Manjula Narayana Vs Pathan Shahida

MANJULA NARAY A NA, S/O.CHENCHANNA HINDU, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OC C .BELDARI COOLIE, R/O.D.NO.82/ 134 KHAAR KHAN KOTTALA, R ACHINNAYAPALLI VILLAGE KAD A PA MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DIS T RICT ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶10

...APPELLANT

¶11

AND

¶12

PATHAN SHAHID A , W/O.JAFFAR KHAN AGED N OT KNOWN, OWNER OF THE H UNDAI XCENT CAR BEARING NO . AP04-BA-8723 R/O.DOOR NO.14/ 4 86-B AKSANAGAR, KAMALAPUR A M TOWN AND MANDAL YSR KA D APA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADES H

¶13

THE UNITED INDI A INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITE D , REP.BY ITS BRANCH MANAG E R, BRANCH OFFICE DWARAK A TOWERS, 7 ROADS, KADAP A CITY YSR KADAPA DISTRI C T, ANDHRA PRADESH

¶14

MULLA MOHAMMED RAFI, S/O.MABU AGED 44 YEARS, CAR DRIVER R/ O .DOOR NO.8/14-3, KUMMA R A STREET, KAMALAPURAM V ILLAGE AND MANDAL YSR KAD A PA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADES H .

¶15

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶16

Counsel for the Appellant:

¶17

1.D KODANDARAMI REDDY

¶18

2

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶20

1.GUDI SRINIVASU

¶21

¶22

The Court made the following Judgment :

¶23

The Appellant/ Claimant filed the present Appeal aggrieved by the order and decree 23.09.2022 in M.V.O.P.No.38 of 2020 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Kadapa, whereby and whereunder the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.3,44,722/- to the Appellant/ Claimant, as against the claim of 13,50,000/for the injuries sustained by the Claimant in a motor accident that occurred on 06.05.2019.

¶24

For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.

¶25

The case of the Petitioner is briefly as follows:

¶26

On 06.05.2019 the Claimant went to Anumvaripalli Village, B. Kodur Mandal to attend a function and after attending the same, himself and one Bathala Venkateshu proceeded to Badvel and after attending their work, when they reached to Payalakuntla Village, situated on Badvel – Porumamilla Road, in the motorcycle driven by the Claimant, the Respondent No.1 car bearing No. AP 04 BA 8723 came from their rear side, driven by the Respondent No.3 in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and hit the motorcycle of the Claimant, as a result of which, the Claimant and pillion rider Venkatesh fell

¶27

3

¶28

down on the road and sustained bleeding injuries and a Crime No. 97 of 2019 of B. Kodur Police Station registered as against the Respondent No.3.

¶29

Before the Tribunal, Respondent Nos.1 and 3 remained ex parte .

¶30

Respondent No.2/ Insurance Company filed Written Statement contending that at the time of accident the driver of the car bearing No. AP 04 BA 8723 drove the same in slow manner with care and caution by observing all traffic rules and regulations, but the Claimant drove his motorcycle by talking with the pillion rider Mr. Battala Venkatesh and failed to observe the traffic rules and thereby came and contact with the said car and fallen down and received injuries. The accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the Claimant only. As there was no rash and negligence on the part of the Respondent No.3 in driving the car of the Respondent No.1, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation.

¶31

Basing on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for

¶32

trial:

¶33

“1. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 06.05.2019 at about 1.00 p.m, due to rash and negligent driving of the car bearing No. AP 04 BA 8723 or not?

¶34

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation, if so, what amount and from whom?

¶35

3. To what relief?”

¶36

On behalf of the Claimants, P.Ws 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1

¶37

to A7 were marked. On behalf of Respondent No.2/Insurance Company, no

¶38

4

¶39

witness examine, but filed an application under Section 170 of M.V.Act, vide I.A.No. 605 of 2022 and same was allowed.

¶40

After hearing both parties and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition against Respondent Nos.1 to 3, awarding compensation of Rs.3,44,722/- with subsequent interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization and directed Respondents No.1 to 3 to pay jointly and severally the said amount within a month from the date of the order.

¶41

Aggrieved by the said award, the Appellant/ Claimant preferred this appeal contending that the Tribunal erred in taking the monthly notional income of the Appellant as Rs. 8,500/-, though the Appellant is earning Rs. 700/- per day as beldari. The Tribunal assessed the disability as 20%. As per Ex.A7 disability certificate and as per the evidence of PW-2 the disability sustained by the Appellant is 30% and also failed to award compensation of Rs. 50,000/- towards pain and suffering.

