Partly allowed

Pulipati Venkateswarlu v. Maheswarapu Prasad

Telangana HC2 Sept 2022MACMA/2198/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal partly. It held that the Tribunal erred in exonerating the insurer and set aside the finding disburdening the respondents. The court enhanced the compensation from Rs.36,400 to Rs.98,500, awarding it to the appellant with interest, confirming the Tribunal's liability apportionment.

What did the court decide?

Appellant awarded Rs.98,500 with interest. Respondents directed to pay and deposit amount within one month. Tribunal decree confirmed in other aspects.

Pulipati Venkateswarlu Vs Maheswarapu Prasad — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶6

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 2198 OF 2011

¶7

Appeal under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the JudgmenVDecree in OP No.8'l of 2009, dated 09-05-2011 on the file of the Court of the Chairman Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum lV Additional District Judge, [FTC], at Khammam

¶8

Between:

¶9

Pulipati Venkateswarlu, S/o.Laxmaiah, aged 39 years, Occ:Centring Mestri Rl/o.Vallabhi Village, Mudigonda Mandal, Khammam District.

¶10

...APPELLANT/PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

Maheswarapu Prasad, S/o-Satyam, Aged Major,Occ: Owner of Auto Trolley Bearing No.AP 20 V 8494 R/o.Pammi Village, Mudigonda Mandal, Khammam District.

¶13

United lndia lnsurance Company Ltd, rep by its Branch Manager though Local Branch[Policy No. 1 50703/3 1 /06/0 1 /000001 60 Valid From 11.04.2006 to 10.04.20071 O/o.Branch OfIice-ll, Governorpet, Vijayawada. O/o.Local Branch: Kharfl mam.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS

¶15

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI REPAKULA NAGESWARA RAO

¶16

Counsel forthe Respondent No.2: NAGI REDDY TEEGALA

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: NONE APPEARED

¶18

The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

¶19

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI

¶20

M.A.C.M.A.No. 2198 ol ?OLL

¶21

JUDGMENT:

¶22

Aggrieved and dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in the decree and^judgment dated 09.05.2011 in M.A.T.O.P.No.81 of 2009 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District ludge (F.T.C.), Khammam, the claim petitioner who filed petition claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident dated 06.03.2007 preferred this appeal.

¶23

Heard the counsel for the appellant and respondents.

¶24

The petitioner's case in brief is that, on 06.03.2007 at about 4:35 PM, while he was^proceeding on WS motor cycle (for short, 'the motor cycle') at Pammi Cross roads, the auto bearing No.AP20U8494 (for short, 'the auto') driven by the 1't respondent in rash and negligent manner dashed the motor veiricie. As a resuit, he feli down anci reeeived exiraciurai

¶25

NTR.J macma 2198 201I

¶26

¶27

heamorrhage of right temporal bone, abrasion over the right eye brow and multiple injuries all over the body. After treatment, claiming medical expenditure and compensation for Ioss of earning, due to the disability, filed the claim petition.

¶28

The Tribunal after analyzing the evidence placed by the parties concluded that thq accident was caused due to negligent driving of the auto. However, by observing that the claim petitioner did not give report to the police immediately after the accident, and the^police registered the case only on the private complaint referred to the^police and in absence of evidence demonstrating the petitioner's valid driving licence, exonerated the insurer/2nd respondent and awarded Rs.36,400/- with 60lo interest per annum against the ownercu m-d river/1't respondent.

¶29

In appeal, the appellant/claim petitioner^{(hereinafter,} 'the petitioner') contended that though the Tribunal had rightly concluded that the accident took^place on account of rash and negligent driving of the auto, erred in exempting the insurer/2nd respondent. Further, the Tribunal without reason

¶30

¶31

NTR.J macma 2198 201I

¶32

¶33

and considering the evidence of the doctor/PW2 and the medical bills/Ex.A5 awarded improper compensation for medical expenditure. That apart, the loss of earnings during the period of treatment had not taken into account. In addition, granting Rs.3,000/- towards pain and sufferings is inadequate. Thus, prayed for considering this aspect and to grant just compensation.

