Partly allowed

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

Telangana HC3 Sept 2021MACMA/2128/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Bench of the High Court of Telangana allowed the MCMA in part. Dissatisfied with the Tribunal's award, the appellant sought enhancement of compensation. The Court corrected the multiplier for age, recalculated disability compensation from Rs. 1,44,000 to Rs. 3,06,000, and confirmed other head amounts, enhancing total compensation to Rs. 3,42,000.

What did the court decide?

The compensation was enhanced from Rs. 1,90,000 to Rs. 3,42,000 with 6% per annum interest from the date of petition.

Erugu Balram, R.R.District Vs Vivekananda School and… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR AT HYDTf,EABIXTE^{OF TELANGANA}

¶2

FRIDAY, THE THIRD rw o r H o-u i rii; i,fJ f;i.,r..iJ:X'.. ^

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

¶5

M.A.c.M. A.NO .21 28 OF 20 11

¶6

Appeal filed Under S M V o P No 3ee of 2001, ;il::H[J ;T:i[?;::::il,i::T,T::I Motor Accidents craims Tribunar -cum- (District court), Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.

¶7

Between:

¶8

Filft ?ii!?ix; fffi ,i?ll M:;5:,,ft?ag,years,^{occ: Mastri, R/o.} 5- 1 7, Batizaguda

¶9

AND

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

, Schoot, Rep. by its correspondent, R.r.c. cotony, Hayatnasar,

¶12

Xih:[i3g,:fa

¶13

The United_lnsurance dorpany Limited, Rep.by its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office-Xl, Malakfet, itVOerat jO

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Counsel for the Appeltant: SRt A. CHANDRA SEKHAR

¶16

Counsel for the Respondents: NONE APPEARED

¶17

The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

¶18

¶19

THE HONOURABLE^{JUSTICE G' SRTDEVI'}

¶20

o 128 F2 11

¶21

JUDGMENT:

¶22

Feeling^{aggrieved by the judgmentand decree dated23'06'2008} in M.V.O.P.^{No.399 of 2001passed by the Chairman' MACTiPTI'} District Judge,^{Ranga ReddyDistrict (for short 'the Tribunal')' the} appellant-claimant^{filed the present appealclaiming enhancementof} the compensation,^{for the injuries sustained by him in a road accident} that occurred^{on 21.10.2000.}

¶23

Vide aforesaid^{order, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of} Rs.i,90,000/- along^{with interest at 6%o p.a., towards compensationto} the appellant as against^{the claim of Rs.4,00,000/-made by him.} Aggrieved by the said order,^{the appellant-claimant preferredthe} present appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation.

¶24

Heard leamed counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

¶25

It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that what was awarded by the Tribunal is very low and the Tribunal ought to have awarded more compensation keeping in view the evidence let in by the appellant both oral and documentary and the Tribunal erred in taking into consideration the monthly earnings of the appellant and, therefore, requested to award the compensation as claimed by the appellant as the same is^just and reasonable.

¶26

¶27

CSD,J MACMA Nf.2l28 of2ot/

¶28

Whereas, the leamed Standing Counsel for respondent No,2 - Insurer submits that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal as the Tribunal has gone through the entire evidence on record and that the Tribunal has dealt with each and every head and arrived at the sums to which the appellant was entitled, as such, requested to dismiss the appeal.

¶29

Perused the material, both oral and documentary, on record. There is no dispute regarding cause of accident. The Tribunal, on consideration of the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, gave a finding that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle. The respondent No.2 Insurance company has not filed any appeal challenging the said finding. Therefore, the said finding attained finality. The appellant - claimant preferred the present appeal for enhancement of the compensation amount.

¶30

The only dispute to be resolved in this appeal is whether the Tribunal has granted the just and reasonable compensation to which the appellant is entitled. The appellant claimed a sum Rs.4,00,000/towards compensation under various heads. As against the said amount, the Tribunal granted a sum of Rs. i,90,000/- viz., Rs.1,44,000/- towards loss of income, Rs.5,000/- towards extra nourishment, Rs.1,000/- towards damages to clothing, Rs.15,000/towards medical expenses and hospitalization and Rs.15,000/- towards pain and suffering. While awarding 50%

.aCMANo^2128ol201I

disability,^{the Tribunal has taken the annual income ofthe appellantat} Rs.16,000/-'^{Whereas,it is the case of the appellant that he was} earningasumofRs.l50/-perdaybyworkingasMason.The appellant^{in his evidenceas PW'l' also stated that he was workingas a} Mason under^{a person by nameNarsimha and was earning Rs'120/-} per day. But,^{he did not hle any certificate to that effect'It is no} doubt true^{that it is very difficult to excepta persondoingMason} work to^{produce his income certiflcate'However' being an able} bodied^{person and aged abofi 27 years at the time of accidentand} since the accident^{took placein the year 2000, the daily income ofthe} injured can be be^{fixed at around Rs.100/-per day. It is a well-settled} principle enunciated by^{the Hon'ble Apex Court that in the cases} where income^{proof is absent,a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month is to be} taken notionally. In^{view of the same, this Courthasno hesitation to} consider the income of the appellant at^{Rs.3,000/- per monthor} Rs.36,000/- per annum.

¶36

Insofar as multiplier is concerned, the Tribunal has applied '18' in accordance with Second schedule appended to Section 163-,4 of the Act tbr computation of permanent disability, but the same is incorrect in view of the law laid down by the Apex^,3ourt in Sarla Verma v, Delhi Transport Corporationr. The age o1'the petitioner, as per the claim petition, is 27 years at the time of ac:cident and the

¶37

[(200e)^{6 scc 121]} {sc-DB}

¶38

¶39

¶40

GSD,J MACMA No,2t2t of20t t

¶41

relevant multiplier for the age group 0f 26,30 is ,17, as per the aforesaid decision. Therefore, the relevant multiplier ,17, has to be applied in the present case for computation of permanent disability rnstead of^, I g, applied by rhe Tribunal.