¶42

On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 herein has supported the impugned award and prayed to dismiss the appeal.

¶43

Now the point for consideration is:

¶44

Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference?

¶45

5

¶46

POINT:

¶47

Perused the Award passed by the Tribunal. The Claimant got examined himself as PW-1 and categorically deposed with regard to nature of the accident and considering the evidence of PW-1, coupled with Ex.A1 and A3 i.e FIR and Charge Sheet of B. Kodur Police Station registered against the driver of the car i.e Respondent No.3 holding that the Respondent No.3 drove the car in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident, due to which the Claimant sustained injuries and answered the issue No.1 in favour of the Claimant.

¶48

Coming to the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is concerned, the age of the Claimant is 50 years at the time of accident as per Ex.A2 Wound Certificate. As per evidence of PW-1, he was working as beldari and earning Rs. 700/- per day. In the absence of any evidence to show the income and occupation of the Claimant, the Tribunal considered the notional income as Rs. 8,500/- per month.

¶49

Learned counsel for the Appellant has argued that in the absence of any evidence, the Tribunal ought to have considered the wages applicable under Minimum Wages Act for the year 2019, which admittedly is Rs. 359/per day. If the same is considered, the monthly income of the Claimant would be Rs. 10,770/-. As rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the Appellant, in the absence of any documentary evidence, the Tribunal ought to have fixed the wages according to Minimum Wages Act applicable for the year of the accident i.e 2019 in the present case. In such a case, the Claimant is entitled

¶50

6

¶51

for notional income of Rs. 10,770/- as discussed above. Accordingly, the annual income would be come to Rs. 1,29,240/- (Rs.10,770/- x 12). After applying appropriate multiplier ‘13’ for the age group of 50 years, the loss of earnings would be come Rs. 16,80,120/- (Rs. 1,29,240/- x ‘13’).

¶52

As per the evidence of PW-2, coupled with Ex.A7 i.e disability certificate would show that the Claimant was sustained 30% disability in the said accident. However, PW-2 during the course of cross examination, has admitted that he is not the Doctor, who treated the injured at any point of time and on the other hand, as per his evidence all the external injuries of the Claimant were healed and he did not mention in Ex.A7 disability percentage basing on the injuries wise. In view of the same, the Tribunal disbelieving the evidence of PW-2 and Ex.A7, which shows that the Claimant sustained injuries during the course of accident, assessed the disability to an extent of 20%, which in the opinion of this Court is just and reasonable.

¶53

In view of the same, the Claimant is entitled to a tune of Rs. 3,36,024/(Rs. 16,80,120/- x 20%) towards loss of earnings. The Tribunal also granted compensation under conventional heads viz., Rs. 25,000/- towards pain and suffering; Rs.5,000/- towards transportation expenses; Rs.5,000/- towards attendant charges; Rs. 10,000/- towards nourishment charges; Rs. 14,552/towards medical bills and Rs. 20,000/- towards future medical expenses, which is reasonable and needs no interference.

¶54

7

¶55

The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under different heads and

¶56

the amounts enhanced by this Court, are as follows:-

¶57

S.No.	Head of the Claim	Compensation awarded by the Tribunal	Amounts now enhanced by this Court
1.	Loss of earning	2,65,200/-	3,36,024/-
2.	Pain and suffering	25,000/-	25,000/-
3.	Transportation expenses	5,000/-	5,000/-
4.	Attendant charges	5,000/-	5,000/-
5.	Nourishment charges	10,000/-	10,000/-
6.	Medical Bills	14,522/-	14,522/-
7.	Future medical expenses	20,000/-	20,000/-
	Total	3,44,722/-	4,15,546/-

¶58

In the result, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly

¶59

allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs. 3,44,722/- to Rs.4,15,546/- with interest at 7.5% p.a from the date of filing of the Petition till the date of realization. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶60

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶61

___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶62

Date: 06.04.2026

¶63

KK

Manjula Narayana v. Pathan Shahida

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manjula Narayana v. Pathan Shahida

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gottimukkala Kiran Babu Vs the Union of India

The Official Liquidator, Vs Nil

The Official Liquidator Vs Nil

Kotakondla Rathna Vs Rengichetty Manohar

Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Vs Kongana Bhavani

Tata Aig General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Meesala Eswaramma