Allowed

Birru Savitri v. Vanaparthy Venkanna and 2 Ors.

Telangana HC12 Sept 2022MACMA/1471/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal order, enhancing the compensation payable to the injured petitioner from her original claim amount to Rs. 1,22,600, despite rejecting her claim for permanent disability due to lack of evidence.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to pay Rs. 1,22,600 with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition.

Birru Savitri Vs Vanaparthy Venkanna and 2 Ors. — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

13217 |

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

MONDAY ,THE TWELFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶6

M.A.C.M.A.No.147 1 of 2007

¶7

Appeal Under Section 173 of M.V. Act against the orderidecree in M.V.o.P.No.57'r or 2oo4 dared 04.12.2009 on the fite of the court of the chairman, lll Motor Accident claims Tribunal -cum- lll Additional District Judge, warangal.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Birru Savitri, W/o. gwamy,. aggd 25 years, Occ: Agricultural Labour Ri/o. Appalraopet Village Nekkohda fulandal Warangal District

¶10

...APPELLANT/CLAIMANT

¶11

AND

¶12

Vanapa.rthy Venkanna, S/o. Somaiah, aged 2g years, Occ: Business Fl/o.H.No.1-46 Lingampaily, Nawabpet, Ranga fteddy Oisiii"i-^--"

¶13

The New lndia Assurance Company Limited, rep., by its Branch Manaqer H. No. 1 6-2-677l2, 1 st Ftoor, Tinimata Towers, rririt@i [yJ;;;b;;"-""'

¶14

The New rndia Assurance company Limited, rep., by its Divisionar Manager, Warangal

¶15

(Respondent No.1 is not necessary party)

¶16

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶17

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI A. PRABHAKAR RAO

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRt p. BHANU PRAKASH

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI SRIMAN

¶20

The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

¶21

THE HON'BLE SRI^{JUSTICEN.TUKARAMJI}

¶22

M.A.C.M .A.No.14^{7L OF2007}

¶23

JU DGMENT:

¶24

In this appeal the^{claim petitioner/injured} (hereinafter 'the^{petitioner')seeks for enhancement of} cornpensation^{granted for the injuries sustained by her in} vehicular accident^{on 19.10.2003 in the decree and order} dated 06.12.2006^{in M.V.O.P'No.577of 2004 passed by} Chairman, III Motor^{Accident Claims Tribunal, Warangal'}

¶25

The^{petitioners case in brief is that on 19'10'2003} she boarded the^{auto bearing registration No'AP-28-V-} 4260^{(hereinafter the auto) and when itreached} Chandrugonda^{crossroads, its driver drove the vehicle in a} rash and negligent^{manner went on the wrongsidedashed} another auto bearing^{registration No'AP-26-U-7437} thereby suffered^{severe injuries all over her body'} Immediately, the^{injured was removed to the hospitalaad'}

¶26

,) ]\TR.] ,('\r..\ t.17I 1007

¶27

after trei trnent and claiming medical expenditure, disabilitv trrd loss of income dui-ing tire period of treatment, filed petition for compensation c. |ls.1,50,000/_

¶28

The T ibunal after evaluating the evior:nce held that the accidet rt had occurred due to i-ash ;: nd negligent driving of ti re driver of the Auto and awardt:cl R:;.g0,100/_ with 7.5% nterest oer annum from the datr: of petition, till the date of realization against the owner ard insurer of the auto/res tondents No.1 to 3.

¶29

Aggriel:d by the awarded qUantum, th,: pg-11;aaa. .a this appeal contended that the tribunal ought to have considered I te severe injuries suffered b1, her in the accident anr evidence of the doctor/pW_,1 as to her disability an, I inability tn carrying out the ocr:upation. Further, the :ribunal granted a meager am()Jnt towards ioss of earnir gs during the period of treatmt:rrt ;rnd pain

¶30

3 N'fR.J IVACMA 1471 2007

¶31

and sufferings. Thus, prayed for granting just compensation.

¶32

The learned counsel for the respondents No.2 and 3/insurer (hereinafter^.the respondent,) contended that the tribunal has considered the petitioner,s claim with all leniency and awarded appropriate compensation. Further, the petitioner failed to place any disability certificate atleast to establish the physical disability. Therefore, no tenable ground is made out for enhancement.

¶33

In these rival pleas, the point arises for determination is:

¶34

Whether the petitioner is entitled for enhancement of compensation?

¶35

The petitioner as p.W.1 stated that in the accident the she sustained fracture to right clavicle bone, 5th, 6rh and 7th ribs of right chest and injury on the back. The doctor/PW-2 deposed that on 19,10.2003 the petitioner

¶36

rl ^V'I^R.J \C'\ lr\ l,l7l 2007

¶37

was admittec into his hospital with the^{injur-ies;of abraslon} 4x3 cms over back region, fracture of^{clavicle b,lne of i'ight} shoulder and fracture of^{5th, 6} th and 7th ribs c:n -he right side of chest The case sheet/Ex.A-10 IS reflercti rg these rnlunes.

