Partly allowed

Smt Gousiya Begum R/O Balkonda, Nizamabad Dist v. B. Ramesh and 2 Others

Telangana HC22 Mar 2022MACMA/3859/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the Motor Accidents Claims Appeal partly. It enhanced the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs. 4,500 to Rs. 20,000 for fractures and injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident, with interest flowing from the date of the original award.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs. 4,500 to Rs. 20,000; interest awarded at 7.5% per annum from the date of the original award.

Smt Gousiya Begum R/O Balkonda, Nizamabad Dist Vs B… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR^{THE STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶2

TUESDAY, TWENry SECOND OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND TWENry^TWO

¶3

:PRESENT:

¶4

THE HON'BLE SMT, JUSTICE G,SRI^DEVI

¶5

M.A,C.M.A NO.3859 0F 2008

¶6

Appeal under Section L73 of Motor^{VehiclesAct against order} passed I of the in OPNo.234 of 2003 dated 20.10.2005 on the^{file of the Court} Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims fribunal^{(IV Additional (} Di stri Ct I Judge)^(FTC) at Nizamabad, Between: Smt Gousiya Begum W/o Shaik Yaseen . . .Appella nt/Petiti ner

¶7

VS.

¶8

¶9

1. Sri B.Ramesh S/o B.Gangadhar, Major, previsous^{owner of Auto} Kolipyak village, :afranp-ally Mandai,^{wiiamabad District.} I

¶10

1. Sri Anwar Khan S/o Ali Khan Major, Occ!^{present owner qf Auto,} 0 Pochampad X Road, Balkonda Mand al, \izama bad District.

¶11

1. The National Insurance Company^Li mitei, rep., by its Bra4ch Man gQt, Jawahar Road, Nizamabad district. I ., Respondents/ espond nts,

¶12

For the Appellant : Mr. Sarala t'tahendral^{Reddy,'Rdvocatel}

¶13

For the Respodent No.1 & 2 : None appeared

¶14

FortheRespondentNo'3:SriK.Subba[ao,Advocate

¶15

The Court nrade the following ORDER

I
I
!
I
II
I

I \

{

THE^{HON,BLEJUSTICEG' SRI DEVI} A. No .3 85 9 of²⁰⁰⁸ l.r.^{A.c. lv.}

¶20

EN^T: JU^DG ^l\This^{aPPeat is fil'ed bY} the^{appelL\ant/ctaimant aggrieved} dated^{20'10'2005 Passedin} by the iudgment^{and decree'} of^{the I'i\otor AccidentsC\aims} o .P.No.234^{of 2003 on the fite} Nizamabad^(for Ct iudge^(FTC)' Tribunat^{(lV AdditionalDistrr} nhancement^{of comPensation'} seeking^e the^Tribuna) ' short, the Parties^{have been} ') For^{the sake of convenience'} referred^{to as arrayedbefore the Trib} on unal..^{under Section166 of the} The^{c\aimant fi\ed a Petitt} fJ. pensation^{of Rs'1'00'000/' for} N\otor^{Vehic\es Act' c\aimingcom} motor^{vehicleaccident' tt ts} Ihe^{injuriessustained by her in a} a\ong^{with others'} Stated^{that on 02'08'2002 white th} e^ctaimant' o.AP^{25 T 9631 in order to go} were^{trave\ling in Auto bearingN} near^{Vanne (B) Chowrastha tn} to^{l\uPkal and whentheY reached} he^{said auto drove it in a rash} the^{driver of t} Balkonda^Vi\tage, eed^{and dashedto a rnotor} and^{neg\igentmanner at highsP} to^{was turnedturt\e and the} cycte,^{as a resutt of which'the au} claimant^{sustainedfractures to nght hand,right ankte joint and}

¶21

¶22

GSD, J Macma 3859²⁰⁰⁸

¶23

other muttipte^{grievous injuries att over the body' Since the} accident occurred due to the^{rashand negtigentdriving of the} driver of auto, the ctaimant fjted^{aforesaid O.P. against} respondent Nos.1 to 3, who are the^{previous owner, present} owner and insurer of the aforesaid^{auto,respectivety.}

