Partly allowed

Syed Nayeemuddin v. Mohd Nisa Ahmed

Telangana HC27 Dec 2011MACMA/3402/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against an Accident Claim Tribunal award in a motor vehicle injury case. The High Court found the Tribunal's award of Rs.50,000 unjust, increased it to Rs.75,000 considering future medical costs and transport charges, and allowed the appeal in part.

What did the court decide?

Compensation increased from Rs.50,000 to Rs.75,000, covering single grievous injury, disability, and future expenses. No order as to costs.

Syed Nayeemuddin Vs Mohd Nisa Ahmed — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO

¶5

M.A.C.M.A.No.3402 OF 2011

Between:

Syed Nayeemuddin

..... APPELLANT

AND

Mohd. Nisar Ahmed and another

¶11

....RESPONDENTS

¶12

The Court made the following:

¶13

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO

¶14

M.A.C.M.A.No.3402 OF 2011

¶15

JUDGMENT:

¶16

This appeal is filed by the claimant against the Award in M.V.O.P.No.201 of 1998 on the file of the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal, Medak, Sangareddy. A claim for Rs.1,25,000/- was made for the injuries sustained by the appellant in a motor accident. On 11.07.1997, when the appellant was going in a jeep another jeep came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against him as a result of which he received multiple injuries and he was treated in hospital and

¶17

suffered disability. The first respondent is the owner and the second respondent is the Insurance Company. The first respondent claims the vehicle was insured with the second respondent and he sold to Lalit Kumar. The second respondent filed a counter putting the appellant to strict proof of the nature of the incident, the nature of injuries and the quantum of compensation claimed.

¶18

After considering the material on record, the Tribunal below has granted compensation of Rs.50,000/-. On being not satisfied with it, the present appeal is filed.

¶19

The point for consideration is whether the compensation granted by the Tribunal below is just and reasonable.

¶20

Point: There is no dispute about the cause of the incident or about the injuries received by the appellant. Ex.A3 is the Injury Certificate and PW.2 is the doctor who has examined PW.1 and found that there was malunited fracture to right femur and also some disability to an extent of 35% and issued Disability Certificate - Ex.A11. The Tribunal below has granted compensation of Rs.27,000/- towards single grievous injury and permanent disability. The Tribunal also granted a sum of Rs.23,000/towards medical expenses.

¶21

The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the Tribunal below has not taken into consideration the future medical expenses which are likely to be incurred by the appellant for removal of the rod inserted and the Tribunal has also not taken into consideration the transport charges for being treated at Gandhi Hospital for a long time.

¶22

Taking into consideration the above submissions, I feel the ends of justice would be met if the compensation is increased to Rs.75,000/-.

¶23

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part and the Award of the lower Tribunal is modified and the appellant is entitled to compensation of Rs.75,000/-. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶24

____________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO, J

¶25

December 27, 2011 MD

¶26

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO

¶27

M.A.C.M.A.No.3402 OF 2011

¶28

December 27, 2011

Syed Nayeemuddin v. Mohd Nisa Ahmed

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Syed Nayeemuddin v. Mohd Nisa Ahmed

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 New India Assurance Company Limited, Vs Pogula Santhosha

Smt. R.Sugunamma, (A2) Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

United India Insurance Company Limited, Vs Smt. G.Veenavathi

Kakani Raja Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Annam Satyanarayana Vs The State of Ap., Rep.by its

Pathuri Hy Mohana Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh