Allowed

Dubbaka Kamala, Adilabad District v. Rabin Mandal, Adilabad District and Another

Telangana HC31 Aug 2021MACMA/1975/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal order, the High Court held the awarded compensation meagre. The Court enhanced the total compensation for injuries, medical expenses, and suffering from Rs. 16,000 to Rs. 40,000, directing the insurer to pay the balance with interest.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs. 16,000 to Rs. 40,000 with interest at 6% per annum.

Dubbaka Kamala, Adilabad District Vs Rabin Mandal… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

TUESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST^{DAY OF AUGUST} TWO THOUSANO AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE^{G. SRI DEVI}

¶5

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS^{APPEAL NO: 197s OF 2011}

¶6

Appeal under Section 173^{of M.V. Act against the orderand decree madein} o.P.No.396 0f 2005 dated^{20.02.20090n the file of the court of the chairman, Motor} Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum-^{lll Additional District Judge (FTC), Asifabad' Adilabad} District.

¶7

Between:

¶8

Dubbaka Kamala, W/o.^{Chandraiah,Aged 40} .^{years, Occ: Agriculture'}

¶9

nyo. eataji Ankoda^{Village,Fl/M: Kowtala,District:Adilabad'}

¶10

...APPELLANT/PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

l.Rabintvandal,S/o.HaripradaMandal'age:notknown,Occ:OwnerofAuto' ;;;i;s G. Ab-ti-w-ro+z R/o. Ravindra Nasar, Kowtala Vs', Mandal' Adilabad District.

¶13

The New lndia^{Assurance Company Limited, Rep by its-Branch Manager'}

¶14

Arinih OffiCe, Pragathi Nagar, Peddapalli, Karimnagar District'

¶15

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶16

Counsel for the Appellant:^{SRI S. SURENDER REDDY}

¶17

Counsel forthe^{Respondent No.2: SRIT. SANJAY K SINGH}

¶18

Counsel forthe^{Respondent No.1:NONEAPPEARED}

¶19

The Court delivered the^{following:JUDGMENT}

¶20

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE^{G. SRI DEVI}

¶21

M.A.C,M.A.NO.1975 0F²⁰¹¹

¶22

JUDGMENT:

¶23

This appeal is filed under Section^{173 of the MotorVehicles} Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act'), by the^{petitioner-claimantin} O.P.No.396 of 2005 on the file of^{the M.A.C.T.-cum-lllAdditional} District Judge (FTC), Asifabad^{(hereinafterreferred to as "the} Tribunal"), aggrieved by the order dated 20.02.2009,^wherebythe Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.16,000/-^{with interest at the} rate of 7 .Sok per annum from the date of^petition till^{the date of} realisation, in favour of the claimant-petitioner,^{for her injuries, in} a motor accident, which occurred on 29.05.2O05^{due to rash and} negligent act of the driver of the offending vehicle, i.e.,^Auto bearing No.AP- 1W-¹ 047.

¶24

Heard the counsel for both sides.

¶25

The parties hereinafter are referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.

¶26

The facts of the case, in brief, are as under:-

¶27

On 29.05.2005, at about 16.00 hours, the^{petitioner and} others were proceeding in an auto bearing^{No.AP-1W-1047 and} when the auto reached the outskirts of Bej.jur sub-station,^the driver of the auto drove his vehicle in^{rash and negligentmanner at} high speed due to which the auto turned turtle.^{The petitioner} sustained fracture of right fore-arm lower end and injuries^on other parts of her body. Immediately,^{she was shifted to} Government Hospital, Sirpur - T and thereafter,^{she took}

¶28

-.-.

¶29

¶30

treatment at Sri Satya Vijaya Ortho & Maternity Hospital, Mancherial and spent Rs.2S,OOO/_ towards her medical and hospital expenditure. The police of Bejjur had registered a case in Crime No.34 of 2005 under Sections 337 and 33g of the Indian Penal Code against the auto driver.

¶31

Learned counser for the appelrant submitted that the appellant was 35 years old and she received fractures due to the accident. The Tribunal had granteci compensation of Rs.16,000/with interest @ z.so/o per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. The claimant filed the present appeal to enhance the compensation, which is meagre and prayed to enhance compensation to Rs. 1,00,000/-.

¶32

On the other hand, learned counsel for the insurer submitted that the Tribunal had granted just ancl reasonable compensation and ultimately, prayed to dismiss the same.

¶33

There is no dispute with regard to the motor accident which occurred on 29.O5.2OO5 due to the rash and negiigent driving of the driver of the Auto bearing No.A p_1W_10 42. The only dispute is with regard to quantum of compensation awarded. The Tribunal cannot be faulted with for taking the monthly income of the claimant at Rs.3,000/- per month by doing agricurture and awarding compensation. There are no grounds to interfere with the same. Therefore, it is just and proper to award Rs.6,000_/ (Rs.3,000/- x 2) towards loss of earnings of two months during the period of treatment and rest.