¶38

Further, the doctor/PW-2 deposed^{that th,: facture of} right clavicle bone was fixed with implants arrtl srlrews^on 20.10.2003 t nd the fractures of ribs^{were c:rlv€ntionally} on treated with^plaster of^paris and was^{dis,r::harged} 30.10.2003. The PW-1 in cross examinatlon^{rl,:p,,tud,nu,} -l-he a2 ce she was in-p:tient in the hospltal for L2^da;':;, sheet Ex.A-. 0 is corroborating the statenrent:; of the doctor ancj tl e^{petitionerregai-ding} the^{medic;tlti-,3atment.} Thus the fact ; of injuries and treatment as^pleade:d by the petitioner car be taken as established

¶39

The pet tioner claimed that during the treatmentⁱⁿ addition to expenditure Rs.50,000/war; spent for

¶40

5 N R,J

¶41

IV|ACMA t47l 200?

¶42

medicines. The doctor/pW-2 stated that the Ex.A_7, Ex.A-8 and Ex.A-9 are the medical prescriptions and bills were issued by his hospital. Apart from these documents, no other material is on record indicating the medical expenditure. The tribunal by considering the value of these bills i.€., Rs.41,563/- by rounding of granted Rs.41,6OO/- towards medical expenditure and this conclusion is affirmed as this conclusion is found reasonable.

¶43

Further, though the doctor/pW-2 stated that the petitioner require one more operation for removar of implants and it would cost Rs.6,000/- to Rs.7,000/_, this statement remained un-contraverted in the cross examination. Therefore, Rs.T,OOO/- is granted towards future medical expenses found proper.

¶44

The petitioner pleaded that after the treatment, the ,^{doctor has advised for four months} of bed rest, after

¶45

(, Nt'i(,J \l ( ivl.\ l47l 2007

¶46

discharge fro n the^{hospital.The doctor/PVv - 2 in cross} examination tated that^{it will take two mctl.-hs for re-} union of the 1i'acture clavicle^{bone. Havingrrl<:larrlto this} statement ar rd the occupation^{income ofRs'3,000/-} claimed by' tte: oetitioner^{granting Rs.9,OO0,/- towards} loss of incomr for three months^{found proper'}

¶47

The^pet tioner vehemently^{contested t.hat she is} suffering^perr lanent disability.^{It is settled prcpositionthat} physical disat ility which affects the income^{ea-ninglactivity} of the injurer shall be taken^{into account in detr:rmining} tne COiIlpel!:^jlrull .-- rul uisouaiiLy. ".li-^L:ti!., tr,\LCij.L liirj(r(iiiiV E.,a^nl,.1,r:rlinn l-hoLi iE disability,^pe itioner has not^{evenpleadedirr y of these} factors. Furt ter, the treating doctor^{did not r:fer to any} physical disi billty in his evidence. In =rdd tion^no document is^plar:ed to^{prove the physicaldis;ab lity. In} absence of enable evidence, the^{claim o} permanent

¶48

physical disa tility and loss of future earninl;rs does^not l deserve cons leration.

¶49

l \

¶50

¶51

N fR,.I \l,( \l:\ l4 7l 2007

¶52

i \

¶53

I I

¶54

In addition, having regard to the fracture injury suffered by the petitioner and the period of treatment undergone granting Rs.5O,OOO/_ for pain and sufferings and Rs.1O,OOO/- for loss oF amenities and Rs.5,OOO/towards extra-nourishment would be appropriate

¶55

t4. Therefore, the petitioner is eligible for compensation

¶56

as under:-

¶57

Descri ptton Amount (Rs.) Pain and sufferin s so,000.00 Medical ex nses 41,600.00 Loss of income 9,000.00 Loss of ameniti ES 10,000.00 Extra nourishmen t 5,000.00 TotalFuture medical ex CNSCS lII 7,000.00 L l,22,6OO.OO

¶58

The appeal is allowed in the following terms viz.,

¶59

(i) the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.1,22,600/- (Rupees one lakh, twenty two thousand, six hundred onry) with interest @ 7.50/o per annum from the

¶60

NIR.J q \1Ac \ l.\ l-l7l²⁰⁰⁷

¶61

date of^{p :t tirln t.ill the date ofrealiz ati'rn with} prooortionat I^{In1-eresiand costs;}

¶62

thr rerspondents^{are directed tolleprositthe} (ii) enhanced^{ar rouat of compensationwithin on{l mcnthfrom} the dat<: of^{re<-erptof a copy of this iudgment;;lnrl}

¶63

(iii) orr ruch deposit,^{the petitioner ts} llerrnitted^to

¶64

withdraw^{Lh I r:ntirr: amount}

¶65

Asa 5,^{,quel, mrscellaneous petitions,pr:rdirrg if any'}

¶66

shall stand^{, lc,st:d,}

¶67

SDr-G.StREESHA ASSII;1^{ANT. REGISTRAR}

//TRUE^COPY//

)t_ /-\r:Elr^EEl

:jEU¹ I .r l.

