Partly allowed

Syed Noor , Mohd Noor v. a.Raghuveer Reddy and Anr.

Telangana HC31 Jul 2023MACMA/1031/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a motor accident civil miscellaneous appeal in part. Enhancing compensation from Rs.40,000 to Rs.1.87 lakhs covering medical bills, injuries, and loss of income, directing the respondents to deposit the amount.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs.40,000 to Rs.1,87,000 with interest at 7.5% p.a.; respondents directed to deposit the amount within two months.

Syed Noor , Mohd Noor Vs a.Raghuveer Reddy and Anr. — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁰⁴ I

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

MONDAY ,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTHREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU^RAJESHWARRAO

¶6

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MI SCELLANEOUS APPEAL^{NO: 1031 OF 2011}

¶7

Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act^{againstthe orderand} decree in O.P.No. 412 of 2OOG dated^{30.'l1.2010on the file of the Court of the} Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - cum -^{Vlll Additional DistrictJudge,} Nizamabad.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Syed Noor @ Mohd Noor, S/o.Mohd^{Khaleel, Age: 25 years,Occ:Electrician} R/o. H. No.9-13-140, Hajjam Colony,^Nizamabad.

¶10

...APPELLANT

¶11

AND

¶12

1 . A.Raghuveer Reddy, W/o.Mohan^{Reddy,Aged Major,Ownerof Tractor} No.Ap 25 r 1942, irailer No.AP 25^J 2007^{Ryo.LokaNivas No.59,NGOS} Colony, Nizamabad.

¶13

United lndia lnsurance Co^{Ltd, rep by its Divisional Manager O/o Divisional} Office Godown Road, PB No.313,^Nizamabad.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Counsel forthe Appellant : Sri LAKKADI^DAYAKERREDDY

¶16

Counsel for Respondent No.2 : Sri^{RAMA KRISHNAMALLOJHALA}

¶17

Counsel for Respondent No.1 :^{None appeared}

¶18

The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

¶19

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶20

M.A.C. M.A.NO.1 o31 0F 2011

¶21

JUDGMENT:

¶22

This M.A.C.M.A is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the appellant/ petitioner aggrieved by the order and decree dated 30.l 1.2010, passed in O.p.No.412 of 2006 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (VIII Additional District Judge) at Nizamabad, (for short, ,,the Tribunal,,).

¶23

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

¶24

Brief facts of the case are that on 25.1 t.2OO3, u,hile the petitioner was going on his motorcycle bearing No.Ap_25J_017g, along with one Shaik Javeed, from Vinayakanagar to Nizamabad, and when they reached near phulong bridge, Nizamabad at about 3.0O p.m., a Tractor bearing No.Ap_2ST_ 1942 and, its trailer bearing No.Ap_2SJ_2907, being driven by its driver at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner, lost control over the tractor, due to which the trailer of the tractor dashed against the motorcycle and as a result, the petitioner sustained injuries. Immediately, after the accident, the petitioner was shifted to pragathi Nursing Home, Nizamabad, where he was given first aid ancl was referred. to Sai Krishna

¶25

.---

¶26

)

¶27

t{t{..r i\lACi\i i\ l0l I 201 I

¶28

Super Specialty Neuro Hospital, Hyderabad. The appellant/petitioner hled the aforesaid O.P. against the owner and insurer of the said tractor and trailer, claiming compensation of Rs.6,0O,O0O I for the injuries sustained by the appellant/ petitioner.

¶29

Before the Tribunal, respondent No.1 remained exparte. Respondent No.2 filed a written statement denying the claim petition's averments and contended that the amount claimed is excessive, and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

¶30

Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal framecl the following issues

¶31

(i) Whether the acctdent has taken place due to rash and negligent diuing of the^'l'ractor bearing No.AP-2571942 and trailer beaing No.AP-25J-29O7 bg its driuer?

¶32

(ii) Wlrcther the petitioner is entitled for cornpen-sation. If so, to uhat just atnount and against uthom?

¶33

(iii) To uhat relief

¶34

Considering the claim, counter and the evidence, both^oral and documentary, brought on record, then Tribunal^{allowed the} O.P. in part arn,arding compensation of Rs.40,OOO/-^{$'ith interest} at 7.5o/o p.a. from the date of petition till its^deposit.

