Dismissed

National Insurance Company Limited, Hyderabad. v. D. Kiran Kumar and Another

Telangana HC14 Jun 2022MACMA/169/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act and Cross Objections under Order 41 Rule 22 of CPC. The Court held that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's award of Rs. 25,64,000 was just and reasonable.

What did the court decide?

Appeal and cross-objections dismissed; original order and decree of the Tribunal dated 31.03.2008 confirmed.

National Insurance Company Limited, Hyderabad. Vs D… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

TUESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE JUWADI SRIDEVI

¶7

M.A.C.M.A. NO: 169 OF 2009 AND lA NO. 3 OF 2009^(Cross Obiections^(SR) No. 5485 of 2009

¶8

Appeal Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act Cross Objections under orders 41 Rule 22 of CPC against the Order and Decree made in O.P No.430 of 2006 dated 31-03-2008 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

¶9

M.A.C.M.A.NO. 169 0F 2009

¶10

Between:

¶11

1 National lnsurance Company Limited, Hyderabad., Rep.by its Regional Office 7th Floor, Moghul Court, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad.

¶12

...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT NO.2

¶13

AND

¶14

1 D. Kiran Kurnar, S/o D.Venkateshwarlu, aged 31 years, Occ: Software Engineer R/o 17-1-391iSl529 Singareni Colony, Saidabad, Hyderabad.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER

¶16

P.Minalla, S/o P. Chinna Minalla, age: major Business H.No. 17-56, Swamy nagar, Kallu Village and Mandal, Kurnool District.

¶17

...RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENT NO.1

¶18

lA NO. 3 OF 2009 [Cros;s Obiections (SR) 5485 of 20091

¶19

Between:

¶20

D. Kiran Kumar, S/o D.Venkateshwarlu, aged 3'1 years, Occ: Software Engineer F/o 17-1-391/5/529 Singareni Colony, Saidabad, Hyderabad

¶21

...CRCISS OBJECTORSi RESPONDENT NO.1 IN MACMA

¶22

AND

¶23

National lnsurance Company Limited, Hyderabad., Rep.by its Regional Office 7th Floor, Moghul Court, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad.

¶24

...APPELLANT/APPELLANT IN MACMA

¶25

P.Minalla, S/o P. Chinna Minalla, age: major Business H.No. 17-56, Swamy nagar, Kallu Village and lMandal, Kurnool District.

¶26

...RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENT NO.2 IN MACMA

¶27

Counsel for the Appellant in MACMA NO.169 0F 2009 : SRl. KOTA SUBBA RAO Counsel for the Respondent NO.1 lN MACMA NO.169 OF 2009 : SRl. C. VIKRAM CHANDRA

¶28

Counsel for the Respondent NO.2 lN MACMA NO.169 OF 2009 : None Appeared

¶29

Counsel for the Cross Objector in lA 3 of 2009 (Cross Objections (SR) 5485 of 2009) : SRl. C. VIKRAM CHANDRA,

¶30

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 in lA 3 of 2009 (Cross Objections (SR) 5485 of 2009 : SRl. KOTA SUBBA RAO

¶31

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 in IA 3 of 2009 (Cross Objections (SR) 5485 of2009 : None Appeared

¶32

The Court made the fbllowing: JUDGMENT

¶33

THE HON,BLE DT. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADI SRIDEVI

¶34

t'{.A.C.M.A.No. 1 69 of 2OO9 and LA.No.3 of 2OO9^(Cross Obiections^(SR) No.5485 of 2OO9)

¶35

COMMON J UDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Dr. Justice Shameem Akther)

¶36

M.A.C.M.A No.169 of 2009, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is filed by the appellant/National Insurance Company Limited, challenging the order and Cecree, dated 31.03.2008.^passed in O.P.No.430 of 20C6 by the Chairman, Motcr Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad ('the Tribunal' for brevity).

¶37

Dissatisfied rvith the grant of cornoensation of Rs.25,64,000/- as against the claim of Rs.30,00,000/- by the Tribunal, vide impugned order and decree, dated 31.03.2008, the petitioner in the subject O.P.No.430 of 2006 filed I.A.No.3 of 2009 (Cross Objections (SR) No.5485 of 2009) under Order XLI Rule 22 of CPC, seeking enhancement oF compensation.

¶38

Heard Sri Kota Subba Rao, learned counsel for the appetlarlt/ Insurance Company in MACtt{A No.1.r9 of 2009 and respcndent No.1 in I.A.No.3 of 2009, Sri C.t/ikram Chandra, learned counsel fo:- the respondent No.1 in VIACMA t"io.i69 of 2009 and pet:tiriier \ \

¶39

¶40

Dr.sA,J&J3,J u.\CIt,\ n_o.I69 o12009 & I.A-No.J 0f²⁰⁰⁹

¶41

in I.A.No.3 of 2009 and^perused the record. In MACI\IA N0.169 of 2009, though notice to respondent No.2 was served, there is no representation on his behalf.

¶42

Hereinafter-, the parties are referred tc as they were arrayed in the subject C.P.No.430 of 2006 before the l-ribunal.

