Partly allowed

Bashetty Chinnanna v. a. Narsaiah and Another

Telangana HC7 Sept 2022MACMA/2813/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award of Rs.35,000, the High Court enhanced compensation for injuries, medical expenses, loss of income, and maintenance to a total of Rs.1,00,000, allowing the appeal partly.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs.35,000 to Rs.1,00,000 to cover injuries, medicals, transport, and loss of income; interest rate unaltered.

Bashetty Chinnanna Vs a. Narsaiah and Another — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

t^325s l

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN

¶6

M.A.C.M.A.NO: 2813 OF 2009

¶7

Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the Judgment and decree dated3l -07-2007 passed in O.P.No.1 323 of 2OO4 on the file of the cou( of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-ll Additional District Judge(Fast Track Court) Nizamabad

¶8

Between:

¶9

Bashetty Chinnanna, S/o Bakkanna

¶10

...PETITIONERYAPPELLANT

¶11

AND

¶12

1 A. Narsaiah, S/o A. Chinna Nadipi Sayanna, 2 National lnsurance Company Limited, through its Branch Manager, B.Laxmiraj Complex, Jawahar Road, Nizamabad.

¶13

(R.1 is not necessary)

¶14

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶15

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI S. SURENDER REDDY

¶16

Counsel forthe Respondent No.2: SRI K. AJAY KUMAR

¶17

The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

¶18

TH } HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.NAGARJ']TI

¶19

M.A.C.M.A. No.2813 of 2OO9

¶20

JUDGMENT:

¶21

This a:rpea1 is filed aggrieved by the orclers dated 31.O7 .2OO7 ir O.P.No. 1323 of 2004 passed by the lt zrrne,l Motor Accident Cla ms Tribunal (ll Additional District .r.rdge (Fast Track Court)) Nizamabad.

¶22

The fac s in briefas per thc record are as und:r

¶23

Ort 27.)7 .2004, when the appellant u as tr rvelirtg iu a jeep bearing tlo.AP 25T 5337 from Ravutla Village ,.r R,rrnpoor Village, a^'I'at:r Sumo bearing No.AP 25D 9369 crrnre n rash ancl negligen marner in wrong side and dashed a.gai:rst the jeep in whicl L the petitioner and others were tra /f,[ing. The petitioner har received multiple fracture injuries ol liotl. bones ol left leg, frz cture of left shoutder, crush injuries r; f ltrft foot, dislocation of left hip joint and injuries to head anc c,the r parts of the body. le u'as taken to Government hospital, l\iza;rrabad. Later he was shifted to Hyderabad for expert ar rl specialist treatment. H r rvas treated by private doctors, ulds6lrzsnr major operations, s ce1 rods were implanted to the left l: g and left shoulder anc he has spent a sum of Rs. 1 lak h,; tcrvards

¶24

¶25

treatment. He was earning Rs. 12,O0O/-^pcr month,^was aged about 30 years, hale and healthy. On account of the injuries sustained in the accident, he has incurred^{permanent disability} and could not able to walk. The appellant therefore^{sought for} compensation of Rs.2 lakhs in lump sum.

¶26

The respondent/insurance company has^{opposed the} claim.

¶27

After completion of pleadings, the learned^Tribunalhas framed the issues and on behalf of the^{appellant,the appellant} was examined as PW. 1 and the doctor,^{who has treatedthe} appellant, was examined as PW.2 and^{got marked Ex.A1 to A3} are marked. On behalf of the respondents,^{one witness was} examined and attested copy of the^{policy was marked as Ex.B1.} The prescriptions and disability^{certificate were markedas} Exs.Cl to C3.

¶28

While dealing with issue No.l, on^{considering the entire} material on record, the learned Tribunal^{has held that the} accident has occurred on account^{of rash and negligentdriving} of the driver of the crime^vehicle.