To, 1 The Chilirnar '^{lll Motor 'Accident Claims Tribunal -66p' ll Additional District} (with rocord) Judge,^{Warar gzrl} Prabhakar^{Rao, Advocate [OPUCI} 2. One^{CC to Sr A.}

¶72

thanu^{Prakash, Advocate[oPUCl}

¶73

1. One^{CCtt> Sr F}

¶74

One^{CC to S S'rtrnan'} AJvocate [OPUC] 5^{Two CD OoP:s} gbr

1}+r

HIGH COURT

DATED:12109t2022

I
I
I 2 3 iii;i ?ri?)

¶79

JUDGMENT

¶80

MACMA.No.14t1 ot 2001

¶81

ALLOWING TH : MACMA WITHOUT COS rS

¶82

13217 |

¶83

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶84

MONDAY ,THE TWELFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶85

PRESENT

¶86

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶87

M.A.C.M.A.No.1471 of 2007

¶88

Between:

¶89

Birru . Savitri, Wo. Swamy, aged 25 years, Occ: Agricultural Labour Rt/o. Appalraopet Village Nekkonda Mandal Warangal District

¶90

...APPELLANT/CLAIMANT

¶91

AND

¶92

Vanaparthy Venkanna, Sio. Somaiah, aged 2g years, Occ: Business Rl/o.H.No.1-46 Lingampally, Nawabpet, Ranga Reddy District

¶93

The New lndia Assurance Company Limited, rep., by its Branch Manager H.No.16-2-677/2,'lst Floor, Tirumaia Towers, Malakpet Hyderabad

¶94

The New lndia Assurance Company Limited, rep., by its Divisional [Vlanager, Warangal

¶95

(Respondent No.1 is not necessary party)

¶96

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶97

Appeal Under Section 173 of M.V. Act against the order/decree of the Court of the chairman, lll Motor Accident claims Tribunal -cum- lll Additional District Judge, Warangal in M.V.O.P.No.571 of 2004 dated 04.12.2009.

¶98

This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the Memorandum of Appeal, the orders of the Lower Court and material papers in the case, and upon hearing the arguments of Sri A. Prabhakar Rao, Advocate for the Appellant and of Sri P. Bhanu Prakash, Advocate for the Respondent No.2 and of Sri Sriman, Advocate for the Respondent No.3.

¶99

This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

¶100

That the Appeal be and hereby is allowed.

¶101

That the .es oridents are joinfly and severally liable rr pay Rs..1 ,22,600 (Rupees one i lkh twenty two thousand six hundred only n,ith ;nterest @ 7.5% per annum frc n the date of petition ti, the date of reari.rrrion with proportion interest anrl cr st:;

¶102

That the resl :ndents are directed to deposit the er I anr;ed amount of compensation ,ithin one month from the date of Judgmentandll(Jllll'IlEUateolreceptofacopyofthis

¶103

4- That lhe on st rh deposit the petitioner is permitted to riithc raw the entire

¶104

a mount

¶105

5 That save as a1 rrr-.s:rid the decree of the Lower Court do sitlnds confirmed to all other respec ;; and

¶106

6 That there no or Jer as to costs in this Appeal

¶107

SD/.G.SIREESHA ASSIS'-ANT REGISTRAR /iTRUE COPY//

¶108

To,

¶109

, L, SE:CTtON OFFTCER

¶110

1 The Chairman, I Judge, Waranoa [4otor Accident Claims Tribunal _cum ll /\ddrtional District

¶111

2 Two CD Copie-s gbr

$-i\

HIGH COURI

DATED:1 2109t2022

DECREE

MACMA.No.1471 of 2007

¶117

ALLOWING T HE MACMA WITHOUT CC STS

Birru Savitri v. Vanaparthy Venkanna and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Birru Savitri v. Vanaparthy Venkanna and 2 Ors.

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

Gopalpuri Jai Prakash and Another Vs the Managing Director, Apsrtc and Another

J. Santosh Reddy , Santosh, Hyd Vs P. Narsimha, Hyd and Ano

Athram Devaiah Vs K. Kishan

Bachu Raju , Rajeshwar Vs The State of Telangana

R.Konda Reddy Vs Mrs.Y.Sailajarani and another

M/S National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs N. Deva Sahayam and 2 Others