Allowed

R.Hampaiah v. K.Chandra Mohan

Telangana HC13 Nov 2015MACMA/1291/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court found the compensation of Rs.46,000 awarded for a motor accident grievously insufficient. The appeal was allowed and the matter remanded to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for reassessment, permitting the appellant to produce a disability certificate from a Medical Board at Ananthapur.

What did the court decide?

The appeal allowed and the matter remanded to the Court of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District and Sessions Judgecum-Fast Track Court, Gooty, for reassessing the compensation.

R.Hampaiah Vs K.Chandra Mohan — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO

¶2

MACMANo.1291 of 2005

Date: 13-11-2015

Between:

R. Hampaiah

.... Appellant

AND

K. Chandra Mohan and another

¶9

.... Respondents

¶10

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO

¶11

MACMANo.1291 of 2005

¶12

ORDER:

¶13

The claimant is the appellant in the present appeal. He filed O.P.No.761 of 2000 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District Judgecum-Fast Track Court, Gooty, claiming compensation of an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in an accident that occurred on 19-12-1999 at about 3.15 P.M. while he was going on a vehicle towards Patakotta cheruvu. When he was going on a vehicle, a car bearing No.TSJ 8743 came in opposite direction towards Guntakal from Patakotta cheruvu with a high speed rashly and negligently and dashed the cycle of the claimant and he sustained grievous injuries in the said accident. The owner of the vehicle, the 1^st respondent, remained ex parte and the 2^nd respondent-Insurance Company contested the case. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.46,000/-

¶14

as against the respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally.

¶15

The petitioner sustained 11 injuries out of which two are grievous in nature. The doctor, who treated the petitioner, opined that the petitioner cannot lift heavy weights and the avocation of the petitioner is Hamali. In the circumstances, the petitioner may not be in a position to continue to work as Hamali, which is a disability attached to his nature of work. This Court is not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded to the claimant and the compensation cannot be fixed on the basis of wound certificate filed by the petitioner. In the circumstances, O.P.No.761 of 2000 requires readjudication.

¶16

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the matter is remanded to the Court of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District and Sessions Judgecum-Fast Track Court, Gooty, for reassessing the compensation for which purpose, the claimant is allowed to produce a copy of the disability certificate issued by a competent Medical Board. The remand is made only for assessing the quantum of compensation and the Tribunal shall dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The claimant shall produce a copy of the Disability Certificate by appearing before a Medical Board of the Government Hospital, Ananthapur.

¶17

¶18

RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J

¶19

Date: 13-11-2015

¶20

Ksn

R.Hampaiah v. K.Chandra Mohan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Hampaiah v. K.Chandra Mohan

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

Bantu Ram Kumar, Vs Sri Venkat Narayana

National Insurance Company Limited, Vs Machkuri Lachmaiah

Sankara Chandramouli Vs The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department

Kotha Damnodar Reddy Vs Smt. K.Anitha

Chilakala Daniel, Vs T. Bhasakara Naidu

The United India Insurance Company Limited, Vs Ontepaka Laxmamma