¶29

¶30

W]-riie lealing with issue No.2, on cons,j<leritg the evidence of P vV. I and the doctor, V. Akilesh, who LLas treated the appr:llant has found that the appellant has :::eived the follou,ing fou r injuries:

¶31

I. F actrrre of both bones of left leg. 2- F actlrre acromian of left shoulder 3. M Lrltiple abrasion on left foot

¶32

Lz ct:rzLtion on the Ieft hip

¶33

IL is also observed by the learned Tribunal thir. ou1 of the four injurir:s, ( o :lre grave in nature and the resl are sirnple in nature. Ex.A I is the injury certihcate issuecl by l)ri/.2 in the capacity of⁽ )ivil Assistant Surgeon, Governmer-.1 Hospital, Nizamabad. Though the appellant has claimec disrrbility, disability certi icate has not been obtained from tht: ,:)on,:erned board and the'efore, the learned Tribunal declined tlx: claim in respect of d: sability. Finally, the learned TnllrnaI has concluded thz t considering the nature of the i:t jrrrir:s, an amount of R;.25.0OO/- was awarded towards alt injuries, Rs.5,O00i - to vards pain and suffering, Rs.3,000/- tcwards treatmenl and expenditure, Rs. 1,000/- towards trar.r; I)or:ation, and Rs.1,00O/ towards extra nourishment. In all I:r;,35 00O/-

¶34

¶35

was granted. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is hled on the following grounds.

¶36

¶37

The Tribunal was awarded very meagre amount of Rs.25,000/- towards all injuries, Rs.3,OOO/- towards treatment, Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering etc. The appellant has in fact claimed Rs.2 lakhs in all and therefore, prayed the Court to enhance the compensation.

¶38

Heard both sides and perused the record.

¶39

1 1. Now, the point for determination is whether the appellant is entitled for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal?

¶40

Admittedly, tJle appellant has received two grievous injuries and two simple injuries. In respect of all the injuries, an amount of Rs.25,O00/- was awarded towards pain and suffering. This Court is of the opinion that^{granting of} Rs.25,OO0/- for two grievous injuries and^{two simple injuries} towards pain ald sufferings is relatively^{very low. Therefore, an} amount of Rs.20,0OO /-^{each^} for the^{grievous injuries and} Rs.S,OOO/- each for the simple injuries^will be the^just compensation in the circumstances of the^{case. The appellant}

¶41

¶42

has not filcd zrnl' receipts [o show that he has l;1t,:nt money tou'ards purc hasr: of medicines etc. Since the a:1.,ellzrnt has rcceived four rnjtrries, out of which two fra('ture irLjuries and since surgcr; was conducted and rods rvere irrserted by Orthopediciar , an amount of Rs.25,000/- is awa-r:.r_.d Lowards expenditurc i rcurred by the appellant towards hc r;1>itaiization and for purc rase of medicines etc. It is to be no:,.:d^.,hat on account of re ;civing of lracture injuries, it could no _ ha,ze been possiblc for tl re a1;pellant to move from one place t(, r,thr:r place ancl goinll t I various hospitals except in motcrrrehicle. Thereforc, in ord,3r to meet such expenditure an :rmount of Rs.10,000/- is 61ranted. Similarly, during the coltrse of treatment, Lh: appellant was expected to take prolter diet and thereby an . mount of Rs.5,000/- is granted to.,r,i;Lrd:; extra nourishment

¶43

It is sti.ted that the appellant was earning Fk;. 1!l,O0O/_ pe r month. Though there is no record to shcrv tl at the appellant was earning Rs. 12,000/- per month, consirlering the circumstancer that the appellant is an able bodied lers,rn and young mar1, i r:arr be concluded that he used to earn zrt ieast Rs.5,OO0/- pe- rnonth. The appellant must have sp(t.rt time for the treatment and taken rest at least for a period of rrv.o rrronths,

¶44

¶45

thereby he could not have attended the work for that period. Therefore, Rs. 10,000/- granted towards loss of work on account of the injuries.

¶46

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the Tribunal was very conservative in awarding compensation. Therefore, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced as under:

¶47

The amount of Rs.25,00O/- granted towards injurics is enhanced to Rs.50,000/- (i.e., Rs.20,000/- each for two grievous injures and Rs.5,000/ - each for two simple injuries). An amount of Rs.25,O00/- is granted towards the expenditure for hospitalizatron and for purchase of medicines. The amount of Rs. 1,O00/granted towards transportation is enhanced to Rs.1O,OO0/- and the amourit of Rs.1,O0O/- granted towards extra-nourishment is enhanced to Rs.5,O00/and an amount of Rs.1O,OO0/- is granted towards loss of work.

¶48

In all the appellant is entitlid to the total compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) instead of Rs.35,000/- arvarded by the Tribunal. So

¶49

¶50

Iar ts the rate of interest awarded by tl-r,;^.lritrunal is

¶51

conr erned, the same remains as it is.

