Partly allowed

Smt. Jangam Anitha v. B.Hanmandlu

Telangana HC21 Aug 2023MACMA/1008/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This motor accident civil miscellaneous appeal resulted in the appellate court enhancing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The court increased the award by re-evaluating grievous injuries, simple injuries, loss of earnings, and medical expenses, raising the total from Rs. 46,000 to Rs. 75,500.

What did the court decide?

The compensation amount was enhanced from Rs. 46,000 to Rs. 75,500 with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition.

Smt. Jangam Anitha Vs B.Hanmandlu — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁰⁴ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT^{FOR THE STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶3

MONDAY, THE TWENTY^{FIRST DAY OF AUGUST} TWO THOUSAND AND^{TWENTY THREE}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO}

¶6

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVI^{L MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1008 0F 2011}

¶7

Appeal filed Under Section^{173of Motor VehiclesAct against the order and} decree in O.p.No.256 ol^ZOOT dated^{10.02.2011 on the file of the Court of the} Cniiirrn Motor Accident Claims^{Tribunal-cum- lll Additional DistrictJudge(FTC),} Nizamabad.

¶8

Between:

¶9

smt. Jangam Anitha, wo Jangam^{Rajeshwarappa,occ: Tailoringand BeediRoller,} R/o H.No.10-41, Yedpalli Village and^{Mandal, NizamabadDistrict.}

¶10

...AppellanUClaimant

¶11

ANO

¶12

'1. B. Hanmandlu, S/o Narsimulu, Occ Owner of lorry No. AP 25 f 0504 R/o H.No.1-80, Bardipur Village, Dichpally^Mandal.

¶13

The United lndia lnsurance Company^{Limited, Branch Officeat R-14,} Shreedad , Near St. Stand,^{Alibagh,Raigadh District Maharastra State402} 201. Represented by its Divisional^{Manager, DivisionalOffice P'B No 314'} Besides Hotel Mayur, Godown^Road

¶14

(Vide Policy No. 121100/31/OOl02l0000O7U^{Validfrom08.05'2005to} 07 05'2007)

¶15

"'Respondents

¶16

Counsel for the Appellant

¶17

: STi AZAR SRAVAN KUMAR

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Sri CHALLA SRINIVASA^REDDY

¶19

The Court delivered the following

¶20

: JUDGMENT

¶21

THE HON'BLE SRI WSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶22

M.A.C.M.A No.1OO8 of 2O11

¶23

JUDGMENT:

¶24

This appeal is filed by the AppellanVclaimant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, aggrieved by the Order and decree dt.10.02.2011 in O.P No.256 of 2001 on the file of the Chairman Accidents Claims Tribunal, (III Additional District Judge) (Fast Track Court), Nizamabad. (for short, 'the Tribunal'). The present O.P is field under Section 166(1)(a) of MV Act read with Rule 455 of APMV Rules, 1989.

¶25

For convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.

¶26

Brief facts of the case are that on 05.06.2006 the^petitioner was travelling in the Auto Richshaw Bearing No.AP25-V-1291 from^Bodhan to Nizamabad and when the Auto reached near by the^{road of Erajpally,} Yedpally village shivar and at the same time one lorry^{bearingNo.AP25-} T-0504 came from its back side and dashed the auto^{from its behind. As} a result, the inmate of the auto sustained^{injuries.The petitioner} sustained fracture of right clavicle,^{fracture of temporal bone, grievous} injuries on left thigh, grievous injuries on^{both legs both hands, head} injury, back, multiple and grievous injuries on^{various parts} of the body.

¶27

¶28

RRN,J MACMA No.1008 OF 2011

¶29

¶30

Hence, she filed the claim petition, claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,0001

¶31

Before the Tribunal, respondent No.l was set as ex parte and respondent No.2 filed counter denying the allegations ofthe petition.

¶32

To prove their case, the petitioner examined as pWs I and 2 and got marked as Exs.Al to Al0. On the other hand, the respondent No.2 has not adduced any oral evidence but marked Ex.Bl insurance policy with consent.

