Remanded

K.C. Rajender, v. Apsrtc., Represented by its Managing Director

Telangana HC7 Feb 2012CMA/570/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this civil appeal against an Award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, the single judge held that the Tribunal erred in awarding a lump-sum compensation without applying the multiplier method or examining the medical officer. The appellate court remanded the matter for a fresh consideration of the quantum of compensation, directing the Tribunal to provide the appellant an opportunity to exam

What did the court decide?

The Award was set aside and the matter remitted to the Tribunal to dispose of the issue of quantum of compensation afresh after affording the appellant an opportunity to examine the doctor and adduce

K.C. Rajender, Vs Apsrtc., Represented by its… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO

¶2

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.570 OF 2003

Date: 07.02.2012

Between:

K.C.Rajender

…..Appellant

And

A.P.S.R.T.C., rep. by its Managing Director, RTC ‘X’ Roads, Hyderabad.

¶9

…..Respondent

¶10

THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶11

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO

¶12

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.570 OF 2003

¶13

JUDGMENT:

¶14

This appeal is filed by the injured/claimant against the Award dated 18.07.2002 in O.P.No.53 of 2000 passed by the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar (for short, “Tribunal”).

¶15

2. I have heard both the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶16

3. Challenge by the appellant in this appeal is to the quantum of compensation on the ground that it is not adequate and not just and reasonable. According to the appellant, on 11.12.1999 at about 3.30 pm, while he was proceeding on his Luna bearing No.AIU 6147 from Shankar Nagar towards 6 No. Road, one R.T.C. bus bearing No.AEZ 3258 being driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed him and he fell down on the road. In the accident, he received injuries to his left hand and also to abdomen.

¶17

4. In respect of the said accident, the appellant filed O.P.No.53 of 2000 before the learned Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.2,00,000/for the injuries and permanent disability sustained by him. The learned Tribunal, after going through the entire evidence on record, awarded Rs.70,800/- as compensation.

¶18

5. Sri Sunil Kumar Reddy, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that even though Ex.A-12 disability certificate was filed revealing that the appellant sustained 70% of the disability and his left hand became totally defunct, the learned Tribunal computed the

¶19

compensation not basing on the multiplier method and awarded lumpsum amount towards permanent disability. He further submits that the procedure adopted by the learned Tribunal is not in accordance with law. He invited the attention of this Court to the photograph i.e. Ex.A-11 which clearly indicates that the left hand of the appellant had become completely defunct. He further contended that the amount of Rs.70,800/granted by the learned Tribunal as compensation is very low.

¶20

6. Though medical and disability certificates have been filed, the doctor was not examined to prove the disability of the appellant. The disability certificate however indicates that the appellant sustained 70% of the disability. Taking into consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, I am of the considered view that this is a fit case to remit the matter back to the learned Tribunal for affording opportunity to the appellant to examine the doctor and to adduce any other evidence in support of his claim in respect of quantum of compensation.

¶21

7. For the foregoing reasons, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of by setting aside the award passed by the learned Tribunal and the matter is remitted back to it with a direction to dispose of the matter afresh on the issue of quantum of compensation, after affording opportunity to the appellant to examine the doctor and to adduce evidence on the issue of quantum of compensation. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶22

_________________________ JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO

¶23

7^th February, 2012 Tjmr

¶24

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO

¶25

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.570 OF 2003

¶26

DATE: 07.02.2012

K.C. Rajender, v. Apsrtc., Represented by its Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.C. Rajender, v. Apsrtc., Represented by its Managing Director

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

Veesam Venkata Satyanarayana Murthy, Vs Polavarapu Chandra Rao

M/s. United India Insurance Co., Ltd., Vs Maddala Kotaiah

The Manager Vs K.Anil Kumar, S/o.Kishan, Aged 6 Years, Minor, Under

National Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs Aktharunnisa Begum

M. Guruvaiah Naidu Vs K. Valarmathi

The General Manager, Apsrtc., Mushirabad,Hyderabad, Vs Sri Abdul Bari Khan