Allowed

Dr. Shivanand Badinikar v. Basavaraj Mugali

Telangana HC23 Jun 2022MACMA/528/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A fatal motor accident compensation award was challenged for inadequate assessment. The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the award and restored the claim petition for fresh disposal, preferably within three months of receipt of the order.

What did the court decide?

Award set aside; claim petition restored for fresh disposal in accordance with law, preferably within three months of receipt of the order.

Dr. Shivanand Badinikar Vs Basavaraj Mugali — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DT. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER AND

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE JUWADI SRIDEVI

¶6

M.A.C.M.A. NO: 528 OF 2010

¶7

Appeal under Section^'173 of M.V.Act, against the Order/ decree in OP No.849 of 2007 daled 1911212009 on the file of the Court of the Vll Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge -cum- XXI Additional Chief Judge, at Hyderabad.

¶8

Between:

¶9

'1 . Dr. Shivanand Badinikar, S/o Late Leeladhar Central Govt. Employee Rl/o H.No. 6-3-604, Flat No. S-3, Vennala Harika Enclave, Padmavathinagar Hill Top Colony, Eramanzil, Hyderabad

¶10

2.^{Kum. Gargi,D/o Shivanand Badnikar, aged 16 years, Occ: Nil, R/o H.No.6-3-} 604, Flat No. S-3, Vennala Harika Enclave, Padmavathinagar Hill Top Colony, Erramanzil, Hyderabad under the guardianship of her father Dr.Shivanand Badnikar

¶11

...APPELLANTS

¶12

AND

¶13

1 . Basavaraj Mugali, S/o Baswantappa Driver of Sheep Lorry No. KA-03-A-5958 Fl/o Madayannagudi Tq. Ron, Jalhalli Cross, Near Old School Shivpur, Karnataka

¶14

M. Muniraj, S/o Muni Somappa Owner of Lorry No. KA-03-5958 R/o D.No. 32 & 33, Channibavalli Trust Colony Bangalore

¶15

IFFCO-TOKIO General lnsurance Co. Ltd., P.No. 28 ( Old No. 195 ) First & Second Floor, North Usman Road T. Nagar, Chennai-6000'1.1*=Ur.*Oan ra

¶16

For the Appellants : SRI K.V.SATYANARAYANA, Advocate

¶17

Forthe Respondent No.3 : SRI T.MAHENDER RAO, Advocate

¶18

The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

¶19

THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI

¶20

M.A.C.M.A.No.528 OF 201O

¶21

JUDGMENT:^(Per Hon'ble Dr.SA,l)

¶22

This appeal, under Section L73 of the Motor Vehicles Act, IS filed by the appellants/petitioners aggrieved by the order and decree, dated 19.12.2009, passed in O.P.No.B49 of 2007 by the learned VII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-XXI Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad, whereby, an amount of Rs.8,50,000/- was granted as compensation, as against the claim of Rs.39,90,000/-, for the death of Smt. Sadana (deceased), who died in a motor accident, which occurred on 26.12.2006 at about 07:15 PM at Kukanapally, due to negligent driving by the driver of the vehicle bearing No.KA-03A-5958.

¶23

Heard Sri T.S. Praveen Kumar, learned counsel representing Sri Sunil B. Ganu, learned counsel for the appellants/petitioners; Sri T. Mahender Rao, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.3-Insurance Company and^perused the record.

¶24

Though notice is served on respondent No.1, there is no representation on his behalf. Notice sent to respondent No.2 re$ cqed with an endorsement 'insufficient address'

¶25

2 Dr.SA.J & JS.J M.A.C.M.A.No 528^of 20lo

¶26

4, As seen from the material placed on record and the submissions made, the Court below^granted compensation^of Rs.8,50,000/- in lumpsum to the appellants/petitioners. The Court below, while arriving at a conclusion, Itas not taken^into consideration the loss of earnings, multiplier to be applied and did not even decide the amounts to be granted on other heads, payable in relation to the subject accident. By the impugned order, both the parties are aggrieved, as demonstrated before this Court. The impugned order is not in consonance with the governing precedents, time and again delivered by the Honourable Apex Court, particuiarly Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and anotherl and National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others2. In view of these circumstances, the impugned order and decree, dated t9.L2.2009, are liable to be set aside.

¶27

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order and decree, dated 19.12.2009, passed in O.P.No.B49 of 2007 by the learned VII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge - cum - XXI Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad, are set aside. The subject O.P. is restored to its file. The Court below is directed to dispose

¶28