Allowed

Are Subhash Goud , Are Subhash v. M/S.Lucky Restaurant and Anr.

Telangana HC28 Apr 2022MACMA/1144/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Court enhanced medical, transportation, and income loss compensation components not awarded by the lower tribunal, increasing total compensation from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 20,000/- with interest.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced total compensation from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 20,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum awarded to the appellant.

Are Subhash Goud , Are Subhash Vs… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

'1H3T,:,1:,^.,.,.X[IT*K,9i#J,.

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

Between;

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR

¶6

SUMALATHA crvt LREvtstoNP ETITION NO: 810 OF 2015

¶7

2015

¶8

j:fi''",if{r,rd":i'd}r:li'#ffi gg*4iigrr,r,r$

¶9

"ff"t-'#i"q:

¶10

'i#n;i:3i':x,,i:Hi,,*!#fi i..,#g:a:ru:g::,ffi :,li1,i"rs.:,d;

¶11

's#nilli:gd'$i,'#!,"T{l1.3lid,'i{g,a:ru:ftnfi ffi "rr,,?.?

¶12

'fi ,#,,f ltffi ,,sl?,:HlH5:ff ',effik,fjf ,.1,J:ili;3:,*:i1.""1si",

¶13

AND

¶14

...Petitioners/Defendants

¶15

B. Srinivas B*OV, Slo Narayana, aged about 41 years. t atso agent of Sreeram Chit j Nrzamabad Districr.'no curti"vatiori HL.E,fi;,ii^yffi f#Efr"i""l t%"jX"T,

¶16

... RespondenUplaintiff

¶17

Petition under 1 15 of C.p_C. aggrieved by the Order made in IA No. 9812014 in os No. 80t2011, dated 3o-'12-2014 0n the fire of the senior civir Judge at Bodhan.

¶18

l.A. NO:1 oF 20 15(CRPMP. NO : 1064 OF 201sI

¶19

Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to grant stay of execution of decree in E.p.No.64 0f 2014 in o.S.No.g0 0f 2011 0n the file of the court of the principar senior civir. Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.

¶20

For the Petitioners : Sri M. Laxman Rao, Advocate

¶21

For the Respondents: None Appeared

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

¶24

HON'BLE DR. .IUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUIT{ALATHA CryIL REVISION ON NO .810 oF2015

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

This Civil Revision pedtion is filed aggrieved by the order rendered by the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Bodhan in I.A.No.9g of 2Ot4 in O.S.No.8O of 2Oll, dated 30.12.2074.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioners seeks permission not to press the Civil Revision petition.

¶28

Permission is accorded.

¶29

Accordingly, the Civil Revision petition is dismissed

¶30

as not pressed without costs.

¶31

Miscellaneous applications. if any, p shall

¶32

stand closed.

¶33

Sd/-T. KRISHNA KUMAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

To,

SE FFICER

'1 . The Senior Civil Judoe at Bodhan 2. One CC to Sri M. Laxman Rao, Advocate tOpUCl 3. Two CD Copies

¶38

Oe Spant- cq,6,

KNK

HIGH^COURT

DAirED:O7lO4l2O22

ORDER

g.9
n
rul 1[?1
r) zt
-i<
<br>

¶45

CRP.No.810^{of 2015}

¶46

DISMISSED^{AS NOT PRESSED'} WITHOUT COSTS @iW

¶47

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶48

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^TWO

¶49

PRESENT

¶50

THE HONOURABLE DT. JUSTICE^D.NAGARJUN

¶51

M.A.C.M .A.No. 1144^{of 2009}

¶52

Appeal under Section^{173 of the Motor VehiclesAct, againstthe} o.cl", urid decree^{dated 21,.06-2005in O.P.No.258of 2001,on the file of} the Court of the Motor^{Accident ClaimsTribunal (Fast Track Court),} Nizamabacl at KamaredclY.

¶53

Between:

¶54

erl S"Uhuth^{Goud @ Are Subhash,S/o Raja Goud, aged about43} ;;;t. O;., Excise^{Contractorand Running aSendhi} -Depot' SuJutfrir*gur,^{R/o.SadashivnagarM.a1d.a1, NizamabadDistrict,,} (within the bMC^{Kamareddy of Kamareddy} ) ...app"[untlpetitioner.

¶55

AND

¶56

i. fr4Zr. Lucky^{Restaurant,rePby Sri Khaleel K!r1+S/o'N9t} $toryl,, Ased Maior, Owner^{of Car Bearing No AP 36 E2664,R/ o'6-1-1'5-l'} Oia Cgt Quarters,^{Khairatabad,Hyderabad'}

¶57

United India^{Insurance CompanyLimited, throughits Branch} Manager,Branchoffice:.l6-1o-27/105.,2"aFlo^or,Hydera ;ooiire. ic";.r^{Note No.47822,valid from25'01'1999to 24'01'2000)}

¶58

(lstresPondentisnotnecessary')

¶59

...Respondents/Respondents.

