Partly allowed

Mohd. Khaleel v. Syed Azizuddin and Another

Telangana HC9 Mar 2023MACMA/1012/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court upheld the tribunal's direction for the insurance company to pay and recover compensation to a motor accident victim with partial disability. The court enhanced the awarded compensation from Rs. 3,04,000 to Rs. 5,01,360, dismissing the insurer's appeal and partly allowing the victim's appeal.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs. 3,04,000 to Rs. 5,01,360 with interest; insurance company directed to deposit amount and pay from main sum.

Mohd. Khaleel Vs Syed Azizuddin and Another — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

THURSDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF TVARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶5

M.A.C.M.A. NOs: 1012 OF 2011 AND 2527 OF 2012

¶6

M.A.C.M.A.No. 1012 OF 2011

¶7

Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V Act, aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 04.02.2011 passed in O.P.No. 853 of 2008 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum - XXI Additional Chief Judgecum-Vll Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Mohd. Khaleel, S/o Mohd. Jameel, Age'.24 years, Occ: Mechanic Rl/o H.No.87-1411, Plot No.53, Ghori Nagar, Old Bowenpally, Hyderabad. ..APPELLANT/PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

Syed AzizLiddin Ahmed, S/o Syed lVloinuddin Ahmed, age: major, Occ: Business R/o 10-6-316, Sayeed Nagar, lt/asab Tank, Hyderabad.

¶12

The Bajaj Allianz General lnsurance Company Limited,, Rep.by its Divisional Manaser, off: D. No.5-e-1 4, Ali Khan Estate, saifabad, J8fl?lEh1t,*Espers

¶13

M.A.C.M.A.No. 2521 OF 2012

¶14

Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V Act, against the impugned award and the decree dated 04.02.2011 passed in O.P.No. 853 of 2008 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum - XXI Additional Chief Judgecum-Vll Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad

¶15

Between:

¶16

Bajaj Allianz General lnsurance Company Limited, Rep. by its Divisional Manager, Office at D.No. 5-9-14, Ali Khan Estate, Saifabad, Hyderabad.

¶17

...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT NO.4

¶18

AND

¶19

1 Mohd. Khaleel, S/o tVohd. Jamee, Age: 26^years, Occ: Mechanic^Rl/o H.No. 8- 7-1411 , Plot No.55, Ghori Nagar, Old Bowenpally, Hyderabad.

¶20

...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER

¶21

2 Syed AziumuJd n Ahmed, Sio^{Syedtr,4oinuddinAhm',,9,,} ']:' T9 9l' 9t"' , Business. or.r.nr^{r ,:f /ehicleNo.} Ap^{t g x 5198R/o l- N0. 1l l-3 1ii. sayeed} nagar, lVlasat,^T lnk, Hyderabad.

¶22

..RESPONDENT/R^{:{i PONOENT NO.1}

¶23

MACMAM P. NO: 2€;2(^{CtF 2012}

¶24

Petition u ndt:r Stlction^{5 of LimitationAct r/w Section1 ,3(1 ) of M 'V.Act} praying that in the c rcJmslances^{statedin the affidav t f lec i I sr.rppotl of the} petitioi, the High C)or rt :na!,^{be pleased condone the dela'y o' i: 34 days in filing} ihe appeal against^{[he aurard and the decree dated4- l-11011 passed in} v.v.o.p.ruo. 853 ol^{2 JtrS on the file of the xxl Addl. chief Jucr e oumVll Addl} lvletropolitan Session:^{Judge,Hyderabad.}

¶25

Counsel for the^{APPellernt in} MACMA No.^{101 2 of i 01 1 &} Counsel for ResPonc^{ent No.1in} MACMA No. 2527^{ctf '. 012} Sri KASIREDDY JA(ilrTHPAL^REDDY

¶26

Counsel for ResPonc^{ent No.2in} MACMA No. 1012 of^{: r0 1 1 &} Counsel for Appellar^{t in} MACMA No. 2527 ctl','.012

¶27

Sri T. MAHENDI:Fl^Rl\O

¶28

Counsel for Responc^{ent No.1in} MACMA No. 1012 of^;1011& Counsel for Responc^{ent No.2in} MACMA No. 2527 of^{; i0 12}

¶29

None appearet^I

¶30

The Court delivered^{I he following: COMMON JUDGMENT}

¶31

HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA T<ANNEGANTI

¶32

M.A.C.M.A.N os.l0l2 of20 ll AND 2527 of2Ol2

¶33

COMMON JUDGVlENT:

¶34

These appeals are filed aggrieved by the award and decree dated 04.02.201I in o.P.No.853 ol 2008 o. rhe file of the XXI Additional Chief Judge-cum-VII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad (for short, 'the lribunat'), both by the claimant as well as by the Insurance Company who are before this Court. The claimant has fited M.A.C.M.A.No.l0l2 of 20ll and the Insurance Company has filed M.A.C.M.A.No.2527 of 2012.