¶24

Before the Tribunat,^{respondents1 and 2 remained} ex parte,

¶25

The 3'd respondent fited^{written statementdenying the} averments in the petition and^{had taken atl the retevant and} necessary pteas, which the insurance^{company is entitted to' lt} is atso stated in the written statement that^{the claimanthas to} prove that she sustained disabitity and^{grievousinjuries.}

¶26

Basing on the above^{pteadings,the fottowing issues are} framed before the Tribunat:-

¶27

'I ) Whether the accident has taken ptace due to rash and negtigent driving of the^{vehicte bearing No.AP 25 T} 9631 by its driver?

¶28

1. Whether the^petitioner is entitted^{for compensation?lf} so, to what^just amount and against^whom?

¶29

1. To what retief?

¶30

¶31

GSD,^J Macma-3859-2008

¶32

7.^{During trial'' on behatf of the ctaimant' P'W'1 was} examined^{and Exs'A1 to A3 were marked'On behatf of the} Exs.B1^{and 82 were} R.W.1^{was dxamined and} resPondents, I marked.

¶33

8 After^{consideringthe oral and documentary evidence on} he^{Tribunatcame to the conctusion that the accident} record,^t due to^{the rash and negtigent driving of driver of the} occurred Auto^{and accordingty' awardedtotal compensation of Rs'4'500/-} with interest^{@ 7'5y" per annum' Being not satisfiedwith the} said^{amount, the ctaimant fited the present appeat seeking} enhancement^{of comPensat'ion'}

¶34

Heard^{both sides and perused the record'} 1n A^{perusatof the impugned judgment woutd show that the} No.1^{as to whetherthe accidenthad} Tribunat^{has framed lssue} sh and^{negtigent driv'ingof the Auto by its} occurred^{due to ra} e TribunaL^{after consideringthe evidenceof} driver,^{to which th} with^{thedocumentarYevidence' has} P.W.1^couPted question was observed^{that the accident tn} categoricattY

¶35

¶36

¶37

GSD. J Macma 3859 2008

¶38

occurred due to rash and negtigent driving^{of the offending} vehicte i.e., Auto by its driver and has answered in^{favourof the} ctaimant and against the respondents. Therefore, I see^no reason to interfere with the finding of the^{Tribunat that the} accident occurred due to the rash and negligent^{driving of the} driver of Auto.

¶39

lnsofar as the^quantum of compensation^{is concerned, as} per Ex.A3-wound certificate, the ctaimant had sustained fracture of right hand, fracture of right ankte^{joint and abrasion} on right hand. Admittedty, the ctaimant^{has taken treatment} for a period of 15 days as in'patient in Government^Hospitat,

¶40

Batkonda. Since the ctaimant is an agriculturist,^{and due to} fracture of right hand she might have some^{inconvenience at the} time of tifting the weights. Therefore, in^{the facts and} circumstances of the case, this Court feels that claimant^is entitled to Rs.20,000/- on atl the heads^instead of^Rs.4,500/-as awarded by the Tribunat.

¶41

Accordingty, the M.A.C.M.A. is^partty attowed^by enhancing the compensation amount awarded^{by the Tribunal}

)

GSD, J Macma 3859²⁰⁰⁸

¶47

from Rs.4,500/-^{to Rs.20,000/-'The enhancedamount shatl} carry interest @^{7.5% per annumfrom the date of award i'e''} 20,10.2005 titt^{the date of reatization. There shat[be no order}

¶48

as to costs.