¶35

RR..' \l AC\I..\ t)-r I t0

¶36

¶37

Challenging the quantum of compensation as meagre, the petitioner has filed the present appeal.

¶38

7 . Heard both sides and perused the material available on record.

¶39

The short question that arises for consideration in this appeal is

¶40

"Whether the compensation auarded bg the Tibunol is^just and equitable"?

¶41

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Court belou, did not grant any amount tou,ards medical bills. But as per Ex.A9 and A11-medical bills, the petitioner has spent Rs.1,93,O40/- towards medical bills and also submits that the petitioner is doing electrician work and is earning Rs.12,O0O/_ per month, but the Tribunal has taken the income of the petitioner as Rs.lOO/- per day as per Ex.A2 charge sheet where the occupation of the petitioner was mentioned as private service and awarded Rs.300O/- for loss of monthly income ald also stated that the petitioner has sustained one grievous injury and three simple injuries. Accordingly, prayed to enhance the compensation.

¶42

¶43

It R ..r 'tn⁽ i\I.\ I)ll t{)ll

¶44

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 / Insurar-rce Company submits that the Tribunal has rightly awarded the amount under various heads and submits that due to non examination of the doctors of Pragathi Nursing Home and Sai^Krishna Super Specialty Neuro Hospital, the Tribunal did not award^any amount towards medical bills.

¶45

1 1 . In view of the above submissions made by the^learned counsel for appellant/ petitioner, this Court^grants Rs.1,OO,0O0/- towards medical bills as the injuries^{were proved} and unless the treatment as stated to^be taken^{bv the petitioner} is not true, the petitioner u,ould not have^{recovered.The} Tribunal granted Rs.30,OOO/- compensation for^{injuries. pain} and suffering as the petitioner sustained four^{simple injuries} and one grievous injury. The^{Trillunal granteclRs.2,O00/} compensation tou,ards attendant charges^{and Rs.3,0O0/} towards transportation, which is^meagre and^{it is enhanced to} Rs.5,OO0/- for attendant charges and^{Rs.8,OOO/- for} transportation. The Tribunal^{granted Rs.2,OOO/- compensation} towards extra nourishment, and^{this Court is inclined to} enhance the amount to^{Rs.S,OOO/-towards that head.This} Court feels that some compensation^{shouldbe awarded tou'ards} the injuries sustainecl by the^{petitioner.This Courtgrants}

¶46

)

¶47

R II .] N,lA( t,t \ t0t t_201 1

¶48

Rs.20,000/- for one grievous injury and Rs.10,OOO/- each to four simple injuries (Rs.2O,O00 x I -- 2O,OOOl- + Rs.1O,000 x 4 = 4O,OOO|- = Rs.60,000/-), under the head 'injuries'. As the petitioner had taken two months of bed rest and the Tribunal granted Rs.3,000/- for loss of income for one month, as per Ramachandrappa Vs. Rogal Sund.aram Alliance Insura.nce Co.Ltdt , the monthly income of the petitioner is fixed at Rs.a,500/. Therefore, loss of income for two months comes to Rs.9,000/- (Rs.a,soO/- x 2).

¶49

Therefore, this Court is inclined to enhance the quantum of compensation as under:

¶50

Sl.No	Nature ol'head	Anlountawarded bylribunal	Anrountawarded by thisCoun
I	Pain andSulfering, injulies	Rs.30.000/-
2	Injuries	Nil	Rs.60,000i- (Its.20,000 ior onegrievous injury, Rs.10,000/-each lor4simple rnjuries)
3	nttendantcharges	Rs.2,0001	Rs.5,000/-
4	'l'ransportationcharges	Rs.3,000/-	Rs.8,000/-
5	Extra Nourishment	Rs.2,000/-	Rs.5,000/-
6	LossofIncome	Rs.3,000/-	Rs.9.000/-
	Medical bills		Rs.1,00,000/-
	lotal	I{s.40,0001	Rs.1,87,0001

¶51

' lzot^{t1 t s scc 236}

¶52

¶53

R t(..1 \l/( \lA Io-lt^r0r I

¶54

In the result, the MACMA is allou,ed in part by enhancing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.40,000/- to Rs. l,87,OOO/- (Rupees One Lakh Eighty Seven Thousand only) with interest at 7.Sok per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. The respondents are directed to deposit the compensation amount with costs and interest after giving due credit to the amount already deposited, if any, within a period oi tu,o (O2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of th is j udgment. The petitioner is permitted to r.l,ithdrar,l. the entire amount on such deposit. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶55