¶33

On considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal awarded compensation 46,000l- with proportionate costs and interest @7 .5% per annum form the date of the petition till the date ofrealization. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed by the petitioner.

¶34

Heard both sides and perused the record.

¶35

tramed counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Tribunal granted very meagre amount towards injuries. The petitioner was a tailor and beedi roller worker and getting monthly Rs.g,000/_, the petitioner takes one month treatment for the said injuries. But the Tribunal did not grant any amount towards loss of income. But the facts remain the same, s,[q- is a lady, due to injuries, Basing on the submissions made by the

¶36

¶37

RRN, ] MACMA No 1008 OF 2011

¶38

leamed counsel for the petitioner, this Court inclines to grant some amount with regard to the loss of income.

¶39

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that the Tribunal rightly granted the compensation and no interference is required by this Court. This Court is granting Rs.20,000/- towards each grievous injury and Rs. 10,000i- towards each simple injury.^'[he petitioner examined Dr.K.Motilal as PW2 and he stated that he examined the petitioner on 05.06.2006 and the petitioner was suffered with three injuries. Out of three injuries one is grievous in nature. The Tribunal granted Rs.10,0001 only, it is very meagre amount. This Court is inclined to grant Rs.20,000/- for one grievous injury. Two injuries are simple in nature.^'fhe Tribunal granted Rs.3,000/- tbr each simplc injuries i.e., Rs.6,000i, it is very meagre amount. This Coun is incline to grant Rs.I0,000/- for each simple injury i.e., Rs.20,000/-. The Tribunal has rightly granted Rs. 15,0004 towards pain and sulfering, which requires no interference b;" this Court. The Tribunal granted medical expenses Rs.l 5,000/- which is rneagre and this Court is inclined to grant

¶40

to Rs.16,000/- towards medical expenses.

¶41

Leamed counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was

¶42

a tailor and beedi rollet' w'orker and earning monthly Rs.8,000/- and as the petitioner failed to^{prove her avocation} as the tailor and becdi roller

¶43

¶44

¶45

RftN,] MACMA No.1008 OF 2011

¶46

and income as she did not file any document in supporl ol thc sarne. This Court is inclined to fix rhe income of the petitioner at Rs.4,500/_ p.m. in vierv of tlre decision of the Ho,,ble Supreme Court in Ramchandrappa

¶47

vs Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliunce Insurance Co. Ltd.t.

¶48

I l. This court enhanced the amounts fro,r that of Tribunar under different heads as under:

¶49

Head	Amount arrived at by theTribunal	Amount arrivedat by thisCourt
Grievousinjury	Rs.10,0001	Rs.20,000/-
Sinrpleinjury	6.000/-	Rs.20,000/-
	(3000x2)	(10,000x2)
Lossofearnings	nil	Rs.4,500/-
Medicalexpences	15,000/-	Rs.16,000/-
Painandsullering	Rs.15.000/-	Rs.15,000/-
Total	Rs.46,000/-	Rs.75,500/-

¶50

The Tribunal rightly award interesr at 7.5yo p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization.

¶51

Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A is allowcd in part by enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the lribunal is enhanced from Rs.46,000/- to Rs.75,500 /- with interest at 7.5/;o per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of petition tiil the date of realization. The respondents are directed to deposit the said amount together with costs and interest within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of r(20rI ) 13 scc 236

¶52

¶53

RRN,J MACMA No.1008 OF 2011

¶54

this order alter deducting the amount, if any, already deposited. Upon

¶55

such deposit, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the entire amount.

¶56

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶57

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.

¶58

SD/. MOHD SANAULLAH^ANSARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-^{Ill Additional District} Judge(FTC), Nizamabad.