¶35

The brief facts of the case are that on the nigl.rt ol 12/13.02.2008, due to the negrigenr driving of rhe auto, the claimant fell down and received grievous lnjuries. I'he claimant got injured in the motor accident and as on the date of the accident he was aged about 2l years and eaming an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month by working as a mechanic and as a driver. It is the case of the claimant that because of the injuries sustained in the said accident he has sustained several injuries, fractures, crush injury, injury to the head and spent lot of amounts fbr treatment. In support of his claim, he has examined PWs. I to 4. PW.3 is the doctor, who treated the claimant, and PW.4 is also doctor, who hasSfuen-the disability certificate. As

¶36

rT%B
'\ , ..'dl

¶37

¶38

pertheclislrbrlit'.-]c11ificatCthcclairllernthasstrtlcrtl<1.',5.)'i,clislrbilit},-

¶39

3 Sri I^{.\1a rc ntler Rao' lcarned of the lt'arne' I corrrlscl lbr thc} Insttraucc^{('otlr li'ttr'. sttbtlitsthat thc Tribunal u'itlt rr t ltL.lt'ciiscttssiotl} has^{gratrtccl ir lttrttlt 's'1r17} 'rlrount^{ol Rs' l '25'00() -lirr thc ir-r-iuries} sustaitlcd^{hr llre claima.t'Rs'I} '24'000/-^{tow.rtls rr'cdicale\penses'} Rs.l0,()00^{- lilthc loss ol- earningsand ILs 4:'0()(r/- irr thc future} inconvcnictt,:e^{lltogietheriln alrlount of Rs l'04'o('()/-was granted'} He subm'ts^{th rt the -l ribtrnal withoutany basis h ls grlrltcdthe said} driving^Iicence, stated^{that u'l-renthere is rto r a li' j} co r.n^{pe trsrl t it:t l. lt is} the Tribt^r.rai ughl not^{to havehetd that thc Iustrr'tlrce Cioulpatll'ts} '.he conlpensation and ought^{to l'avr: absolvethe} liable to P,il Insurattcr:^{(-<l nPanY fromthe liabitity. But. irsleal o1- that' the} Tribunal^{havi rg held that though there is r.ro valid clrivingIicetrsehas} directed^{thc It sr-tranceCompanyto pay and recov€r}

¶40

Sri Kas^{ir,:dd) .lagathpal Reddy'IearncdccLrrrset appearine lor} the clairnatrt,^{submits that the claimanthas exarli-recPW's'3and 4'} u/ho 1re^{rlte,lrim. The evidence of both PWs ll arrcl 4 is consistent'} rvho ltas^{treated the petitioner i: l'W 3 has t-tot gtven} though^{lhe dr ,c:or}

I-

the disability^{certificate,PW.4 examined the claimant and gave the} disability certificate.^{As per the evidenceof PW'3, he treatedthe} claimant and it^{is statedthat there is ankle stiffness, limpingand there} is shortening of^{the size of the leg. Evcn in the cross-examination,it} is stated that the claimant^{has sustained partial disability. The} claimanr has examined^{PW.4, who gave Ex.A.18 disabilitycertificate,} which shows that^{there is 45o/o disability. Learned counselsubmits} the l'ribunal ought^{to havetaken the disabilityat 45%o,but no amounts} were granted for loss of^{earning due to disabitity. It is submitted that} the claimant^{was workingas a driver and mechanic and the income of} the claimant was to^{be takenas Rs.10,000/-per month'}

¶45

In response to that,^{Iearnedcounsel for the InsuranceCompany} submits that the evidence^{of PW.3 is that there a shortening of size of} the leg and there^{is ankle stiffness. when it comesto the evidence of} PW.4, the Doctor,^{who has given the disabilitycertificate after one} year, even there is a^{stiffness of movement in the kneethat itself} shows that only^{to facilitate the claimant the said disabilitycertificate} ls glven.

