claimant be and is hereby permitted to withdraw the enhanced compensation amount along with costs and interest accrued thereon;

¶20

That the rest of the conditions made in the order of the Tribunal shall remain intact;

¶21

That the Tribunal shall proceed to pay the amount in the aforesaid terms, adjusting the amount, if any, already paid and

¶22

The respondents 1&2 do pay costs of Rs.8/- towards proportionate costs to the appellant.

¶23

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS

¶24

MACMA No.87 OF 2025

¶25

	Rs.	Ps.
Stamps for Vakalatnama	05	00
Stamps used for the Memo	10	00
Stamps on certified copy ofJudgment of the Trial Court	01	00
Stamps on certified copy of decree ofTrial Court	02	00
Value of Copy Stamp paper used for enclosures (10X2)	20	00
Advocate’sfeeonRupees(notcertified)

¶26

Batta and Postage (25 X 2)

¶27

Translation and Printing charge

Total

50

88

00 00

Proportionate Costs = Succession Amount X costs / Value of appeal

¶33

Succession Amount = Rs. 1,00,148

¶34

AppellantCosts = Rs. 88

¶35

Value of the Appeal = Rs. 10,00,148

¶36

Proportionate Costs = Rs. 8/-

¶37

The respondents t&2 do pay costs of Rs.8/- towards proportionate costs to the appellant

¶38

SD/- N NAGAMMA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- V Additional District Judge, Kurnool, Kurnool District

¶43

Three CD copies

HIGH COURT

DATED:07/01/2025

DECREE

IVIACMA.No.87 of 2025

¶48

ALLOWING THE M.A.C.M.A IN PART

¶49

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶50

TUESDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE i

¶51

PRESENT

¶52

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS

¶53

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 87 OF 2025

¶54

Appeal filed under Section 173(1) of M.V Act, aggrieved by the order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- V Additional District Judge, Kurnool, passed in M.V.O.P No.206/2012 dt.13.03.2015.

¶55

Between:

¶56

Shaik Rizwan, D/o S.Abdul Salam, Aged about 21 years, Muslim, coolie now disabled, resident of H.No 1-3-6A,Tirupadu Village, Gadivemula Mandal, Kurnool Dist

¶57

...Appellant/Petitioner

¶58

AND

¶59

M/S Sujaia Pipes Pvt Ltd., Represented by SPY Reddy,C-1,^Industrial Estate, Nandyal, Kurnool District.

¶60

National Insurance Company Limited, Represented By its Branch Manager, D.No 40/344,Tula Complex, Gandhi Nagar, Kurnool.

¶61

...Respondents/ Respondents

¶62

Counsel for the Appellant: Sri. G Sravan Kumar

¶63

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Smt A Jayanthi

¶64

The Court made the following:JUDGMENT

¶65

in i' !■

¶66

^ iiI

¶67

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS El ‘lotf'

¶68

m.a.c.m^

¶69

m JUDGMENT: Chairman, llis’appeal is directed against the order of the Motor Vehicle Aceident Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal (hereinafter called as ‘the Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.206 of 2012 dated 13.03.2015. the claimant before the Tribunal. 2. The appellant is and insurer of the The respondent No.l and 2 are the owner Tipper Lorty bearing No. AP 21 TT 0764 (hereinafter referred to as “crime lorry”) respectively.

¶70

The case of the claimant, in the petition before the Tribunal is that;

¶71

12.06.2009 at about 11.30 a.m., while the i). On shifting metal chips from loading point petitioner was to work site, the crime loriy with metal load driven^by its driver in a rash and negligent manner operated the lift to unload the metal without observing electrical line metal heap. Due to that the rod which was going on the tipper has pulled the which was attached to electrical wire resulted the electrical wire was cut down and fell on the petitioner, who is near to the

¶72

2

¶73

tipper. On that, the petitioner received electrical^burn injuries.

¶74

ii). Then she was taken treatment as inpatient in Apollo Hospital at Hyderabad from 13.06.2009 to 17.09.2009 and spent an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/towards medical attendant, transport, and other incidental expenses. She claimed compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- against the owner and insurer of the said crime loriy.

¶75

The respondent No.2/insurer filed counter denying the averments in the petition and pleaded that there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the crime lorry in causing the incident and thereby, prayed to dismiss the petition.

¶76

The Tribunal settled the following issues for enquiry basing on the material:

¶77

1.Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in a road accident which took place on 12.06.2009 at about 11.30 a.m. due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of tipper bearing No.AP 21 TT 0764 by its driver?

¶78

3

¶79

2.Whether the driver of the tipper bearing No.AP 21^TT 0764 is having valid and effective driving license at the time of the accident?

¶80

3.Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation,^if so, to what amount, against whom? and

¶81

4.To what relief, the petitioner is entitled?”