¶63

One CC to Sri AZAR SRAVAN KUMAR, Advocate IOPUC]

¶64

3 One CC to Sri CHALLA SRINIVASA^{REDDY, Advocate} [OPUC]

¶65

Two CD Copies

ll l'

HIGH COURT

DATED:21^10812023

JUDGMENT

MACMA.No.1008^{ot 2011}

¶72

PARTLY ALLOWING^{THE MACMA}

¶73

1 H E s 14 16r
(
oo 1 2 JA!\l 2024 o
!
* *
oE PATc co
N+
<br>

¶74

IN THE^{HIGH COURTFOR THE STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶75

MONDAY, '..-^{THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF AUGUST} TWO^{THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE}

¶76

PRESENT

¶77

THE HONOURABLE^{SRIJUSTICENAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO} 11 OUS AP PEAL^{NO:1008 0F2} MOTO^{R ACCIDE NT CIVILMISCEL}

¶78

Between:

¶79

Smt. Jangam^{Anitha, Wo Jangam R?leshlv?r3.qpa'O.cc:Tailoringand Beedi Roller'} il"'H.rl""ro+r,^{ieaparriviliaieand Mandal' Nizamabad District'}

¶80

...APPellanUClaimant

¶81

AND

¶82

B. Hanmandlu,^{Sio Narsimulu'Occ Owner of lorry No AP 25 T 0504R/o} i.r.f o. f^{-eO, Bardipur Village, Dichpally Mandal} .

¶83

The^{United fnOia rns'r"ancl C'omianyLimited Branch Officeat R-14'} Shreedad ,^{Near St iili'O' nrt"Sfi'naigaohDiskictMaharastraState 402} 201. Represented^{byi[';iv;tffii"rttistr'DivisionalofficeP B No 314'} Besides'Hotel^{MaYur, GodownRoad} (Vide Policv^{ruo r zr r-ooliilo6'02/oooo0784Valid from08 05 2005to} 07.05.2007) ...Respondents

¶84

...Respondents

¶85

Aooeal filed^{UnderSection 173 of MolorJehichsAct aqainstthe Order and} -10/i2201.1. en-ino file"of the court of the decree in o.P.No.256 "f^i'od7';;t"d irt noaliionar^{District Judge(FTC)'} chairman Motor^{Accident 6['ilt"?;d;;;;:} Nizamabad.

¶86

ORDER:^{This appeal coming on for hearingand upon oerusingthe grounds of} appeal, the^{Judgment,"d r;"'; ;;ih;;;t} eolt:"0^{ihe material papers in the} of Sri AZnn^{SRAVAN KUMAR' Advocate for} Case and^{upon hearing *t} "'g"""tt the Appellant^{and of sRi''cFilii;'sCrNrvAsnREDDY' Advocate for the} ;;il;;;i Iti".i ana lloui^{aPPEAREDfor the Respondent No.1'}

¶87

This Court doth^{Order and Decree as follow}

¶88

1 ThattheMotorAccidentCivilMiscellaneousAppealbeandherebyisallowed in part by^{enhancing the compensation amount awardedby the Tribunalis}

¶89

enhanced from Rs.46,000/- to Rs.75,500/- with interest at7.50/o per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of petition till the date of rearization;

¶90

That the respondents are directed to deposit the said amount together with costs and interest within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order after deducting the amount, if any, already deposited. Upon such deposit, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the entire amount;

¶91

That there be no order as to costs in this appeal.

¶92

SD/- MOHD SANAULLAH ANSARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPYII

To,

SECTION OFFICER

1 The chairman Motor Accident claims Tribunal-cum- lll Additional District Judge(FTC), Nizamabad.

¶97

2 Two CD Copies SP

HIGH COURT

DATED:21 10812023

DECREE

MACMA.No.1008 of²⁰¹¹

PARTLY ALLOWING^{THE MACMA}

¶104

ry
W

Smt. Jangam Anitha v. B.Hanmandlu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Jangam Anitha v. B.Hanmandlu

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

Smt N.Vijaya, Vs The Director of Public Health and Family Welfare Govt of Telangana

A Yadhamma Vs Ch Nagesh and Another

R.Srinivasa Rao Vs The Director of School Education

Alladi Phani Kumar Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by District Collector and Agent

Namoju Eashwaramma , Rajeswari and Another Vs the A.P.S.R.T.C and Another

The National Insurance Company Limited, Hyderabad. Vs Kum. Rathod Sakku Bai and Another