Allowed

V.Laxman Reddy v. M/s. Bhavani Mills, rep. by its Prop. Third B. Harish Patel

Telangana HC2 Sept 2022MACMA/2473/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal in a motor accident case, enhancing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.1,52,000 to Rs.3,62,000 covering loss of earnings, medical bills, pain and suffering, and permanent disability.

What did the court decide?

The compensation award was enhanced to a total of Rs.3,62,000, covering enhanced amounts for loss of earnings, transportation, extra-nourishment, pain and suffering, medical expenses, permanent disabi

V.Laxman Reddy Vs M/s. Bhavani Mills, rep. by its… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

[^{32se j}

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

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

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN

¶7

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MIS CELLANEOU S APPEAL NO: 2473 OF 2009

¶8

Appeal under section 173 of Motor vehicles Act against the order and decree in fv.V.o.P No 3034 of 2003 dated 26-03-2007 on thL fite or tre court oi"in" unO Sessions chairman Judge [,4otor cum Accident Claims XVttt Additionat chief tribunal-cum-lV Judge, Nampally at Additional liyOeraUiE- fr,,f "trop"Jitin^---'

¶9

Between:

¶10

V.Laxman Reddy, S/o. Late Raghava Reddy, aged about 39 vears. Occ: Poultry farm Business R/o 7-20, Dilsukhnaga'r, Hyderabad, N/o. Thoroo(V), Hayathnagar (M), R.R.District.

¶11

...APPELLANT/CLAIMANT

¶12

AND

¶13

'1. M/s. Bhavani Mills, rep. by its prop. Third B. Harish patel, S/o. Bhavaniii pater Business PJo. 41r1 , sriviriiputur Road, Rajaparayam, Virudhanagur D"iii.t--Tamilnadu State-626 1^'17.

¶14

National lnsurance co.Ltd., F.p. gv its Regional Manager, Regionar office at Moghul Courts, Basheerbagh, Hydi:rabad.-

¶15

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶16

Counsel for the Appellant: SRt. CHANDRASEKHAR REDDy cOptREDDy

¶17

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI P HARINATH GUPTA

¶18

The Court made the following: JUDGMENT

¶19

HONOURABLE^{DR. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN}

¶20

M.A.C.M.A. No.2473^{of 2OO9}

¶21

JUDGMENT:

¶22

This appeal^{is lllccl irr the appellan l / clairn'anlaggrieved} by the ordcrs^{dated 26.032(107 in O P No 3034 ol 2003 passed} by the Motor^{Accrrient Clarms Tribunal-cumIVAdditional} Metropolitan^{Sessions.-ludgc'cum-XVIII AdditionatChief Judge,} Nampally, Hvcicrabad^{(for sl.iort, "the Tribunal"), whereunderthe} appellant,^{who sustained irlluryin motor vehicleaccident,was} awarded compensatit.rn^{of Rs 1,52,000/ as againstRs 6 lakhs} claimed by^him.

¶23

The facts^{in brief arr: thal while the appellunt along with} four others were^{returningfromShabarimalai to Hyderabad in a} car bearing No.AP^{28P 2349 (Frat Uno), at the scene of offence} one Mahindra Maxi^{CabVa''r bearingNo.TN67Y 3727, which} came in opposite^{dircctionrvith rash and negligent manner,} dashed the appellant's^{car, on account of whichthe appellant} has received multiple^{greviorts fracture injuries such as right} knee injury,^{grade-lll conlp'rund fracture, lower end in femur} right side, Ieft ieg fractured.^{head injuries,} injury to left upper eye lid, fractures to lcfl: tibLa and fracture to right femur and also fracturcs to both thighs etc. After the accident, the

¶24

E1-.-re

¶25

¶26

appellant was admitted in Jawahar Trauma Care Centre aL Rajapal:ryam,^'l'amilnadu, whcrc he was treated as inpaLient for our days and later he was shilted to Vijaya Nursing Home, Vanasthalipuram, Hydcrabad, where he was treated as inpaticnt for fourtcen days and therealter he was joined in Yashoda Hospital, Malakpet, where he underwent eye operation and surgery and leg manipulation for three days and that he was suggested to take physiotherapy for two months for which the appellant has took treatment at various hospitals and incurred an amount of Rs.4 lakhs towards treatment, medical bills, transportation, physiotherapy, surgery, x-rays and diagnostics etc.

¶27

The learned Tribunal while dealing with issue No.t has concluded that the driver of the crime vehicle has drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner.

¶28

While dcaling with issue No.2, the learned Tribunal in al1 has awarded compensation of Rs.1,52,000/- with interest @ 7 .Soh per annum.

¶29

Heard both sides and perused the record

¶30

Now, thc point lrrr dt:1cr-rnination is u,hether the appellant is entitled for enhancecl comp:nsation?