¶43

Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company in MACMA No.169 of 2009 and respondent No.1 in I.A.No.3 of 2009 would contend that without there being any substantial oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal granteC compensation of Rs.25,64,000/- to the injured claimant, which is excessive. it is further contended that though there is evidence of PW.6 that the injured claimant was still in service and rvorking in the same company and that his salary was increased by ilore than 20olo, the Tribunal ought not have granted any amount towards loss of income and ultimately prayed to set aside the order and decree under challenge by allowing the appeal, as prayed for and dismiss I.A.No.3 of 2009.

¶44

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1/injured claimant in wACMA No.169 of 2009 and petitioner in I.A.No.3 of 2009, would contend that though there is Ex.A.9disability certificate to substantiate that the injured claimant

¶45

D'.SA, J & .lS, J IACMA No.169 of 2009 & t.A.No.3 of 2009

¶46

¶47

¶48

suffered 30olo partial permanent disability, the Tribunal erroneously took the disability as l0o/o and awarded an amount of Rs.14,85,000/- towards partial permanent disability, which is meagre. It is further contended that grant of R.s.72,000/- towards pain and suffering for the four fractures (i.e., fracture of right humerus, dislocation of the right hip, fracture of the tibia and the fracture of right ulna) sustained by the injured claimant, is also very meagre and ultimately prayed to enhance the compensation by allowing I.A.No.3 of 2009, and dismiss the appeal filed by the Insu ra nce Company.

¶49

It is not in dispute that claimant suffered injuries in the accident, which occurred on 06.03.2005 due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending lorry bearing registration No.TN 28 E 601-0. The only point that arises for determination is "whether the compensation of Rs.25,64,000/- granted by the Tribunal to the injured claimant, is^just and reasonable?".

¶50

To substantiate his claim, the injured claimant himself was examined as PW.1 and^got examined^PWs.2 to 6 and^{got marked} Exs.A.l to A.15. On behalf of the Insurance Company, Ex.B.1policy copy was marked and none were examined.

---T

Dr.S,,, J & JS, J IlACItl No.l69 ot 2009 & l.A.i\o.l of20C9

¶55

¶56

The Tribunal basing on the oral and documentary evidence on record, took the age of the injured claimant as 29^years as on the date of the subject accident, took his annual income as Rs.8,25,054/-, applied multiplier '18' and considering the partial permanent disability as l0o/o, awarded an amount of Rs.14,85,000/- towards partial permanent disability. The Tribunal further added Rs.72,000,/- towards pain and suffering for four Fractures, Rs.8,50,000/- towards loss of income, Rs.1,50,000/towards medical expenses, Rs.2,000/- towards transportation charges, Rs.5,000/- towards extra nourishment and accordingly, awarded total compensation of Rs.25,64,000/- with interest @ 60lo per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit.

¶57

The contention of the injured claimant is that though there is Ex.A.9-disability certificate to substantiate that he suffered 30olo partial permanent disability, the Tribunal erroneously took the disability as 107o and awarded an amount of Rs.14,85,000/towards partial permanent disability, which is meagre. Admittedly, as per the evidence of Pw.3-Orthopaedic Surgeon and Ex.A.9disability certificate, the injured claimant had suffered 30o/o partial permanent disability. The Tribunal considering the oral and documentary evidence on record and also contention of the I Insurlnce Company that salary of the injured claimant has been

¶58

Dr.SA,J&JS,J MACIIA No.l69 of2009 & I.A.No.J 0f2009

¶59

¶60

increased over a period of time, took the disability as 107o and granted compensation of Rs.14,85,000/- to the injured claimant towards partial permanent disability, which is^just and reasonable.

¶61

The other contention of the injured claimant is that for four fractures i.e, fracture of right humerus, dislocation of the right hip, fracture of the tibia and the fracture of right ulna, suffered by him, the Tribunal granted meagre amount of Rs.72,000/- towards^pain and suffering. The Tribunal considering the medical evidence on record, awarded an amount of Rs.72,000/- towards pain and suffering for the four fractures sustained by the Injured claimant @ Rs.18,000/- per each injury and the same cannot be faulted.

¶62

L2. Further, grant of Rs.8,50,000/- towards loss of income for the period of bed rest for one^year one month and 26 days by the Tribunal cannot be faulted.

¶63

Under these circumstances, grant of total compensation of Rs.25,64,000/- to the injured claimant under different heads by the Tribunal, is^just and reasonable. There is no legal infirmity in the impugned award and decree dated 31.03.2008^passed by the Trlbunal. The contentions raised by the Insurance Company and the injured claimant, are unsustainable. The appeal as well as Cross-Objections are devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.

¶64

I I il I I

¶65

DiSA, J & JS J IIACMA No.l69 of2009 &^{l.A.No-J of1009}

¶66

¶67

L4. Accordingly, M.A.C.M.A.No.169 of 2009 and I.A.No.3 of 2009 (Cross Objr:ctions (SR) No.54B5 of 2009) are dismissed conFirming the order and decree, dated 3i.03.2008, passed in O.P.No.430 of 2006 by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

¶68

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.