¶46

¶47

I-ezrrnc-c ( L)lln\cl appearinq Ibl the clainrarrt ru rrlits tlrat rnerc delay in givt ra tltc rlisabiliti, ccrliflcate cannot trt rr considcratior-r. Furthcr. vv tl.or,r rhcre beinq anv cvidence bas ng. ,t I .r afflda., it flted by the parties, t l(^('oLlr1 can co,sider the incor,c a tr, in this case as the claimarrt is L rrccl:anic, as pcr the law laid d,rrln by the Ilor-r,ble Apex Courr, [ris inc.rtre can be takcn as Rs.6,000/..^.[r: h.s also relied on the -judg ntcl s ol tlre I lon'blc z\pex Court. in ()ollrr Rajanna and others v. Dir.isi rn al Manager and anotherl, Sycd j::rler,m v. Abdul Sukur and anr ther2 and Charan Singh v. G.V ftal Reddy and anotherr. H,: ;ubrnils that ilr the light of rlre aLr,,ve judgrncnts, without thr:re I ,c ltg an), evidence, the Corrrt c rrr considcr the disabilitl,. Flt: r-r'thcr submits that when a disabi it r certificate is markcd, the Tril,urral wcnl. rvrong in not discussing i,bout the same and no1 gralttir ! rr v c()lnpensat ior l.

¶48

Learnr:d c< u tsel for the Insurance Coml>any- s.rbnrits that all those^judgnrents givcn by the clairnant arises out <,f the Wor.krnen Comper.rsation A,:t and which are not applicable lbr.tlis ca;e

¶49

1 (2017) 1 SCC 4:

¶50

, 2007 (r)Al-D 3rl2

¶51

3 2003 (4) Ar.D 1ll3 (r)il

¶52

---::iffiiz ''/

¶53

¶54

8 Heard learned counsel on either side and perused the material on record

¶55

First coming to the liability of the Insurance Company, where the Tribunal has directed the Insurance Company to pay and recover. In the light ol the law laid down by the Hon,ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited v Swaran Singha, this Court need not dwell into the said issue. Accordingly, the Tribunal was right in directing the Insurance Company to pay and recover.

¶56

Coming ro the compensation, as rightly pointed out by pWs.3 and 4, and as per Ex.A.l g_disability certificate, there is a variation in the evidence of both the doctors. However, the fact remains is there is stiffness in the ankle and shortening in the size of the leg and according ro rhe docror this is a disabirity. The disabirity certificate given by PW'4 doctor, who has not treated the claimant. As there is contradiction between the evidence of pW.3 and Ex.A. lg, this Court is not inclined to take the said disability as 45%o,however, this court is inclined to take it as 2O%o.

4 (2004) 3 SCC 297

i ! I ..1

I l. Cclt-ning tr,^the rrt-rttlhlr^itrcotttc ol'the clairnarl^{it:; pel the lau'} laid dou'n Lrr tl re IIon'l-',le^{.\pcr(--or-rrt in} Ran ur: ha ntlra ppa Vs. Manager, Il.oral Sundrram Alliancc5.^{u'hereintlre rt.lc.li tc ,r1- aglicultural} labourer w.rs lil .e: as Rs.,1.50()1-^{pcr tnonth withoulthe re being any} evidence. a:; srrcl cvcr.t in the instartt^{caseas thcr,:} is^{r() otllcr evidence.} the Court is ir clinecl to take at^{lLs.4,500/-as} tl(j^{in']onleof the} claimant.^'l'hr' :^,r,r: of clainrarrt^rvas 'I^{ycars alld 409i, firtrrre prospects} would be Rs.^L ,t 0rl/-, then it^{q,ouldcor-p6;} to^{Rs.6,l() )r pt:r month and} appropriatt: rnul iplicr^rvonld be lll. Ilence,^{thtr cIai ttrtnt is entitledto} an amount o^' lLs. i^{j,60,800/- (Rs.(r,100} x¹² x^{lt I'''he claimant} sustained 20'2, <lisatrititv. therr it^rvould come^{1,.) l\s.2.72,1601-} (Rs.13,60,130C : 20%t towards loss of income dtre^,,.: dir;ability. For the medica l e KI- enses. the Triburral^has alreadl^{grar tt, d 10 an amount} of Rs.1,24.200/ . which this Court is not inclincd^{tr: interferewith.} The claimirnt i_< entitled to an amount of Rs.45,0(t(r,'.-^{towards future} operation. Apa Lt frorn^{that the claimantis entitled1.l an anlount of} Rs.20,000/- lorr alds ltain^{and strl'('ering.Rs.l0,0()0r-tovrards loss of} earnings, Rs.l0. )00,/-^{towards transportand Rs 10,00tr/- towards extra}

¶61

s (2011) 13 S(rC 23rl

¶62

----i=:;=e.;=..-/

¶63

¶64

nourishrnent, in all it comes Rs.4,9 1,360/-

¶65

Learneci counsel fbr the claimant has relied on the order passed by the Apex Court in V.Mekala v. M.Malathi and another6, wherein the Apex Court, taking into consideration the date of the accident and till the appeal reached to the Apex Court, has awarded a sum of Rs.25,000i- towards cost of litigation. Hence, an amount of Rs.10,000/- is awarded towards cost of litigation.