¶31

So far as issuc No.2 i.; r:oncen'red. the learned Tribunal while considering the quar)tltm of compensation tc be awarded has in ali granted an amount ol Rs.1,52,OOO/ out of Rs.6 lakhs claimed by the appellant

¶32

On going through the findings of the learnerl Tribunal on issue No.2, the lcarned Tribunal has conclucled that the appellant was running a small poultry farm at Torroor village at Hayathnagar. He used to trrovide employment to 10 to 15 workers and his income aher all expenses, including the salaries, bank EMls etc., was Rs. 1O,000i - per month. According to the appellanl , he was bedridden for about seven months, thereby he could nol. earn for the said period and hence claimed Rs.7O,OOO/- @ Rs I0,000/- per month towards loss of earnings.

¶33

PW.2 is the medical doctor, who has treated PW. 1. Originally, he was (,orking in Yashoda Hospital, Malakpet, where the appellant u'as treated and subsequently PW.2 started working in Apollo Hospital. PW.2 has deposed in his evidence that the appcllant was taking treatment under his supervision

¶34

¶35

E'-
<br><br>

¶36

-;li ,.f.

¶37

¶38

as an inpatient and out-patienL together for a period of l l months. The learned Tribunal lr'hile considering these aspects has awarded an amounL of Rs.50,OO0/-

¶39

It is Lo bc no[cd lhat on account of the accident, the appellant has received multiple fracture injuries. In fact,^{he has} escaped lrom the death bed. One of his co passengers travelling in the same car also succumbed to injuries. The appellant has in fact came forward and claimed conservatively that his earnings, excluding all expenses, is Rs. 1O,O00/- per month, which is a minimum amount a person can expect by running a poultry farm grving employment to 10 to 15 persons. Since the appellant was taking treatment both as inpatient and^out- patient for a period of I I months, the compensation awarded on account of ioss of earnings should^{have beenRs. 1,10,OO0/-,} however, the learned Tribunal has awarded^Rs.50,OOO/-.

¶40

1 1 . Considering the circumstances and^since the^appellant himself has sought compensatlon of^Rs.7O,OOO/- @^Rs.10,OOO/- per month for seven months, this Court is of^the opinion^that the compensation of^{Rs.50,0OO/-awarded towards loss of} earnings by the learned Tribunal can be enhanced^to Rs.70,o00/-.

1 I I I i

i l I I I t

The acciclent has taken place at Rajapalal'am,^Tamilnadu State, when they u'cre coming from^{pilgrimage.Afterthe} accrdent, though he u'as tre:r1ed in local^{hospital,he was shifted} to Hyderabad in a Qualis ','r:hicle . The learned Tribunal^has awarded an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards^{transporLatlon.}

¶46

it is to be noted that immediately after thc^{accident thc} appellant wa s shifted to locr.rl hospital and^{subsequentlyto} Hyderabad. The learned Tribunal assessed the^{transportation} charges from the place of accident to Hyderabad.^However, thcse transportation charges could not include the^internal transportation charges i.e., liom the place of acciclent to^thc hospital where the appellant rrvas treated initially and therefrom to Hyderabad. It is also required to assess lhe transportation charges of the persons, who attended to take care of the injured appellant. Considering all. the transportation charges are enhanced from Rs.25,0O0/- to Rs.35,000/ .

¶47

The other area wherc lhe learned Tribunal should have considered libcrally is in respect of the expenses allegedly spent by the appellant Lowards ex[ra-nourishment. As already observed, PW.1 was under trcatment for aboul 11 months and PW.2/doctor must have adr,,rsed the appellant to take healthy

¶48

¶49

'r- . "i,'
\ '\l
:i...:-1.i

¶50

diet in order to recover from the injurics lasler.^,I.he learned Tribunal has granted meager amount of Rs.5,0OO/ towards extra nourishment, thereby, the same is enhanced to Rs.20,000/-.

¶51

The learncd Tribunal has also considered that an amount of Rs.2,0OO/ - can be granted torvards damage of clothes, which needs no revicw. However, an amount of Rs.1O,OO0/- was granted towards pain and sufferings. This area certainly requires a fresh look. PW.2, the consultant Orthopedist Surgeon in Apollo Hospital, u,ho initialty worked at yeshoda Hospital when the appellant has taken treatment has deposed that the appellant came to his hospital with multiple injuries and he was admitted in the hospital on 28.03.2003 and he has to perform surgery under general anesthesia to the right knee joint. He also deposed that the appellant had a fracture on right femur at his iower third and also a frac ture of left tibia in the upper third and he received fracture injuries of both lower limbs. On account of surgery, the right leg of the appeliant has also become short by an inch.