¶49

Miscettaneous^{petit'ions, if any pendingin this appeat'}

shatl stand^closed'

//TRUE COPY//

SD/-T.SRINIVAS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Ge

¶54

SECTION OFFICER

¶55

To,

¶56

1 Thechairman,MotorAccidentsclaimsTribunal(lvAdditionalDistrictJudge(FTC) at Nizamabad.^{(with records)}

¶57

One CC to^{Sri Sarala Mahendra Reddy,Advocate [OPUC]}

¶58

One^{CCto Sri K. Subba Rao, Advocate [OPUC]}

¶59

Two CD^Copies

¶60

One^SPareCoPY

z--

{

HIGH COURT

DATED: 2210312022

JUDGMENT

MACMA.No.3859 of 2008

¶67

THE SI4 I4:
t u
t
0 1 JlJr ?022
'i,.
,y

¶68

PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA,

¶69

WITHOUT COSl'S"

¶70

fi/
,q,,
L

¶71

<

¶72

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶73

TUESDAY, TWENTY SECOND OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND TWENTY TWO

¶74

TPRESENT:

¶75

THE HON'BLE SMT, JUSTICE G.SRI DEVI

¶76

M.A,C.M.A NO, 3859 0F 2008

¶77

Between:

¶78

i ,:. ;:

¶79

Smt Gousiya Begum W/o Shaik Yasti€n^,:. ...AppellanVPeti 0ner

¶80

VS.

¶81

o 1. Sri B.Ramesh S/o B.Gangadhari Major,,previsous owner pf Auto Kolipya k vi lla ge, Jakranpally Mandal, Nizamabad District. 2, Sri Anwar Khan S/o Ali Khan Major, Occ: present.owner of Auto, Vo Pochampad X Road, Balkonda Mandal, Nizamabad District. 3. The National Insurance Company Limited, rep., by its Branch Ma ager, lawahar Road, Nizamabad district.^. i i Re 5 p o n d e n t S Re S p o n ents. A p p e a U n d e r S e ct on 1 7 J of M o t r e h c e S A ct a s a n s! o rd e r assed n o P N o 2 J 4 o t 2 0 0 3 d ated 2 0 1 0 2 00 5 o n th e fi le ot L h Co u rt f the "l C h a r m a n M 0 t o r e h c e Acc d e n ts C a m S T b u n al i d d iti o n a istrict I l U d s e ) ( FT C ) a t N z a m a b a d I I ORDER : Th S a p p e a C o m n s o n fo r hea r n s a n d u p on pe r U S NP t h e s Iounds of a ppea t h e o rd e r a n d D e c re e of th e Lo e C o u rt a n d t h e m ate f a p a^pers I I I n t h e s U t a n d p 0 n h e a r nI t h e a fI U m e n L5 of M r S a fa a M ah e n d ra Reddy, I I A d 0 ca te fo r the a p p e a nt a n d S r l\ S U b b a R a o d ocate f rt he l I Re S p 0 n d e nt N o 3 a n d n o n e a p peared for the Respondent No,1 3. 2.

¶82

I I

¶83

:,1; )l

¶84

The Court Doth Order and Decree as follows

¶85

That accordingly, the N/ACMA is^{partly allowed by enhancing the} compensation amount awarded by^{the Tribunalfrom Rs,4,500/- to 20,000/-}

¶86

fhat the enhanced amount shall carry^interest @^{7.5Y0 per annum form the} date of award i.e.,20.10.2015 till the date^{of realisation.}

¶87

That there shall be no order as^{to costs.}

¶88

SD/.T.SRINIVAS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY' qb

¶89

SECTION OFFICER

¶90

To,

¶91

The Chairman, lvlotor Accidents^{Claims Tribunal (lV Additional DistrictJudge (FTC)} at Nizamabad.^(wlth records)

¶92

Two CD Copies

¶93

One Spare Copy

HIGH COURT

DATED: 2210312022

DECREE

MACMA.No.3859 of 2008

¶99

PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA,

¶100

WITHOUT COSTS.

¶101

o*., o6 D1\

Smt Gousiya Begum R/O Balkonda, Nizamabad Dist v. B. Ramesh and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Gousiya Begum R/O Balkonda, Nizamabad Dist v. B. Ramesh and 2 Others

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

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Vs Poloju Narshimha Chary and Anr.

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Vs Rampalli Omkaram and Anr.

Syed Ahamed Vs Jaidi Pedda Ganga Reddy

The United India Insurance Company Limited, Vs Rahana Begu

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs E.Niranjan [Died and 3 Ors.

Smt.P.Aruna and 3 Ors. Vs K.Ramulu and Anr.