Partly allowed

United India Insurance Company Ltd., v. Mohd.Pahelwan Sharieff

Telangana HC23 Feb 2012CMA/1537/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court reviewed a Motor Accidents Claim petition regarding compensation for a push-cart seller injured in a vehicle accident. The court held that loss of earnings computed via the multiplier method was unjustified due to the tribunal failing to cross-examine the treating doctor and ignoring specific findings on disability evidence. Consequently, the awarded amount was reduced to Rs. 52,000, an

What did the court decide?

Compensation reduced from Rs. 1,13,400 to Rs. 52,000; interest rate reduced from 9% to 7.5% per annum; cross-objections dismissed.

United India Insurance Company Ltd., Vs… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO

¶2

CMA NO.1537 OF 2003 And CROSS OBJECTIONS SR NO.16611 OF 2004

¶3

DATED: 23.02.2012

¶4

CMA NO.1537 OF 2003

¶5

Between: United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

¶6

.. Appellant

¶7

And

¶8

Mohd. Pahelwan Sharieff and another

¶9

.. Respondents

¶10

CROSS OBJECTIONS SR NO.16611 OF 2004

¶11

Between:

¶12

Mohd. Pahelwan Sharieff .. Appellant And

¶13

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and another

¶14

.. Respondents

¶15

THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO

¶16

CMA NO.1537 OF 2003 And

¶17

CROSS OBJECTIONS SR NO.16611 OF 2004

¶18

COMMON JUDGMENT:

¶19

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/insurance company and there is no representation for the respondent-claimant.

¶20

2. This appeal is filed by the insurance company against the order dated 06.11.2002 passed by the SPE & ACB Cases-cum-V Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in O.P.No.1542 of 2000.

¶21

3. The appeal is filed questioning the quantum of compensation on the ground that it is on higher side, whereas the cross objections are filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation on the ground that the compensation granted is inadequate.

¶22

4. The claimant was said to be doing business in chillies on a push-cart and was aged about 40 years. While he was proceeding

¶23

by walk on 11.07.2000 an auto rickshaw bearing No.AP 12 T 50 dashed him, as a result of which, he sustained grievous injurious. He filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation on account of the injuries sustained by him in the said motor vehicle accident. Against his claim of Rs.2,50,000/-, the learned Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.1,13,400/- as compensation.

¶24

5. The point for determination in the appeal and cross-objections is whether the compensation granted is just and reasonable?

¶25

6. The claimant apart from producing the medical record, filed Ex.A.4, disability certificate issued by the medical board. To prove the said Ex.A.4, disability certificate he filed the chiefexamination affidavit of PW.2, the doctor who treated him and who is one of the members of the medical board. He was sought to be cross-examined by the appellant/insurance company on commission, but he could not be cross-examined as the claimant failed to make him available for cross-examination. On that, his evidence was closed. Learned Tribunal gave a specific finding that the evidence of the said doctor in the chief-examination affidavit is of no consequence. However, the learned Tribunal strangely as against 45% disability stated in the disability certificate, considered it to be 30%. When once the evidence of PW.2 was not taken in to consideration, the learned Tribunal in my view ought not to have on its own assessed the disability at 30%.

¶26

At best, basing on the certificate issued by the medical board, the Tribunal can give a finding that the claimant sustained permanent disability. Therefore, the loss of earnings computed by the Tribunal basing on multiplier method cannot be taken into consideration. The learned Tribunal considered the loss of earnings of the claimant at Rs.86,400/-, but in this appeal this Court is of the view that the amount of Rs.25,000/- can be granted to the claimant towards grievous injury/permanent disability sustained by him instead of confirming the amount granted by the Tribunal towards loss of earnings. The learned Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.7,000/- towards medicines, transport, extra nourishment and other incidental charges, a sum of Rs.10,000/towards pain and suffering and another sum of Rs.10,000/towards loss of amenities. They being reasonable, need no interference. The claimant is therefore, entitled for compensation of Rs.25,000/- + Rs.7,000/- + Rs.10,000/- + Rs.10,000/- = Rs.52,000/- The compensation amount of Rs.1,13,400/- granted by the learned Tribunal is reduced to Rs.52,000/- in this appeal. The interest granted at the rate of 9% per annum being on higher side is also reduced to 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.

¶27

7. With the above reduction in the compensation amount and rate of interest, the appeal filed by the insurance company is partly allowed. The cross-objections filed by the claimant are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶28

___________________ Date: 23.02.2012 R. KANTHA RAO, J kvrm

¶29

THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO

¶30

CMA NO.1537 OF 2003 And CROSS OBJECTIONS SR NO.16611 OF 2004

¶31

DATED: 23.02.2012

United India Insurance Company Ltd., v. Mohd.Pahelwan Sharieff

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

United India Insurance Company Ltd., v. Mohd.Pahelwan Sharieff

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s. National Insurance Company Limited Vs Gonthina Venkat Rao

The Ap State Road Transport Corporation Vs Ramadugu Sai Kumar

Apsrtc, Vs Karaka Demudu

Nunna Gangaraju Vs Allampalli Siva , Sivayya

Apsrtc Vs Gorla Jnanayya

S. Shekar Reddy Vs S. Anand Reddy