¶52

Therefore, considering that the appeltant has involved in a major accident by which he has received multiple fracture

¶53

¶54

injuries on all ovcr (hc borlr. both grave and simple, the :tmount of Rs.1O,O007 - grantcd unccr the hcad pain and sullering is absolutely lcss and disproportionate to thc sufferance Lhe appellant has undenvcnt, thr-'reby, as the appellant has claimed, an amount of Rs.40,00Oi is hcreby grantcd instead of Rs.10,OOO/ under the head pain and suffering.

¶55

17 . The apltellant has also claimed Rs.40,0OO / towards permanenL disability, as he has to loss pleasure and amcnities on account of continuous disability. The learned Tribunal while discussing this aspect has analyzed the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 and concludeci that the appcllant has to sustain 40% disability and lhereby his right leg was shortened by one inch. However, without going into any scientific calculation, the learned Tribunal has granted lump sum amount of Rs.30,0OO/-. Though the appellant in fac r_ is entitled for more than u.,hat he has claimed, in case, it is calculated basing on his earnings and other connected aspects, this Court is of the opinion that instead of Rs.30,OOO/-, the appellant deserves^-ro be granted

¶56

Rs.4O,OOO/ - as claimed by him under the heerd permanent disability to the extenI of 4Ooti

¶57

¶58

The other area, which requires se rious attention, is that the appellant has claimed Rs.3 lakhs towards mcdical bills. He has filed medical bills of Jarvahar Trauma Care IJospital, Rajapalayam, Tamilnadu, where he was initiallv admitted to show that he has spent Rs.26,25O/ . He has also filed discharge summary and cash bills to that cxtent. The learned Tribunal also observed that the appellant has filed a receipt for Rs.13,000/- and another bill for Rs.4,O00/_ and also other 12 medical bills. The learned Tribunal has declined to grant the actual amount of the bills on the ground that the appellant has failed to examine any person in support of his claim.

¶59

It is to be noted that the appellant is the injured, who himself was examined and produced the documents to show that he has spent money for the medical expenses. He is not expected to examine the persons from Rajapalayam of Tamilnadu where he met with an accident and spent certain amount for medical expenses in order to prove the same. If the appellant takes that exercise, the money he required to prove the same, would be more than the amount he has claimed. The learned Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the nature of injuries and the fact that he was in hospital for some time originally in Rajapalayam in Tamilnadu and:lso in yashoda

t It l

Hospit.al at Hvdcrabad and rr as treated^{and alsooperated upon'} Thcrclore, th,:r appeilant has spent^{moneytowards medicines} and also lor trcatment in both the^{hospitals The learncd} Tribunal has awarded a mcager amount^{of Rs.3O,000/-lor} taking Lrcatmeflt for 11 months,^{whichis far lcss than the} money, which the appellant should^{have been spent,thcreby,} the same is cnhanced to Rs.i,15,000/-.^{Further, rods were} statecl to havc been inserted^{while performings urgery and ilr} futurc course of life timc, the appellant is^{expectcd to get the} same removcrl and according to^{PW.2,medical doctor, the} appellant requires al least about Rs.35,0O0/-^{to Rs.4O,000/for} removal of thi: implants in Apollo hospital or^{sirnilarhospital} PW-2 has also deposed thar if the appellant^goes to^Osmania General I{ospital or Gandhi Fiospital, the implants^willbe removed at free of cost. Perhaps by taking that^{statement of} PW.2, the learned Tribunal did not award any amount.

¶65

lt is lo be noted that the appellant was treated and implants wcrc inserted in the Yashoda Hospital.^Whenl:he appellant has gone to the Yashoda hospital for treatment and gol surgeries done, he cannot be advised to go to Osmania General Hospital or Gandhi I'lospital to get the said implants removcd. Olrviously, the appellant prefer to go to the same

¶66

¶67

hospital u,here hc got the implants inscrted. Ttrereforc, taking into consideration thc cvidencc of PW.2, mcdic:Ll docLor, an amount of Rs.40,0O0/ is also hcreby granted lor rcmoval of implants.

¶68

In the resul[, the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated

¶69

above

¶70

Miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed

¶71

SD/.K.VENKAIAH ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// qb

¶72

SECTION OFFICER

¶73

To,

¶74

1 The Chairman Motor Accident CIaims Tribunal cum-lV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge cum XVlll additional Chief Judge, Nampally,^Hyderabad

¶75

2 One CC to SRl. CHANDRASEKHAR REDDY GOPIREDDY^Advocate loPUCl

¶76

3 One CC to SRl. P HARINATH GUPTA Advocate [OPUC] 4 Two CD Copies

KKS

HIGH COURT

DATED:0210912022

JUDGMENT

SIAISi Ct
T<
)
) rr \\s l\E
-)
'
..<br>t naet,.1l
:.--.-1".1'- -:-

¶85

MACMA.No.2473 of 2009

¶86

ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS

¶87

@C,,P\E 9,. Szlr'lea

¶88

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR ATHYDERABAD T]-IE STATE OF TELANGANA^_'-"-"