¶42

It is arso the case of the appelant that he sustained 50% disability and the same cannot be doubted keeping in view the medical evidence on record which shows that the appellant sustained fracture of radius and there is gross restriction of right knee movements and shortening of right legby yz inch and there is restriction of fore arm movements and that he cannot attend his regular work and he is not able to walk properly. In such circumstances, nothing could be found fault with the Tribunal in taking the percentage of disability at 50%. When applied the same, a sum of Rs.3,06,000/_ (Rs.36,000/_ x 17 x 50Yo) can be granted towards 50zo permanent disability as against the amount of Rs.1,44,000/- arrived at by the Tribunal and, accordingly, the said amount of Rs.3,06,000/- is awarded to the appellant under the said head.

¶43

As far as the other amounts awarded by the Tribunal are concemed, viz., Rs.5,000/- towards extra nourishment, Rs.1,000/towards damages to clothing, Rs.15,000/- towards medical expenses and hospitalization and Rs. 15,000/- towards pain and suffering, on perusal of the order of the Tribunal, it is to be noted that the Tribunal has well-considered while awarding the said amounts and there is no inhrmity in granting the same, as such, the same are confirmed. Thus,

¶44

GSD'J ) MACM,l^{No.2l2Eof20lI}

¶45

the appellant^{is entitled to Rs'3'42'000/- towardscompdnsationas} against^{the amountof Rs'1,90'000/-awardedby the Tribunai'}

¶46

In^{view of the aforesaid discussion' the MotorAccident} civil Miscellaneous^{Appeal is allowed in part and the judgmentand} decree dated^{23.06.2008 in M'V'O'P' No'399 of 2001 passed by the} Chairman,^{MACT/Pr1' DistrictJudge, RangaReddy Districtis} modified enhancing^{the compensationto Rs'3,42,000/-(RupeesThree} laksh and forty two^{thousand only)from 1,90,000/- awarded by the} Tribunal. The enhanced^{amountshall carry interest} @^{69'o per annum} from the date of petition till realization.^{However, there shall be no} order as to costs.

¶47

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if an1,, shall stand

¶48

closed.

¶49

SD/.K.ONESIM ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Chairman, MACT - cum- (District Court), Ranga Reddy at L.B.Nagar. (with records)

¶54

One CC to Sri A. Chandra Sekhar, Advocate IOPUC]

¶55

Two CD Copies 4. One Spare Copy gbr 2-

HIGH^COURT

..1

DATED:^0310912021

JUDGMENT

MACMA.No.2128 of 2011

¶61

o* l trE S IITU
e
z
d oz Novzozl
_e
* o *

¶62

PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA,

¶63

{,,/.\ro ^h\l

¶64

¶65

,N THE HIGH COURT FOR Ai iibH.oBlBrE^{oF TELANGANA}

¶66

'i?ilrH'rlllBf^fr ,.,i."^iiiEXE.*

¶67

PRESENT

¶68

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRIDEVI

¶69

M.A. c.M. A.No.2 128 oF2011

¶70

Between:

¶71

Fil?t ??l!ijl; ,ij?fi*?:T Mff5,.:, ftygg,years, occ: Mastri, R7o s-17, Batizaguda

¶72

AND

¶73

,..PETITIONER

¶74

1 School, Rep. bv its correspondent, R.r.c. cotony, Hayatnagar, 2. {|!:b:S#ff' Iil%H-::%'#,::'-fl :[,9:[H"1:[ffi ["*x"rbvitsDivisionarManager,

¶75

Appeat fited Under Section 173 of M.V. Act asainst,h" j;X;.:Iv:[?::l: decree made in M.V.o.p.No.3gg of 2001, dated 23.06.2008 on the fire of the court of the chairman' Motor Accidents craims Tribunar -cum- (District court), Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.

¶76

.RDER: This appear coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appear, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower court and the materiar papers in the suit and upon hearing the arguments of sri A. chandra sekhar, Advocate for the Apperant and none appeared for the Respondents.

¶77

This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

¶78

That the Motor Accident civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is allowed in part, and the Judgment and Decree dated 23.06.2009 in M.V.o.p.No.399 of 2001 passed by the chairman, Motor Accident claims Tribunar/District Judge, Ranga Reddy is modified enhancing the compensation to Rs. 3,42,OOOI- (Rupees Three lakhs and forty two thousand only) from Rs. .1 ,90,0001 awarded by the lnbunal.

¶79

That the enhanced Amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date; of petition till realization.

¶80

That there be no order as to Costs in this Appeal.

¶81

SD/-K.ONESIM ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶82

,TRUE COPY//

¶83

SECTION OFFICER^_,,

¶84

To, 1. The Chairman, MACT - cum- (District Court), Ranga Reddy at L.B.Nagar. (with records)

¶85

1. Two CD Copies 3. One Spare Copy

;-'

HIGH COURT

DATED: 0310912021

DECREE

MACMA.N o.2128 of 2011

¶93

PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA.

¶94

N1,o ^b v^'

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dubbaka Kamala, Adilabad District Vs Rabin Mandal, Adilabad District and Another

Singoji Venkata Chary Vs the State of Telangana and another

R. Swami Naidu Vs The State of Telangana and another

Naini Rajender Reddy Vs the State of Telangana

Shaik Mahmood Vs State of Telangana.

Vathalur Sreedhara Reddy Vs Mrs. Bharathi Reddy