¶34

As seen from the record, the Tribunal also awarded another Rs. 10,000/- under the following counts:_

¶35

¶36

el No.	NatureofHead	Amountau,ardedby theTribunal
1	Trans ortationchar CS	1,000.00
2	Extranourishment	200000
3	Medicalex NSCS	,. 1,500.00
4	Damageofclothing	500.00
5	Painand sufferin	5,000.00
	Total:	10 000.00

¶37

A perusal of the material availabie on record would show that the claimant sustained fracture of right fore arm iower end. The said injury must have put her to lot of pain, suffering and inconvenience. One cannot imagine the amount of agony, trauma and pain which the appellant must have undergone during the period of her hospitalization. Further the appellant has incurred transportation charges for getting shifted from the place of accident to Government Hospital, Sirpur-T for treatment and again back to home. Similarly, she also incurred extra nourishment charges for recouping her health, but the amount awarded by the Tribunal under the above counts appears to be meagre. Thus, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to grant Rs.40,OO0/- to the appellant and the award of the Tribunal is modified as follows:-

¶38

)

¶39

sl. No.	NatureofHead	Amount awardedby the Tribuna.l	Amount enhancedby thisCourt	Amount entitledby theappellant
1	Loss ofearnings	6,000.00		6,()00.00
2	Trarlsportation charges	1,000.00	2,000.00	3,000.00
3	Extra nourishment	2,000.00	3,000.00	5,()00.00
4	Medica.lexpenses	1,500.00	3,500.00	5,000.00
5	Damageofclothing	500.00	s00.00	1,r)00.00
6	Painand suffering	5,000.00	1s,000.00	20,000.00
	Tota.l:	16,000.00	24.000.00	40,000.00

¶40

For the aforesaid^{reasons, the appeal isallowedby} enhancing the^{compensation from Rs' 16,000/- to Rs'40'000/-'} The enhanced^{amountwill carry an interest of 60/o p'a' from the} date of^{petition till the date ol realization'}

¶41

The other conditions^{imposed by the Tribunal shall remain} unchanged.^{The amountwhich has already been depositedby the} insurance^{companyshall be excluded and the remainingamount} withinterestshallbepaidbytheinsurancecompanywithina period of thirty^{days from the date of receiptof a copy of this order'}

¶42

There sha1l^{be no order as to costs'Miscellaneous}

¶43

appIications,^{if any, pendingshall standclosed}

¶44

SD/-K.SAILESHI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY' .\1_

¶45

SECTION^OFFICER

¶46

To,

¶47

1 The Chairman,^MACT -cum-^{lll Additional District Judge (FTC)' Asifabad'} Adilabad District.

¶48

One CC^{to Sri S. SurenderReddy,Advocate[OPUC]}

¶49

One CC^{to Sri T. Sanjay K Singh, AdvocateIOPUC]}

¶50

Two CD^Copies

¶51

One SPare^CoPY gbr

x_.-

HIGH COURT

DATED: 3110812021

JUDGMENT

MACMA.No.1975 of 2011

¶57

2s stPlut o
cJo s
I
l
DEsl)r'1

¶58

ALLOWING THE MACMA.

¶59

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶60

TUESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST OAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND ,AND TWENTY ONE

¶61

PRESENT

¶62

THE HONOURABLETUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

¶63

MOTOR ACCIDE NT CIVI L MISCE LLANE U S APPEAL NO :1975 0F 2011

¶64

Between:

¶65

Dubbaka Kamala, Wo. Chandraiah, Aged 40 years, Occ Agriculture, R/o. Bata.ii Ankoda Village, R/M: Kowtala, District: Adilab;d ...APPELLANT/PETITIONER

¶66

AND

¶67

1 Rabin lr,4andal, S/o. Hariprada .rr,4andar, age: not known, occ: owner of Auto bearino No. AP-01-W-1047 R/o, Ravindra Nagar, Ko'i,iata Vs., r,/a;oai AdijaduO bi#iJt.-""^{' ''} ''"

¶68

2 rl-.-g^{t'ley IndraAssurancecompaiyLimiteo,} ne!. oy itJ aiinJri rrainagei, Brancn Office, Pragathi Nagar, Peddapalli, karimnagar Oistrict.-^{- -}

¶69

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶70

Appeal under section 173 of 14.v. Act against the Judgment and decree of the court of the chairman, Molor Accidents claims Tribunal -cum- l Additionat District Judge (FTC), Asifabad, Adilabad District in O.p.No.396 of 2OO5 dated 20.O2.2OOg.

¶71

ORDER: This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appear, and the materiai papers in the case and upon hearing the arguments of sri. s. surender Reddy, Advocate for the Appellant and of Sri r. sanjay K singh, Advocate for the Respondent No.2.

¶72

This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

¶73

That the Motor Accident civir rr/isceflaneous Appear be and hereby is afiowed.

¶74

That lhe compensation be and hereby enhanced from Rs.16,oo0/- to Rs.40,0001 (Forty thousand only)

¶75

3 That lhe enhanced in Amount i,e. Rs.24,0001 (Twenty four thousand only) will carry interest of 6% per annum from the date of pelition till the date of realization.

¶76

That the other conditions imposed by the Tribunal shall remain unchanged,

¶77

That the amount which was already been deposited by the insurance company shall be excluded and the remaining amount with interest shall be paid by the insurance company within a period of 30 (thirty) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶78

That there be no order as to costs

¶79

,TRUE COPY//

¶80

SD/-K.SAILESHI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR N/'

¶81

SECTION OFFICER

¶82

To,

¶83

The Chairman, I,4ACT -cum- lll Additional District Judge (FTC), Asifabad, Adilabad District.

¶84

Two CD Copies

¶85

One Spare Copy gbr

HIGH COURT

DATED:^3110812021

DECREE

MACMA.No.1975^{of 2011}

¶91

ALLOWING THE MACMA,

¶92

Q*., 7\o\ l,<sup></sup> c)

Dubbaka Kamala, Adilabad District v. Rabin Mandal, Adilabad District and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dubbaka Kamala, Adilabad District v. Rabin Mandal, Adilabad District and Another

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

Singoji Venkata Chary Vs the State of Telangana and another

R. Swami Naidu Vs The State of Telangana and another

Sri. Arikatla Venkateswarlu , Venkat Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Erugu Balram, R.R.District Vs Vivekananda School and Anr, R.R.District

Naini Rajender Reddy Vs the State of Telangana

Shaik Mahmood Vs State of Telangana.