Partly allowed

Vadla Rathnaiah, v. B. Satynarayana

Telangana HC7 Aug 2014MACMA/171/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Motor Accidents Claims appeal, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal in part. It set aside the Tribunal's dismissal and awarded the injured claimant a reduced compensation of Rs.20,000/- with interest, holding the injuries were not grievous enough for a higher award.

What did the court decide?

Compensation of Rs.20,000/- with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of appeal till realization from respondents.

Vadla Rathnaiah, Vs B. Satynarayana — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.171 OF 2005

¶2

JUDGMENT:

¶3

The claimant-injured filed this appeal, having been aggrieved by the Award of the learned Chairman of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal–cum-VI Additional District Judge, Nizamabad, (for short, ’Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.24 of 2003 dated 28.10.2004, dismissing the claim of the claimant against the claim of Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees two lakhs only), in the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the Act’).

¶4

2. Heard Sri M.Rajamalla Reddy, the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Naresh Byrapuneni learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent-insurance company. Respondent No.1 owner of the crime auto served but none appeared on his behalf and taken as heard to decide on merits. Perused the material on record. The parties hereinafter are referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience in the appeal.

¶5

3. The contentions in the grounds of appeal as well as the oral submissions of the appellant-claimant (injured), in nutshell are that the award of the Tribunal is contrary to law, weight of evidence, probabilities of the case, that the Tribunal ought to have seen that the appellant suffered grievous injuries due to which he suffered permanent disability for which P.W-2, doctor was examined and issued Ex.A-3 which shows that the appellant sustained fracture to left leg and right leg and also issued Ex.A-6 which clearly shows the disability he suffered at 40% and hence to allow the appeal as prayed for in the claim petition by setting aside the quantum awarded by the Tribunal.

¶6

4. Now the points that arise for consideration in the appeal are:

¶7

1. Whether the award of the Tribunal is unjust and requires interference by this Court and if so with what extent and against whom with what rate of interest with what observations?

¶8

2. To what result?

¶9

POINT-1:

¶10

5. The fact that the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of the driver of crime auto bearing No.AP 25U 1566 of the 1^st respondent insured with the 2^nd respondent is proved from the evidence of P.W-1 with reference to Ex.A-1 F.I.R and Ex.A-2 charge sheet as rightly concluded the Tribunal its finding in this regard requires no interference. As per the averments of the petition, the claimant immediately after the accident, was shifted to Government Head Quarters Hospital, Nizamabad, where Dr.T.Narsing Rao treated the claimant for three days and later he was shifted to private hospital which also belongs to the self-same doctor i.e., Dr.T.Narsing Rao who was examined as P.W-2. In his cross-examination said doctor admitted that he issued Ex.A-3 wound certificate in his private capacity without obtaining any X- ray of the injuries and he used his seal as Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government Head Quarters Hospital, Nizamabad.

¶11

6. However, the fact remains from the above that there are injuries to the left ankle and right leg to take into consideration that resulted in filing the charge sheet by police and even taken those injuries are not grievous for evidence of P.W-2 and Exs.A-1, A-2 and A-3 ignored for no credence to those issued by P.W-2. The claimant aged admittedly 48 years and by taking consideration of the same, this Court feels that it is fit case to grant compensation of Rs.20,000/- in all for the injuries sustained by the claimant including for treatment and other expenditure. Accordingly point No.1 is answered.

¶12

POINT No.2:

¶13

7. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part by awarding compensation of Rs.20,000/- with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of this appeal till the date of realization. Respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. After payment or deposit made by the respondents, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the same.

¶14

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶15

8. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this appeal, shall stand closed.

¶16

_______________________ Dr. B. SIVA SANKARA RAO, J

¶17

Date: -08-2014 ksh

Vadla Rathnaiah, v. B. Satynarayana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vadla Rathnaiah, v. B. Satynarayana

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

Burmavath Devi, W/o Late Ramsingh Vs The state of Telangana Rep.by.its Public Prosecutor

Nazia Tahseen Vs The State of Ap.

Banothu Dasru , Dayakar Vs The State of Telangana

Mohd. Haneef Vs The State of Telangana

Mohd. Shafeeq Vs The State of Telengana

Pilli Chandra Shekar, Vs The State of Telangana