¶34

Inspite of due notice, the respondents choose to remain silent.

¶35

In this position, the point that arises for determination is:

¶36

a) Whether exoneration of the znd respondent /insurer^{is sustainable} in facts of^law?

¶37

b) Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the petitioner is just and proper?

¶38

B. The Tribunal taking all aspects including the entries in the final report, into account held that the accident had occurred owing to rash and negligent driving of the auto. Nothing has been elicited by the respondents in the crossexamination and in absence of any other material in contra

¶39

NTR.J macma 2198 201 I

¶40

¶41

this conclusion deserves to be affirmed. In this position, filing of private complaint or non lodging of police report or the petitioner's valid and effective driving Iicence is of no significance. Thus, absolving the insurer/2nd respondent is untenable. Consequently, the finding recorded by the Tribunal disburdening the insurer/ 2nd respondent is unsustainable, accordingly set aside. In effect the owner and insurer of the auto/1't and 2nd respondents are^jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.

¶42

In regard to the quantum of compensation, the evidence of petitioner/PW1 and the evidence of treating doctor/PW2 coupled with the entries in Ex.A3/wound certificate and Ex.A6l discharge summary are validating that the petitioner suffered extradural hemorrhage of right temporal bone, abrasion over the right eye brow and other injuries in the accident.

¶43

The petltioner contested that he had incurred expenditure of Rs. 44,75L/- for the medlcal treatment.^The f-lnrfrrr/D\A/l in hic ar:iAaara rlonncod lhat Ew Ld-l E'\t' r r/ rrrvvi!vimarliral

¶44

NTR.J macma 2198 20ll

¶45

¶46

¶47

prescriptions and Ex.A5/medical bills were issued by their hospital, on his approval. However, the Tribunal without considering this material awarded only Rs.10,000/- towards medical expenditure. In the light of petitioner's evidence, doctor's state'nent and as there is no contention as to the genuinety of bills, by rounding off, granting Rs.45,000/towards medical expenditure is found appropriate.

¶48

The doctor/PW2's evidence is disclosing that the petitioner had undergone surgery to the right temporal Craniotomy and was in-patient for about 13 days. Having regard to the injuries and the treatment, the petitioner claimed bed rest for about 4 months. As this claim is reasonable, the same is accepted.

¶49

The petitioner asserted the occupation of Centring Mestri. In absence of any material considering the wages of manual labour at relevant period, the probable income in the occupation pleaded at Rs.150/- per day and monthly income of Rs.4,500/- per month can be believed as such, Rs.13,500/- is awarded for loss of income during the period of treatment.

¶50

NTR.J macma 2198 20ll

¶51

¶52

13, The petitioner though claimed disability; the doctor/PW2 had not referred to any disability. Although, denied the suggestion that after the treatment the petitioner can attend his regular work without any disability, did not specify any physical disability. The petitioner also did not plead how the disability has been affecting his income earning avocation. Thus, the loss of future earnings on account of permanent future disability cannot be reasoned.

¶53

The Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,000/- for simple injury, Rs.20,000/- for grievous injury and Rs.3,000/- towards pain and suffering. In awarding compensation, no injury specific amount is delineated, thus the amounts awarded for the particular injury shall be construed as the compensation for pain and sufferings. However, considering the injuries and treatment, in all, granting Rs.30,0OO/- towards pain and sufferings and as the doctor/PW2 referred to the possibility of inconvenience, additionally Rs.10,000/- is granted towards loss of amenities.

¶54

NT&J macma 2198 201I

¶55

¶56

Thus, the petitioner is eligible for the compensation as

¶57

under: -

¶58

S.No.	Nature ofcompensation	Amount
1	Medical expenditure	45,000
2	Lossofincomedurinqtreatment	13,500
3	Painandsufferinq	30,000
4	Lossof amenities	10,000
	Total	98,5O0

¶59

16, Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part in the following terms:

¶60

a. The appellant/petitioner is awarded compensation of

¶61

Rs.98,5OO/- (Rupees ninety eight thousand five hundred only) with interest at 7.5o/o per annum lrom the date of petition till realization;

¶62

b. The 1't and 2nd respondents are liable to pay the compensation and they are directed to deposit the awarded amount with interest within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order;

¶63

c. On deposit of enhanced amount with interest the appellants/petitioners are permitted to withdraw entire

¶64

NTR.J macma 2198 20ll

¶65

¶66

amounts as per the apportionment in the award of the

¶67

Tribunal;

¶68

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall

¶69

stand closed.