¶60

Counsel for the^{Appellant:Sri S.SurenderReddy'}

¶61

Counsel for^{the Respondent No.2: Smt' P SatyaManjula'}

¶62

The Court made^{the following:} )UDGMENT:

¶63

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN

¶64

M.A.C.M.A. No.1144 of 2OO9

¶65

JUDGMENT:

¶66

This appeal is filed the appellant/claimant being aggrieved by the order dated 21.06.20O5 passed by rhe Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Nizamabad, Kamareddy ffor short, "the Tribunal"), in O.p.No.258 of 2001 .

¶67

The facts of the case reveal that on 20.09.1999 while the appellant was driving Scooter bearing No. Ap 20 9500 along with another person from Kamaredcly to Sadashivanagar, the crime vehicle, which is a car bcaring No.Ap 36 E 2664, driven by the driver in rash and negligent manner, came at high si:eed and dashed the claimant from his behind, as a result, the appellant received grievous injuries and was taken to Government hospital, Kamareddy, where he was treated as inpatient and spent Rs.60,O0O/- towards medical expenses. At the time of accident, he was 36 years old and was earning Rs. 12,000/- to Rs.15,000/- per month as excise contractor. In order to prove the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle, the apperlant himself was examined as pw.1 and got marked Exs.Al ro A3.

¶68

¶69

The Tribunal after^{hearing the appellant and perusingthe} documents i.e., Ex.A1,^{certifiedcopy of FIR and Ex'A2, certified} copy of charge^{sheet, came to the conclusionthat the driverof} the crime vehicle^{was rash and negligentand therebythe} accident took^{p1ace. In respect of quantumof compensationto} be awarded, the^{Tribunal has consideredthe evidence of the} appellant as^{PW. 1 and also Ex A3, wound certificateand} concluded that^{the appellantis entitledto Rs 10'000/-as} compensation^{out of the claim amount of Rs l lakh' Aggrieved} by the said^{order, the appellantpreferredthe present appeal'}

¶70

Learned counsel for^{the appellant submittedthatthe} Tribunalhasnotconsideredthattheappellanthasspentmoney towards medical^{expensesand not awardedany amount} towards disability,^{transportationand extra-nourishment'He} further submitted^{that the Tribunal has awardedonly} Rs.4,0O0/-^{towardspain and sufferingand Rs'6'000/- towards} prayed the Court^{to enhancethe} injuries and^therefore, compensation.

¶71

Learned counsel^{for the respondent/insurancecompany} submitted that^{theTribunal has rightly awardedthe} compensation^{after considering the entire material on record} and therefore,^{prayed that the appeal may be dismissed'}

¶72

¶73

Now the point for consideration is:

¶74

Whether the compensation awarded to the appellant can be enhanced?

¶75

There is no dispute that the appellant was involved in an accident while traveliing on his Scooter. The Tribunal after considering the fact that the appellant has received only two simple injuries has awarded compensation of Rs.10,000/- i.e., Rs.3,O00/ - per each injury which comes to Rs.6,OOO/ - and Rs.4,000/- was granted towards pain and suffering. It is submitted by the iearned counsel for the appellant that immediately after the accident, the appellant was admitted in Government hospital and treated as inpatient. Ex.A3 is the wound certificate issued by the doctor, which also substantiate the same. The Tribunal has not considered the loss of income during the period of his treatment in the hospital. The Tribunal has also not awarded amount towards transportation and extranourishment, as rightly submitted by the appellant. Though the appellant has submitted that he is required to be compensated for his disability, no material is placed before the Court to show that he sustained disability on account of the accident. In fact, as per the certificate produced by the appellant himself, he has received only simple injuries and not

¶76

¶77

grievous injuries. The Tribunal also should have awarded some amount towards medical expcnses. Even^{though the appellant} has not submitted any medical bil1s to^{show that he spent} money for the medicines,^{the fact remains that he was admitted} in the hospital thereby he must^{havespent some money to} purchase the medicines.

¶78

Considering the facts^{and circumstancesof the case, this} Court is of the opinion^{that the Tribunalwas very conservative} in awarding compensation.^{Therefore,the compensation} awarded by the^{Tribunalis enhancedas under:}

¶79

l. The amount awarded^{by the Tribunal towardsthe} injuries @ Rs.3,OOO/-^{eachis enhanced to Rs 4'000/-} each, thereby, the^{amount awarded for two injuries} would go uP to^Rs.8,000/-'

¶80

In respect ol^{medicalexpenses,though no amountwas} granted by the Tribunal,^{this Courtis inclined to grant} a notional amount^{of Rs'3,000/-'Similarly'the} appellant must^{have spent some amount towards} transportation irom^{the place of accident tothe} hospital and^{from hospital to his house'Therefore' an} amount of Rs. 1,OOO/ - is^{granted towards} transPortation.

¶81

¶82

As already observed, the^{appellant was admitted in the} hospital and therefore, he must^{have stoppedfrom} attending the work.^{Though the appellant has not} submitted any record to show that^{he is working as} excise contractor, he must^{have been workingsome} where for his livelihood. Therefore, an amount^of Rs.3,000/- is awarded towards loss ol^earnings. Similarly, the amount of Rs.4,00O/ -^{awarded under} ,^{thehead pain and sufferings isenhancedto} Rs.8,00O/-. Thus, in all, the appellant is^entitled towards enhanced compensation of Rs.^10,O0O/-.

