Dismissed

The United India Insurance Comp.Ltd. v. Lingala Raghunatha Reddy and Anr.

Telangana HC6 Jun 2018CMA/1469/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this civil miscellaneous appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the United India Insurance Company Limited challenged the compensation of Rs.4,41,000 awarded by the Tribunal to a motor accident victim.

What did the court decide?

The appeal filed by United India Insurance Company Limited was dismissed. The Tribunal's award of compensation remains intact. No order as to costs.

The United India Insurance Comp.Ltd. Vs Lingala… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

THE HON’BLE Dr . JUSTI CE SHAMEEM AKTHER CI VI L MI SCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1 4 6 9 of 2 0 0 3

¶2

JUDGMENT:

¶3

This appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is filed by the appellant-United India Insurance Company Limited, aggrieved by the grant of compensation of Rs.4,41,000/ - to the 1^st respondent/ claimant as against a claim of Rs.5,00,000/ -, by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Cuddapah (‘the Tribunal’, for brevity) vide order, dated 12.09.2002, passed in M.V.O.P.No.1036 of 2001.

¶4

2 . Heard the submissions of the learned Standing Counsel for the United India Insurance Company Limited representing the appellant, the learned counsel for the 1^st respondent/ claimant and perused the record.

¶5

3 . The learned Standing Counsel for the United India Insurance Company Limited representing the appellant would submit that the compensation granted by the Tribunal is excessive. The Tribunal had erroneously assessed the compensation payable towards loss of earnings by taking the disability suffered by the 1^st respondent/ claimant as 50% . Without justification, higher amounts were granted towards compensation under the other functional heads and ultimately prayed to allow the appeal as prayed for.

¶6

4 . On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 1^st respondent/ claimant would contend that the Tribunal had taken all the factors into consideration and granted compensation of Rs.4,41,000/ - as against a claim of Rs.5,00,000/ -, which is just and

¶7

¶8

reasonable. There are no circumstances to interfere with the same and ultimately prayed to dismiss the appeal.

¶9

5 . It is not in dispute that the 1^st respondent/ claimant suffered injuries in a motor accident that occurred on 05.10.2001 due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the auto bearing registration No.AP-04-U-1836. There is ample oral and documentary evidence to believe that the 1^st respondent/ claimant suffered injuries in the subject accident. So, the only question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the compensation granted in favour of the 1^st respondent/ claimant by the Tribunal is liable to be reduced.

¶10

6 . As seen from the evidence of P.W.1 (1^st respondent/ claimant) and P.W.2 (Dr.G.Venkata Subbaiah), the 1^st respondent/ claimant suffered fracture to his left thigh in the subject accident. He was shifted to a Government Hospital immediately after the subject accident and thereafter, he took treatment in a private hospital. The 1^st respondent/ claimant had undergone operation in the hospital of Dr.V.Ramana Reddy of Kurnool, where, rods and screws were inserted. The 1^st respondent/ claimant was made to visit the hospital several times. There is record (Ex.A.8) to show that the 1^st respondent/ claimant incurred an amount of Rs.51,453/ - towards medical expenses. There is also record (Ex.A.9) to show that the 1^st respondent/ claimant incurred an amount of Rs.13,500/ - towards transportation expenses. There is also evidence of P.W.2Dr.G.Venkata Subbaiah that he examined the 1^st respondent/ claimant on 30.05.2002 and by that time, the 1^st respondent/ claimant sustained 50% disability. There was mal-union of the fracture and

¶11

¶12

shortening of the leg by half inch. In view of the medical evidence, the Tribunal assessed that the 1^st respondent/ claimant suffered 50% disability. As per the evidence on record, the 1^st respondent/ claimant was a driver having valid driving licence. The subject accident affected the functioning capacity of the 1^st respondent/ claimant. So, the Tribunal, by taking the monthly income of the 1^st respondent/ claimant as Rs.3,500/ - and by applying appropriate multiplier applicable to his age, awarded Rs.3,36,000/ - towards loss of earnings. The Tribunal also awarded Rs.51,453/ - towards medical expenses, Rs.13,500/ - towards transportation charges and Rs.40,000/ - towards pain and suffering. In all, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.4,41,000/ - to the 1^st respondent/ claimant. The assessment and calculation of compensation by the Tribunal is based on evidence on record. Therefore, it cannot be held that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive. There is no need to interfere and vary the award passed by the Tribunal. The appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.

¶13

7 . In the result, the appeal is dismissed.

¶14

Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No

¶15

order as to costs.

¶16

______________________ Dr . SHAMEEM AKTHER, J

¶17

06^th June, 2018 Bvv

The United India Insurance Comp.Ltd. v. Lingala Raghunatha Reddy and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The United India Insurance Comp.Ltd. v. Lingala Raghunatha Reddy and Anr.

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

The National Insurance Co. Ltd. Rep. by Bm, Secunderabad Vs Pullyala Ram Bhoopal Reddy and Another

Kanneboina Lingaiah Vs S. Rama Rao and Another

Pullyala Ram Bhoopal Reddy Vs P.Suresh Goud and Another

The United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Kasu Lavanya , Manjula

Lateefuddin Vs M/S.Jagadamba Engineering Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

Jonnalagadda Prabhakara Rao and 3 Others Vs Vallabu Venkatramana and Another