¶70

Sd/-G.SIREESHA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

(

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-lV Additional District Judge, (FTC), Khammam(with records) 2. One CC to Sri Repakula Nageswara Rao, Advocate [OPUC]

¶76

One CC to Sri Nagi Reddy Teegala, Advocate [OPUC]

¶77

Two CD Copies

plp

?^I\a'

HIGH COURT

DATED:0210912022

JUDGMENT

ATE oF <br>"L's G.
I
I
ia t\ \t$
(-)
\ r4

¶85

MACMA.No.2198 of 2011

¶86

PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUTCOSTS

¶87

$C., ? a\r ,r

¶88

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶89

FRIDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶90

PRESENT

¶91

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶92

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 2198 OF 2011

¶93

Between:

¶94

Pullpati Venkateswarlu, S/o.Laxmaiah, aged 39 years, Occ:Centring Mestri Fl/o.Vallabhi Village, Mudigonda Mandal, Khammam District.

¶95

...APPELLANT/PETITION ER

¶96

AND

¶97

Maheswarapu Prasad, S/o.Satyam, Aged Major,Occ: Owner of Auto Trolley Bearing No.AP 20 V 8494 R!/o.Pammi Village, Mudgonda Mandal, Khammam District.

¶98

United lndia Insurance Company Ltd, rep by its Branch Manager though Local Branch [Pol icy No. 1 50703/3'1 /06/0 I /00000 1 60 Valid From'l'1 .04.2006 to 1 0.04.20071 O/o.Branch Offrce-ll, Governorpet, Vijayawada. O/o.Local Eranch: Khammam.

¶99

...RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS

¶100

Appeal under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the Judgment order and Decree in OP No.B1 of 2009, dated 09-05-2011 on the file of the Court of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum lV Additional District Judge, [FTC], at Khammam

¶101

ORDER: 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 O.P. and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Repakula Nageswar Rao for the appellant and of Sri Nagi Reddy for the Respondent No.2 and ofthe Respondent No.1 not appeared either in person or by Advocate

¶102

This court doth Order and decree as follows:-

¶103

That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is allowed in part:

¶104

That the appellanUpetitioner is awarded compensation Rs.98,500/- with interest atl.5o/o^per annum from the date of petitioii till realization

¶105

That the 1't and 2nd respondents are liable to^pay the compensation and they are directed to deposit the awarded amount with interest within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the order

¶106

That on deposit of enhanced amount with interest the appellanUpetitioner to withdraw entire amounts as per the apportionment in the award of the tribunal

¶107

That to save aforesaid, that the decree of the tribunal be and hereby is confirmed in all other aspects; and

¶108

That there shall be no order as to costs in this MACMA

¶109

Sd/.G.SIREESHA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY// RDk -

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-lV Additional District Judge, (FTC), Khammam(with records)

¶114

Two CD Copies

?$Cn.

HIGH COURT

DATED:0210912022

DECREE

MACMA.No.2198 of 2011

¶120

PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS

¶121

uC^" s'\r:

Pulipati Venkateswarlu v. Maheswarapu Prasad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pulipati Venkateswarlu v. Maheswarapu Prasad

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

The National Insurance Company Limited Vs Korutla Krishna Veni and 3 Ors.

M/S United India Insurance Company Limited, Hyderabad. Vs Smt. Jakia Begum and 5 Others

Smt. Mudavath Nanku and 5 Others Vs Shivaji and Another

Smt B. Shanta Bai and 4 Others Vs M/S. Andhra Cement Carriers and Another

M/S Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., Vijayawada. Vs Velpula Nirmala and 5 Others

Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs Gundla Madhu , Mycale