¶83

With the above, the appeal is allowed enhancing^the amount of compensation from Rs. 10,000/ - to Rs.20,000/^{- with}

¶84

interest @ 7 .5^o/o per annum.

¶85

Miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶86

sD/-N.SRINtVASA RAO JOINT^REGISTRAR

//TRUECOPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Motor Accident Claims^{Tribunal (Fast Track Court),} Nizamabad at Kamareddy.

¶92

One CC to Sri S.Surender Rec'ldy, Advocate [OPUC]

¶93

One CC to Smt. P.Satya Manjula,^Advocate IOPUC]

¶94

Two CD Copies

¶95

One Spare Copy JCK lvlMA \ >"-

¶96

!a -

¶97

l."-..-d-r..r--.--.-i..+

. -,.a.-a-{r--..r

HIGH COURT

Dr.DNR,|

DATED:28/04/2022

JUDGMENT+DECREE

MACMA.No.11,44 of 2009

¶104

F
!,.--
?
!!.-.
I t, ..)
2 5 Jtjt 2[22 c
1,,-; <br>,:ri *
<br>!).

¶105

Allowing the M.A.C.M.A.

¶106

u::-

¶107

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAI)

¶108

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶109

PRESENT

¶110

THE HONOURABLE DT. }USTICE D.NAGARIUN

¶111

M. A.C.M. A.N o. 1.1.44 oI 2009

¶112

Between:

¶113

Are Subhash Goud @ Are Subhash, S/o.Raja Goud, aged about 43 years, Occ: Excise Contractor and Running a Sendhi Depot, Sadashivnagar, R/o.Sadashivnagar Mandal, Nizamabad District, (within the DMC Kamareddy of Kamareddy.)

¶114

...Appellant/Petitioner.

¶115

AND

¶116

M/s. L,ucky Restaurant, rep by Sri Khaleel Khan, S/o.Not Known, Aged Major, Owner of Car Bearing No.AP 36E2664,R/ o.6-1-1,51, Old CBI Quarters, Khairatabad, Hyderabad.

¶117

United India Insurance Company Limited, through its Branch Manager, Branch Office: 16-10-27 /L05, 2"d Floor, Hyderabad - 500036. (Cover Note No.47822, vaiid from 25.01.1999 to 24.01.2000)

¶118

(1.t respondent is not necessary.)

¶119

...Respondents/ Respondents.

¶120

Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the order and decree dated 21.06.2005 in O.P.No.258 of 2007, on the file of the Court of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Fast Track Court), Nizamabad at Kamareddy.

¶121

This appeai coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Order and Decree of the Court below, the material papers in the Original Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri S.Surender Reddy, Advocate for the Appellant and Smt.P.Satya Manjula, Advocate for the Respondent No.^2.

¶122

This Court doth Order and Decreb^{as follows:}

¶123

That this Appeal be and^{here by is allowed.}

¶124

That the compensation^{amount of Rs. 3,000/- awarded by the} Tribunal be and^{here by is enhanced to Rs. 4,000/-each, thereby} the amount awarded^{for two iniuries wouldgo up to Rs'8,000/-'}

¶125

That though the Tribunal has not granted any meclical expenses, this Court is inclined to grant a notional amount of Rs.3,000/towards medical expenses.

¶126

That the appellant must have spent some amount towards transportation from the place of accident to the hosprital and from hospital to his house. Therefore, an amount of Rs.1,000/ - is granted towards transportation.

¶127

That an amount of Rs.3,000/- is awarcled towards loss of earnings.

¶128

That an amount of Rs.4,000/- awardecl under the head pain and sufferings is enhanced to Rs.8,000/-. Thus, in all, the appellant is entitled towards enl-ranced compensation of Rs.10,000/-

¶129

and; that the appeal is allowed enhancing the amount of compensation from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.20,000/- n,ith interest @7.5% per annum.

¶130

sD/-N.SRTNIVASA RAO JOINT^RECISTRAR

//rRUECoPy//

SEC'fIO OFF]CER

To,

JCK MIvIA

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Fast Track Court), Nizamabad at Kamareddy.

¶136

Two CD Copies

¶137

\kOne Spare Copy

HIGH^COURT

DATE]D.28lo4l2022

DECREE

MACMA.No.ll44of²⁰⁰⁹

A)lowing the M.A.C.M.A.

¶143

Are Subhash Goud , Are Subhash v. M/S.Lucky Restaurant and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Are Subhash Goud , Are Subhash v. M/S.Lucky Restaurant 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

Yadagiri Tadem Vs the State of Telangana.,Rep.,Pp and Another

Surukunta Sai Reddy alias S.Sai Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Sri Begari , Avula Shyam Vs The State of Telangana

K.R.Janardhan Vs the State of Telangana and Another

Mr.Althi Veerendra Nath Vs State of Telangana

Abdul Bari Vs Smt Nazia Begam and 2 Others