¶69

//TRUE COPY//

¶70

Sd/. B. SATYAVATHI DEPUTY REGISTRAR L)],

¶71

SECTION OFFICER

¶72

To,

¶73

The Chairman, lr/.A.C.T.-cum-Chief Judge, City Civil^{Court,Hyderabad.} (with records)

¶74

One CC to SRl. KOTA SUBBA RAO, Advocate IOPUCI

¶75

One CC to SRl. C VIKRAM CHANDRA, Advocate [OPUC]

¶76

Two CD Copies

¶77

One Spare Copy

PSR

I I

HIGH COURT

DATED:1410612022

JUDGMENT

lHE S s<br>IJ 1 6 FEB ?Lli
jI
''i

¶85

MACMA.No.169 of 2009 &

¶86

lA NO. 3 OF 2009 [Cross Objections (SR) No.5485 of 200eI

¶87

DISMISSING MACMA & lA 3 OF 2009 (Cross Objections) WITHOUT COSTS

¶88

6 cwc% Fr* :lr^r]

¶89

¶90

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶91

TUESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTWO

¶92

PRESENT

¶93

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER

¶94

AND

¶95

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE JUWADI SRIDEVI

¶96

M.A.C.M.A. NO: 169 OF 2009 AND lA NO. 3 OF 2009^(Cross Obiections^(SR) No. s485 of 2009).

¶97

M.A.C.M.A.NO. 169 0F 2009

¶98

Between:

¶99

National lnsurance Company Limited, Hyderabad., Rep.by its Regional Office 7th Floor, Moghul Court, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad.

¶100

...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT NO.2

¶101

AND

¶102

D. Kiran Kumar, S/o D.Venkateshwarlu, aged 31 years, Occ: Software Engineer R/o 17-1-391/5/529 Singareni Colony, Saidabad, Hyderabad.

¶103

...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER

¶104

P.Minalla, S/o P. Chinna Minalla, age: majorBusiness H.No. 17-56, Swamy nagar, Kallu Village and Mandal, Kurnool District.

¶105

...RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENT NO.,I

¶106

lA NO. 3 OF 2009 lCross Obiections^(SR) 5485 of 20091

¶107

Between:

¶108

D. Kiran Kumar, S/o D.Venkateshwarlu, aged 31 years, Occ: Software Engineer R/o 17-1-391 lsl529 Singareni Colony, Saidabad, Hyderabad.

¶109

..,CROSS OBJECTORS/ RESPONDENT NO.1 IN MACMA

¶110

AND

¶111

1 National lnsurance Company Limited, Rep.by its Regional Office 7th Floor, Moghul Court, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad.

¶112

...RESPONDENT /APPELLANT IN MACMA

¶113

P.Minalla, S/o P. Chinna Minalla, age: major Business H.No. 17-56, Swamy nagar, Kallu Village and Mandal, Kurnool District.

¶114

...RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENT NO.2 IN MACMA

¶115

¶116

This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal. the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the MVOP and upon hearing the arEuments of Sri Kota Subba Rao, Advocate for the Appellant in MACMA No. 1 69 of 2009 and Respondent No.1 in X objections and of Sri C.Vikram Chandra, Advocate for the Respondent No.1 in MACMA 169 of 2009 and cross objectors in (cross objections SR No.54B5 of 2009) lA 3 of 2009 and of Respondent No.2 in MACMA No.'169 of 2009 and Respondent No.2 in lA 3 of 2009 and X Objections none appeared.

¶117

This Cou( doth common Judgment and common Decree as follows

¶118

That MACMA No.169 of 2009 and lA No.3 of 2009 Cross Objections (SR) No.54B5 of 2009 be and hereby are dismissed confirming the order and decree dated 31-03-2008 passed in OP No.430 of 2006 by the Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad; and

¶119

That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal.

¶120

Sd/. B. SATYAVATHI DEPUTY REGISTRAR //rRUE coPY/t Ci)

¶121

SECTION OFFICER

¶122

To,

¶123

The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

¶124

fwo CD Copies

¶125

One Spare Copy

PSR W

\ I

HIGH COURT

DATED:1410612022

DECREE

MACMA.No.169 of 2009 &

¶132

lA NO. 3 OF 2009 [Cross Objections (SR) No.5485 of 200eI

¶133

DISMISSING MACMA & lA 3 OF 2009 (Cross Objections) WITHOUT COSTS .rdA "K"

National Insurance Company Limited, Hyderabad. v. D. Kiran Kumar and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

National Insurance Company Limited, Hyderabad. v. D. Kiran Kumar 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

Abdul Basheer Vs The State of Telangana

Konkimalla Sal Kumar Vs Smt.Konkimalla , Amanchi Vaishali

Aslam Ansari Vs The State of Telangana and 2 Others

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Smt. Undekari Bharathi and 3 Others

Mannan Aligane Vs The State of Telangana

Dheeraj Madan Vs The State of Telangana