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

¶56

Sd/. A.V.S.PRASAD ASSISTANT6EGISTRAR \ '.,//TRUE^COPY// 4' SECTION OFFICER

¶57

To,

¶58

l.TheChairman'MotorAccidentClaimsTribunal_cum_VlllAdditionalDistrict Judge, Nizamabad.^{(with records)}

¶59

One CC to^{Sri.LAKKADI DAYAKER REDDYAdvocate [OPUC]}

¶60

One CC to Sri^{RAMAKRISHNA MALLOJHALA' Advocate [OPUC]}

¶61

Two CD CoPies

Kp/nj b

A\a(

HIGH COURT

RRN,J

DATED:31^10712023

JUDGMENT⁺ DECREE

MACMA.No.1031 of 2011

¶69

1 H E S TA r6
(
o
30 JAl\l 202[ o
*

¶70

PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS

¶71

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶72

MONDAY,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶73

PRESENT

¶74

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU^RAJESHWARRAO

¶75

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLAN^{EOUS APPEAL NO: {031 OF2011}

¶76

Between:

¶77

Syed Noor @ Ir/ohd Noor, S/o.Mohd^{Khaleel, Age: 25 years,Occ:Electrician} Rio.H.No.9-t3-140, Hajjam Colony,^Nizamabad.

¶78

...APPELLANT

¶79

AND

¶80

A.Raghuveer^Reddy, Wo.Mohan^{Reddy,Aged Major, Ownerof Tractor} No.Ap 25 f 1942, irailer^{No.AP 25 J 2907 R/o.LokaNivas No.59,NGos} Colony, Nizamabad.

¶81

United lndia Insurance Co^{Ltd, rep by its Divisional Manager O/o.Divisional} Office Godown Road,^{PB No.313, Nizamabad.}

¶82

...RESPONDENTS

¶83

Appeal filed under Section 173^{of lvlotorVehicles Act against the order-and} decree in O.P.No. 412 of 2006 dated^{30.1 1 2010 on the file of the Court of the} chairman, Motor Accident claims^Tribunal -^cum -^{vlll Additional DistrictJudge,} Nizamabad.

¶84

ORDER: This appeal coming^{on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of} appeal, the Judgment and Decree^{of the Lower Court and the materialpapersin} the MVOP and upon^{hearingthe argumentsof Sri LAKKADI DAYAKER REDDY'} Advocate for the Appellant and of Sri^{RA[/'IAKRISHNA MALLOJHALA,Advocate for}

¶85

the Respondent No.2 and^{None appearedfor RespondentNo.1.}

¶86

This Court doth Order and decree^{as follows:-}

¶87

That the MACMA be and^{hereby is allowed in part by enhancingthe} compensation awarded by^{the tribunal from Rs 40,000/- to Rs.1,87,000^with}

¶88

interest at 7 .Soh^per annum^{from the date of petitiontill the date of realization}

¶89

That the respondents are directed to deposit the compensation amount with costs and interest after giving due credit to the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of two(02) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this^judgment

¶90

That the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the entire amount on such deposit.

¶91

That save as aforesaid, the decree of the Lower Court shall stands confirmed in all other respects; and

¶92

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

¶93

Sd/- A.V.S.PRASAD ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// \wY

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - cum - Vlll Additional District Judge, Nizamabad.

¶98

Two CD Copies

Kp/njb $$

HIGH COURT

DATED:31 10712023

DECREE

MACMA.No.1031 of 2011

¶104

PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS

¶105

Syed Noor , Mohd Noor v. a.Raghuveer Reddy and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Syed Noor , Mohd Noor v. a.Raghuveer Reddy and Anr.

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

P.Santhi Rani Mallika, Vs The A.P. State Co-operative Bank Ltd.

Ms. N. Umalakshmi, B.Sc., B.Ed., Vs Government of A.P. rep. by its Principal Secretary

Meena Gangaram Vs Ravi Kumar and Another

M.Yadaiah, Vs v.v.Chowdary

Suryavamshi Gopal Vs v. Mohan and Anr.

R.Chandrakala Vs the Ap State Road Transport Corporation