¶89

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

¶90

PRESENT

¶91

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN

¶92

MOTOR ACCIDENT ClvtL Mtsc ELLANEO US APPEAL NO: 247 3 0F 2009

¶93

Between:

¶94

H*ffi?*f ?fii,i"?i"#"T'?[:,JfJrnf,",,,XT:,iffi^{:,i'"".:,,,f,:,,xT:d"?i;;}

¶95

...APPELLANT/CLAIMANT

¶96

AND

¶97

1 prop rhird B Harish pater, S/o Bhavaniii H?;|BJ,l,liliY$;r;?;1r",,: Road, Rajaparavam, Virr;h;;;;3;

¶98

District., Tamilnadu .o,._ujt;'1t1ilur

¶99

2 $1r9na-f^{lnsurance Co.Ltd., Rep. by} its Regional Manager, Regional Office

¶100

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶101

Appear under section -1^{73 0f Motor vehicres Act against the order and decree} in M.v'o-p.No.3034 of 2003 dated 26-oi-io;;; oi' tn" nr" of the courr of the chairman Motor Accident. claims triounar-cum-ri Additionar 'Nampatty Metroporitan and Sessions Judge cum XVill Additionaf cf,iei LrOd, at Hyderabad

¶102

oRDER: This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appear, the Judgment and Decree of the Low6r corrt Ino the Materiar papers in the suit and upon hearing the arguments of SRI CHANDRASEKHAR REDDY GOpt REDDY Advocate for the Apperant and of sir nnnrr,rnrirA GUprA Advocate for the Respondent No.2

¶103

This court doth order and decree as follows

¶104

'1' That the amount awarded by the Tribunar towards ross of earnings be and hereby is enhanced from Rs.50,OO0l_ t i..Zo,tiObt_

¶105

2 That the amount awarded by the Tribdnaito*Lro. Transportation charges be -^{and hereby are enhanced from Rs.25,0001_ to ns.Ss,ooOl_}

¶106

That lhe amount awarded by the Tribunaf t"*rrJ. hereby is enhanced from Rs.S,OOO/_ to ns.ZO,OOOi_ "rtrr_nourishment^{be and}

¶107

That the amount of Rs.2,0O0/- granted by-it," lriOrn"t, towards damage of clothes, is hereby confiffned

¶108

That the amount awarded^{by the Tribunaltowards painand suffertngsis be} andherebyenhancedfromRs.lO,000ltoRs40,000lasclaimedbythe appellant

¶109

6 That the amount^{awardedby the Tribunal for permanent disability be and} hereby is enhanced^{from Rs.1 O,O00/-to Rs.40,000/-}

¶110

That the amount^{awarded by the Tribunal for medical expensesbe and} hereby shall be enhanced^{from Rs.30,000/-to Rs.1,15,0001}

¶111

g. That the amount awarded by the court for removal of implants is^{Rs. 40,0001}

¶112

g. That the total amount awarded to the appellant is be and hereby^enhanced from Rs.1,52,000/- to^Rs.3,62,0001

¶113

10.That save as aforesaid,^{the decree of the Lower Court shall stands confirmed} in all other respect;^and

¶114

.1 l.That the MACIVA be and hereby is allowed to the extent indicated above.

¶115

SO/-K.VENKAIAH

¶116

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR i/TRUE COPY// Cb

¶117

SECTION OFFICER

¶118

To,

¶119

1 . The Chairman^{lvlotorAccident ClaimsTribunal cum-lV Additional}

¶120

Itrieiropolitan Sessions^{Judge cumXVlll additionalChief Judge,Nampally,} Hyderabad

¶121

Two CD CoPies

KKS

I I i i II I I

HIGH COURT

DATED:0210912022

DECREE

MACMA.N o.2473^{of 2009}

¶129

ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS @,f graila.'P'

V.Laxman Reddy v. M/s. Bhavani Mills, rep. by its Prop. Third B. Harish Patel

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Laxman Reddy v. M/s. Bhavani Mills, rep. by its Prop. Third B. Harish Patel

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

Mohammed Moiz Hussain Vs The State of Telangana

Singirala Sathyanarayana Vs The State of Telangana And Another

United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Nizamabad Dist. Vs Kothamandi Kishan Rao, Nizamabad Dist., and 2 Ano.

Banoth Narayana Singh Vs the State of Telangana.,Rep.,Pp and 2 Others

M/S Sri Vigneswara Rythu Depot, Nellore and Another Vs the State of Tg., Rep. by P.P. and Another

Mohd. Imran Khan Vs L. Satyanarayana and Another