¶52

With tL e above, the appeal is allowed in part.

¶53

Miscellr rneous applications, if any, shall stanc c:los,:d.

Sd/. K. VENKAIAH

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//rRUE coPY//

(: i)

tiEcTtbN OFFICER

To,

'1 . The chai'ma r, rVrotor Accident claims Tribunal-cum-[ Accitioral District Judge(Fast T'ack Court) Nizamabad (with records)

¶63

One CC to Sri S. Surender Reddy, Advocate [OpUC]

¶64

9 9n" !! !o^{Sr K Ajay Kumar,Advocate[opUb]}

¶65

Two CD Copi :s PSR

VH ,.X r$*

I I i

HIGH COUR]'

Dr. DNR, J

DATED: 0710)12022

I{ [2 ll,rt 20:3 ; ri

¶72

JUDGMENT

¶73

MACMA.No.2813 of 2009

¶74

PARTLY ALLOWING THE M.A.C.M.A

¶75

t).b
10 $.\x

¶76

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶77

AT HYDERABAD

¶78

WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶79

PRESENT I

¶80

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN

¶81

M.A.C.M.A.NO: 2813 OF 2009

¶82

Bet/yeen:

¶83

Bashetty Chinnanna, S/o Bakkanna

¶84

...PETITIONERYAPPELLANT

¶85

AND

¶86

A. Narsaiah, S/o A. Chinna Nadipi Sayanna,

¶87

National lnsurance Company Limited, through its Branch Manager, B.Laxmiraj Complex, Jawahar Road, Nrzamabad. (R-'l is not necessary)

¶88

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶89

Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the Judgment and decree of the court of the Chairman, l\rlotor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-ll Additional District Judge(Fast Track Court) Nizamabad passed in O.P.No.'1323 of 2004, dated 31-07-2007

¶90

ORDER :This appeal coming on for hearing, upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the case and upon hearing the arguments of Sri S.Surender Reddy, Advocate for the Appellant and Sri K. Ajay Kumar,Advocate for the Respondent No.2

¶91

This Court doth Order and Decree as follows :

¶92

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

¶93

That the amount of Rs.25,000i- granted towards'injuries be and hereby is enhanced to Rs.50,000/-(i.e., Rs.20,000/- each for two grievous injures and Rs.5,0001 each for two simple injuries). An amount of Rs.25,000/- is granted towards the expenditure for hospitalization and for purchase of med icines;

¶94

That the amount of Rs.l ,0001 granted towards transportation be and hereby is enhanced to Rs.10,0001 and the amount of Rs.1,000/- granted

¶95

[owards oxtri -noririshment is enhanced to Rs.5,000/- ,]nd an amount of Rs.'10,000/-(l en thousand Rupees only) is granted to\ ards,oss of work; 4. That the appr :llanl be and hereby is enti,ed to the totrr ccmpensation of Rs..1 ,00.0001 (Rupees One vr ru L oAr akh I ur onlrr y ,,) li nstea od of Rs : lt,oot)/- awarded by the Tribunal;

¶96

That the rate rf interest so far as awar.led by the Trib..,nal is concerned, the same be a rd hereby remains as it is; and

¶97

That there sha I be no order as to costs in this M.A.C.M.t.

¶98

Si(t^ l(. VENKATAH ASSIS'I-A.NT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// (t,

¶99

SE:()TtON OFFTCER

¶100

To,

¶101

1 The Chairma r, Irzlotor Acciderrt Claims Tribunal_cum-ll Ac<.,itiorral Distrrct judOlt5a-st T'ack Court) Nizamabad

¶102

2 I wo CD Copr rs

dr.,

HIGH COURT

Dr. DNR, J

DATED: 0710e12022

DECREE

MACMA.No.2813 of²⁰⁰⁹

PARTLY ALI. OWING^{THE M.A.C.M.A}

¶110

\r3
\o
'[*" <br>

Bashetty Chinnanna v. a. Narsaiah and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bashetty Chinnanna v. a. Narsaiah 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

KolaganiSubhashChander Vs The State of Telengana and another

B.Narsimhulu Vs The State of Telangana

Mohd. Azeemuddin Vs The State of Telangana

Munige Narsimulu Vs M. Venkateshwar Rao, (Major)

Takkars , Prathap Sailaja And Another Vs the State of Telangana And Another

Gadari Luther Vs State of Telangana