¶82

During enquiry, on behalf of the claimants, P.Ws.l^and2 were examined and Exs.A. 1 to A.8, X. 1 and X.2 were exhibited. On behalf of the respondent No.2, R.Ws.l and 2 were^examined and Ex.B.l was marked.

¶83

On the material, the Tribunal, having concluded that^the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the^crimelorry by its driver, held that claimant is entitled for the^compensation of Rs.9,99,852/-, with interest at 7.5% per annum from^thedate of petition till the date of realization against the^respondent Nos.l and 2, for the injuries sustained by the claimant.

¶84

It is against the said order; the present appeal was preferred by the claimant.

¶85

•1^.<br>

¶86

4

¶87

Heard Sri G. Sravan Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant/claimant and Smt.A.Jayanthi, learned counsel^forthe respondent No.2/insurer.

¶88

Sri G.Sravan Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submits that the Tribunal erred in calculating the quantum of compensation entitled by the claimant; that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the^materialon record in proper perspective in awarding less quantum of compensation to the claimant, thereby, the claimant^isentitled for enhancement of compensation as claimed before the Tribunal and thereby, prays to consider the appeal preferred by the claimant. 11. On the other hand, Smt.A.Jayanthi, learned counsel^for the respondent No.2/insurer submits that the Tribunal, after appreciating the material on record, rightly calculated the compensation entitled by the claimant, which requires no interference, thereby, the present appeal has no merits^and is I liab|e for dismissal.

f

I

5

for determination is “whether 12. Now, the point that arises awarded to the claimant is just the compensation compensation?

¶93

POINT: It is not in dispute about the injuries sustained by the well involvement of the crime lorry, it claimant in the incident as no appeal preferred by the is also not in dispute that there is lorry against the findings of the owner and insurer of the crime Tribunal.

¶94

shows that P.W.l. who is aged 14. The testimony of P.W.2 admitted in their about 17 years by the time of incident, was electrical burns and she took 13.06.2009 with 50% hospital on till 17.09.2009. All the medical bills treatment as in-patient issued by their hospital. under Ex.A.7 were facts and circumstances. 15. Having regard to the above nature ot injuries sustained by the claimant, it is just and of Rs.40,000/- towards pain to award an amount appropriate nourishment. Rs.20,000/towards extra and suffering. , Rs.30,000/- towards towards attendant charges Rs.30,000/-

¶95

6

¶96

loss of earnings, Rs. 10,000/- towards transport expenses^and

¶97

Rs.20,000/- towards loss of amenities.

¶98

Apart from the above, as per the ratio laid down by^the HonTole Supreme Court in Sidram v. The Divisional Manger, United India Insurance Company Limited^, the claimant also entitled compensation under the head of loss of marriage, thereby, the claimant also entitled an amount of Rs.50,000/towards loss of marriage.

¶99

Coming to the claim made by the claimant under the head of disability, no material was placed on record to assess the disability sustained by the claimant, thereby, no compensation can be awarded to the claimant under the head of permanent disability.

¶100

A brief exposition of the calculation made to arrive at the

¶101

compensation is set out infra:

¶102

S.No.	Heads	Calculation
1	Medical expenses.	Rs.9,00,000/-(roundedoff)

¶103

^2022 LiveLaw (SC) 968

¶104

7

¶105

|2|Pain and suffering||rs.40,000/-| |---|---|---| |3|Extra nourishment|Rs.20,000/-| |4|Attendant Charges|Rs.30,000/-| |5|Loss of earnings|Rs.30,000/-| |6|Transport Expenses|Rs.10,000/-| ||Loss of amenities|Rs.20,000/-| |8|Loss of marriage|Rs.50,000/-| ||compensat
Total
awarded|ion Rs.11,00,000/-|

¶106

this Court is 19. Therefore, in view of the forgoing discussion, the Tribunal of the considered opinion that the award passed by enhancing the compensation from warrants interference by Thus, this point is answered Rs.9,99,852/- to Rs.l1,00,000/-. accordingly.

¶107

In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed in part, with proportionate costs, enhancing the compensation from

¶108

8

¶109

Rs.9,99,852/to Rs.l 1,00,000/with interest at 7.5% per annum, from the date of petition till the date of realization against respondent Nos.l and 2. The respondent No.2/insurer shall deposit the compensation amount within two months from the date of this judgment before the Tribunal. On such deposit, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the enhanced compensation amount along with costs and interest accrued thereon. The rest of the conditions made in the order of the Tribunal shall remained intact. The Tribunal shall proceed to pay the amount in the aforesaid terms, adjusting the amount, if any, already paid.

¶110

Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated.

¶111

Miscelianeous petitions pending if any, stand closed.

¶112

To,

¶113

//TRUE COPY//

¶114

SD/- N NAGAMMA ASSISTANTREGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER

¶115