Allowed

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sri B.Visweswara Rao

Telangana HC5 Mar 2013CMA/1534/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a civil miscellaneous appeal in part, upholding the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for an injured claimant but reducing the rate of interest on the award from 9% to 7.5% per annum based on recent apex court judgments.

What did the court decide?

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal allowed in part. Rate of interest on compensation reduced from 9% to 7.5% per annum from date of petition till realization.

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sri B.Visweswara… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR

¶2

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1534 OF 2004

¶3

JUDGMENT:

¶4

Aggrieved by the order dated 19-03-2004 in O.P. No.1063 of 2001 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – cum –

¶5

IV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the appellant.

¶6

2. The appellant herein viz., the United India Insurance Company Limited is respondent No.2, respondent No.1 is the claimant - injured and respondent No.2, who is owner of the lorry bearing No.AHT 8386 insured with the appellant, is respondent No.1 before the Tribunal.

¶7

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they arrayed before the Tribunal.

¶8

4. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

¶9

(a) The specific case of the claimant is that on 25-12-2000 at 7-00 pm, while he was proceeding from Chintal bus stop towards Sri Sai Medical shop, lorry bearing No.AHT – 8386, belonging to respondent No.1, being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and at high speed, hit against him, due to which he sustained grievous injuries. Hence, he claimed a total compensation of Rs.1,25,000/- under various heads.

¶10

(b) Respondent No.1 remained ex parte. Respondent No.2 filed counter and denied the material averments made by the claimant.

¶11

5. Based on the rival pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial:

¶12

“1) Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in the motor accident, that took place on 25.12.00 at about 7 PM at Chintal due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No.AHT8386/1976 model roadmaster?

¶13

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

¶14

3) To what relief?”

¶15

6. To substantiate his case, claimant got examined PWs.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-12. On behalf of respondent No.2, RW.1 was examined and Exs.B-1 to B-3 were marked.

¶16

7. The Tribunal, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to negligence of the lorry driver. Respondent No.2 (appellant - insurance company) has not adduced any evidence in support of its contention that the driver of the lorry had no driving licence as on the date of accident. The Tribunal did not accept the version of respondent No.2. There is nothing to interfere with the said finding.

¶17

8. As far as quantum of compensation is concerned, claimant was examined as PW.1. The Doctor, who treated him, was examined as PW.2. Exs.A-5 and A-6 are the injury certificates. The injuries noted in Ex.A-6 are ‘(1) fracture of neck right scapula, (2) fracture of right clavicle, and (3) fracture of interior angle of right scapula. Ex.A-7 is the discharge summary. Ex.A-12 are x-ray films. According to the evidence of PW.2 - Dr. Kodandapani, Orthopaedic Surgeon, claimant

¶18

was admitted in the hospital on 25-12-2000 and was treated as inpatient till 03-01-2001. PW.2 further deposed that the claimant has sustained disability around 10 to 15% to his right upper limb. Ex.X-1 is case sheet of the claimant. He further deposed that the disability can be reduced by physiotherapy.

¶19

9. Considering the nature of injuries, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,14,506/- i.e., Rs.80,000/- for four fractures, Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.14,000/- towards medical expenses as per Ex.A-10 and also awarded Rs.10,506/- towards loss of earnings during the period of treatment. Aggrieved of the same, respondent No.2 preferred this appeal.

¶20

10. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material on record.

¶21

11. The only contention of the learned counsel for respondent No.2 (appellant), Sri A. Ramakrishna Reddy, is that the fractured bones would be united as per the evidence of PW.2. It is further submitted that PW.2 deposed that the disability can be reduced by physiotherapy and these factors were not taken into consideration by the Tribunal and the Tribunal has awarded Rs.80,000/- to the claimant for fractures though no disability certificate has been filed. It is also argued that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess valid driving licence and that the rate of interest awarded is excessive.

¶22

12. The learned counsel for the claimant has submitted that considering the nature of fractures and other injuries sustained by the claimant and period of treatment, the Tribunal has rightly awarded Rs.80,000/- for four fractures and there are no grounds to reduce the

¶23

same.

¶24

13. Now the only point that arises for consideration is whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal has to be reduced and what is the reasonable rate of interest that can be awarded on the compensation?

¶25

POINT:

¶26

14. Since the injuries/fractures sustained by the claimant on different parts i.e., on right scapula, right clavicle and interior of right scapula resulted in disability to his right upper limb, it cannot be said that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive. Though, it may be a fact that the disability may be reduced by physiotherapy, that cannot be a ground to reduce the compensation awarded. The compensation awarded under various grounds appears to be just and reasonable. However, in view of the latest judgments of the Apex Court and this Court, the contention of the learned counsel for respondent No.2 is accepted on the issue of awarding interest on the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the claimant. Therefore, the rate of interest, awarded by the Tribunal, is reduced from 9% per annum to 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization.

¶27

15. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part reducing the rate of interest from 9% to 7.5% per annum. Consequently, the Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed. No costs.

¶28

March 5, 2013.

¶29

______________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J

¶30

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sri B.Visweswara Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sri B.Visweswara Rao

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

R. Krishna Murthy Vs Sri T.Chiranjeevulu, I.A.S.

Bochula Nageswara Rao , Bochu Nageswara Rao , Nagu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Y.Lourdes Rajan, Vs Sri J.S.V. Prasad, I.A.S.

B.Jogiramaiah Vs Sri Sombabu, I.A.S

Gangapuram Malleswari, Vs T.Chiranjeevulu, IAS

Kandakatla Sirisha Vs Kandakatla Indira