¶66

In the light of the above discussion, the claimants are entitled to the lol lowing arnounl.s:

¶67

	Lossofincomcduetod	isability	Rs.	2,72,r60/-
2	Medicalexpenses		Rs.	t,24,200t-
l	Future operation		Rs.	4s,000t-
4	Lossolearnings		Rs.	10,000/-
5	Transport		Rs.	10,000/-
6	Extra nourishment		Rs.	10,000/-
7	Pain andsuft-ering		Rs.	20,000/-
8	Litigationcharges		Rs.	10,000/-
		TOTAL	Rs.	5,0t,360/-

¶68

I I

¶69

6 2014 (s) ALD 42 [SC)

¶70

-t'ti

¶71

¶72

In the t'estrl , the appcal lilccl^b1' tlrc^{Illsr- ra]lc( r-'orllpan]'i.e} M.A.('.M.A.N<t.1\11 oi20 ll is clisnrissccl an(l^tlrc rl)xel^{llled b) the} claimanl i.e N4 /..C.M.A.No. l0l2 of 20 I I is a^{l, ,rvt'd} ir.r^part enhanc ing the^{,:o rt pcnsatiotr arttoutrt au arcle cl L-'1} tht^{['ribunaIfrom} Rs.3,04,000/- 1o I :s.5.0 t,:160/-^([(r-rpees ll'c^{Ial<hs otrtt trottsand three} hundrcd and sixtv only) as hcrcuudcr:

¶73

l1 1 50

¶74

(a)^'fhe enh rrced am()Llnt shall carry illt(rest p.a. fi-o rr the datc ol petition till the d,rte of realizatir n.

¶75

(b) The Irrsr rntnce Comlrarry shall dcposit t l-r er lr ro unt tlrc d rte of

¶76

within e period ol cight weeks^(iom receipt o ir colly ol'tlic .iudgment.

¶77

¶78

Miscel lanec us, applications,^pending if^{any, shalls an,l closed.}

¶79

Sd/. N. SRIHARI ASSISI ANT^REGISTRAR //TRUE^COPY' ('.i:,

¶80

SECTION OFFICER

¶81

To,

¶82

1 The Chairnrar ,^{vlotor AccidentsClaimsTribunal- cum- ){Xl Additional} c#"ii;J^{g.-i,,r'-Vii noo itio"n,i ni"tr.opoiitun ses sio nsJ r' d ge'H vdera bad} (with re,:ords^{if anY;}

¶83

One CC to Sri KASIREDDY JAGATHPAL REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri T. MAHENDER RAO, Advocate IOPUC]

¶84

Two CD Copies Njb \ I kam l

HIGH COU R T

DATED:09103,t2023

COMMON .'I IDGMENT

MACMA.Nos.1012 of 2011 &2527 of2012

¶90

--a==.
-.,: rri li..t '
o^
-t,) I
B l,JN llr23
',
<br>

¶91

DISMISSING THE MACMANo.2527 o 2O12 &

¶92

PARTLY ALLOWIN( i THE MACMA No. 10 t2 ot2012

¶93

'( r:
b "t:>

¶94

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE^{STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD}

¶95

THURSDAY ,THE^{NINTH DAYOF MARCH} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTY THREE}

¶96

PRESENT

¶97

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶98

M.A.C.M .A. NOs: 10'12 OF 2011 AND 2527 OF 2012

¶99

M.A.C.M.A.No. 1012 OF 2011

¶100

Between:

¶101

Mohd. Khaleel, S/o Mohd. Jameel, Age'.24^years, Occ: Mechanic^{Rl/o H.No.8-} 7-1411, Plot No.53, Ghori Nagar, Old Bowenpally, Hyderabad.

¶102

,.APPE LLANT/PETITIONER

¶103

AND

¶104

1 Syed Azizuddin Ahmed, S/o Syed Moinuddin Ahmed, age:^{major, Occ:} Business Ryo 10-6-316, Sayeed Nagar, Masab Tank, Hyderabad.

¶105

a The Bajaj Allianz General lnsurance Company Limited,, Rep.by^its Divisional Manaser, off : D. No.5-e-1 4, Ali Khan Estate, Saifabad, Hfl?lEorr.spDrs

¶106

M.A.C.M.A.No. 2527 OF 2012

¶107

Between:

¶108

Bajaj Allianz General lnsurance Company Limited,^{Rep. by its Divisibnal} Manbger, Office at D.No. 5-9-14, Ali Khan Estate,^{Saifabad,Hyderabad.}

¶109

...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT NO.4

¶110

AND

¶111

1 Mohd. Khaleel, S/o Mohd. Jamee, Age:^{26 years, Occ: MechanicRlio H.No.8-} 7-1411 , Plot No.55, Ghori Nagar, Old Bowenpally,^Hyderabad.

¶112

...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER

¶113

Syed Aziumuddin Ahmed, S/o Syed Moinuddin Ahmed,^{age;maior,Occ:} Blsiness, Owner of Vehicle No. AP 13 X 5198^{Fl/o H.No. 10-6-316, Sayeed} nagar, Masab Tank, Hyderabad.

¶114

...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT NO.1

¶115

Appeals filed under Section 173 of M.V Act, aggrieved^{by the Orderand} Decree dated 04.02.2011^passed in O.P.No.⁸⁵³ of^{2008 on the file of the} Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims^{Tribunal- cum} -^{XXI AdditionalChief Judge-} cum-Vll Additional Metropolitan Sessions^{Judge, Hyderabad.}

¶116

¶117

These appeal; . )rring ln for hearing and upon^perusingt 1l-e Mernorandum of Appeal, the order o tf e Lower Court and the material^pe,pe's ir :1e^()ase. and upon hearing the argurno rts; of Siri KASIREDDY JAGATHPAL REDt)\ Counsel^for the Appellant in lvACM, r I'lo 1012of 2011&Counsel for Re'sp,lnr e'rt No.1 in^ti,4ACMA No.2527 of 2t)12 a d Sri L II4AHENDER RAO, Counsel for.Rr:sponlent No.2ⁱⁿ I!4ACMA No. 101:2 c'2O11 & Counsel forAppellant in MAClrlA fl't.2527 of 2012, and None appeared fcr Respondenl No 1 rn MACN/A No. 1012 c 2011 & Respondent No 2 in Ir/lACtvlA No.2527 of 2012

¶118

This Court doth Jr-rd, tnrent:lnd Decree as follows.-

¶119

1 . That tht-. MA( lt/lA No. 2527 of 2012 filed by the lnsurirnc er Jorrpany be and hereby is d isr ri-.;sed;

¶120

fhat the lVlA( IVA Nc,. 1012 of 201 1 filed by the claim;ant b:r ard hereby is allowed in l)a t;

¶121

That the ccm rersation amount awarded by the Tlbunal b:: ard hereby is enhanced fror n Rs. 3,,04,000/- to Rs. 5,01,3601 (Rupees fi're l;:khs one thousand thr€ -- rundred and sixty only).

¶122

That ther enha rced amount shall be and hereby carry rnt)r:)st at 7.5% per annum fronr tl e date of petition till lhe date of realization

¶123

That the lnr;ur rrce Company shall be and hereby depos t^-re itmount within a period of ei,lh weeks from the date of receipt of a copy ( f rhe judgment.

¶124

That, on su:h d<:posit, the claimant be and hereby is r:nt tled tc, withdraw the entire amoLrnt wrthout furnishing the security; and

¶125

That there s;hi ll :e no order as to costs in this appeal.

¶126

Sd/. N. SRIHARI ASSISI'ANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY'

( l.Lt

SEC'TION OFFICER

To,

The Chairmar lt/otor Accidents Claims Tribunal: curn - XXI ,\dditional Chief Judger-c rnr-Vll Additional Metropolitan Sessions,lu,jge, Hyderabad

¶132

Two CD Colrie s

)Y-

HIGH COUR'-

DATED:0910¹¹²⁰²³

COMMON^DECREE

MACMA.NoT^{i.101 2 of 2011} &2527 of^12t12

¶140

DISMISSING^TTIE MACMA No.^{2527 01 2012} & PARTLY^{ALLO\JVI {(i} THE MACMA^{No' 1012 ot 2012}

¶141

?) b^bv3

Mohd. Khaleel v. Syed Azizuddin and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Khaleel v. Syed Azizuddin 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

The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt.M.Mangamma and Anr.

United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Secunderabad. Vs Sri Bagamathi Carriers, Nandyal and 6 Others

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Secunderabad. Vs G. Sathyawwa , Satyamma and Another

V.Thirupathi Vs Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Limited

National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Janagam Ashok Rao and Another

Smt. Humeera Fathima Vs Mrs. B.Janardhan Reddy