Partly allowed

Nadigottu Ramu, Warangal Dist v. N. Anjaiah, Warangal Dist and Ano

Telangana HC24 Nov 2023MACMA/1056/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a Motor Accident Claims Appeal partially, enhancing compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The court increased the total award to Rs. 1,43,000, adjusting allocations for injuries, earnings, and expenses while rejecting medical bill increases from counsel but sustaining statutory medical expense components.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs. 72,000 to Rs. 1,43,000 with interest at 7.5% p.a.; respondent insurance company directed to deposit the full amount within one month.

Nadigottu Ramu, Warangal Dist Vs N. Anjaiah… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

t^320E l

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF NOVEIVIBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

¶6

M.AC.M.A NO: 1056 OF 2013

¶7

Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the order and decree in M.V.O.P.No.663 of 201 1 dated 06.02-2013 on the file of the Court of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-lv Additional District Judge, (FTC), Warangal.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Nadigottu Ramu, S/o. Papaiah, Driver Presently Nil, R/o. H.No. 7-1-36412'l Padmakshi Colony Hanamkonda Warangal District

¶10

...APPELLANT/CLAIM PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

N. Anjaiah, S/o. Ramaswamy Owner of Crime Vehicle Rl/o. H.No. 3-4-69 Kammariwada Kammariwada Jangaon Town Warangal District

¶13

The lClCl Lombard General lnsurance Co. LTd.,, Represented by its Branch Manager Branch Office al Second Floor Vaddiraju Complex Green Sware Plaza Opp. Public Garden, Hanamkonda, Warangal District

¶14

... RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶15

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI AJAY KUMAR MADISETTY

¶16

Counsel forthe Respondent No.2: SRt N. MOHAN KRISHNA

¶17

The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

¶18

{-.1

¶19

I I ,

¶20

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDIIA

¶21

M.A.C.M.A.No. 1056 of 2013

¶22

JUDGMENT:

¶23

This appeal is fiIed against the Order dated O6.02.2O13 in O.P.No.663 of 2011 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge (F-TC), Warangal.

¶24

The appellant/petitioner filed O.P.No.663 of 2OIl, claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for injuries sustained by him in the road traffrc accident occurred on 18.05.2008. The Police, Dharmasagar, registered a case against lorry driver for the offences under Sec. 337 and 338 IPC and chargesheet was also filed.

¶25

Learned counsel for appellant/petitioner stated that the petitioner himself examined as P.W. I and a-lso examined P.W.2 who is a doctor and Exs.Al to AB were marked. Exs.X1 arrd X2 and Ex.Bl were marked on behalf of respondents.

I I I,

I I I I I I I I

The Tria_l Court considering the oral and documentary evidence granted Rs.72,000/-. As there is contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner, the trial court granted Rs.36,000/- with interest @) T.So/o per annum from the date of petition to till the date of deposit. Challenging the quantum of compensation as meagre, the petitioner has filed the present appeal.

¶31

Learned counsel for appellant contended that there is no negligence on their part, but the Trial Court wrongly considered the contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner and also stated that they filed medical bills of Rs.11,160/- and requests this Court to modifo the order.

¶32

No representation for respondents. Heard the arguments of the appellant/ petitioner. perused the record.

¶33

P.W.2, who is a doctor, stated that the petitioner sustained the petitioner sustained one grievous injury and Iive simple injuries and he further stated that there was a fracture injury ald it was found united and also to a large extent and the other injuries were also found healed . p.W.2

¶34

¶35

further stated that the petitioner may require an €rmount of Rs.20,000/- towards future surgery expenses. As the fracture was united, question of future surgical expenses does not arise.

¶36

This Court frnds it reasonable to grant an amount of Rs.27,000/- towards injuries, Rs.2O,O00/- towards medical expenses, Rs. 15,OOO/- towards pain and suffering, Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of amenities, Rs. 1O,000/- towards extra nourishment, Rs. 10,00O/- towards attendant charges and Rs. 10,OOO/- towards tralsportation. The petitioner was working as a car driver and was earning Rs.5,5O0/_ per month, but this Court finds it reasonable to take his salary as Rs.6,000/- per month. The petitioner did not attend his duties for a period of six months, this Court grants Rs.36,000/- (Rs.6,0OO x 6) towards loss of earnings and he is entitled for the said amount.

¶37

Therefore, the appellant/petitioner is entitled for the compensation in the following terms:

¶38

<br>

¶39

I	Injuries	Rs.27,000/-
c	Lossof earnings	Rs.36,000/-
J	Painand Suffering	Rs.15,OO0/-
4	Loss ofAmenities	Rs.15,OO0/-

I
I

5	TransportationCharges	Rs.1O,000/-
6	Extranourishment	Rs.10,000/-
7	AttendantCharges	Rs.1O,00O/-
8	MedicalExpenses	Rs.20,O00/-
	Total	Rs.1,43,OOO/-

¶44

lo. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed by enhancing the compensation amount from Rs.72,000/ - to Rs. 1,43,O00/(Rupees One Lakh Forty Three Thousand only) with interest at the rate of 7 .Soh per annum from the date of Iiling the petition till date of realization. Though the respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severaliS, liable to pay the compensation, respondent No.2/Insurance Company shall deposit the entire arnount within a period of one month from the date of order. On such Deposit, the appellant is entitled to withdraw the said amount along with interest accmed on it. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶45

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand

¶46

closed.

¶47

SD/-P.PADMANABHA^REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶48

//TRUE COPY//

¶49

SECTI OFFICER

¶50

To, 1 . The Chairman,^{Motor Accidents ClaimsTribunal-cum-lv Additional District} Judge(FTC),^{Warangal (with records)}

¶51

z. o^Jc'C^{to sri Ajay kumar Madisetty,Advoc?te [oPUC]}

¶52

a. O".^{CC to Sri N tr'lohanKrishna,Advocate [OPUC]} 4. Two CD^CoPies

USR/PlP I

HIGH COURT

DATED:24l1112023

JUDGMENT

MACMA.No.1056 of 2013

¶59

..': ii;',1,I '-r
-l.<br>5o71.
'(',j zt tEB 2tr1{
J,i'
J'
!EsPATc

¶60

PARTLY ALLOWING THE M.A.C.M.A. WITHOUT COSTS. @dtW

¶61

[³²⁰⁸ ]

¶62

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶63

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶64

PRESENT

¶65

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

¶66

M.A.C.M.A. NO:^'t056 0F 2013

¶67

Between:

¶68

Nadigottu Ramu, S/o. Papaiah, Driver Presently Nil, R/o. H.No. 7-1-364121 Padmakshi Colony Hanamkonda Warangal District

¶69

...APPELLANT/CLAIM PETITIONER

¶70

AND

¶71

N. Anjaiah, S/o. Ramaswamy Owner of Crime Vehicle R/o. H.No. 3-4-69 Kammariwada Kammariwada Jangaon Town Warangal District

¶72

The lClCl Lombard General lnsurance Co. LTd.,, Represented by its Branch lvlanager Branch Office at Second Floor Vaddiraju Complex Green Sware Plaza Opp. Public Garden, Hanamkonda, Warangal District

¶73

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶74

Appeal under Section^'173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the order and^decree in M.V.O.P.No.663 of 201 1 dated 06.02.2013 on the file of the Court of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-lV Additional District Judge,^(FTC), Warangal.

¶75

ORDER: This appeal coming on for hearing and upon^perusing the^grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material^{paperin the} case and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Ajay Kumar Madisetty, Advocate^for the Appellant and of Sri N. Mohan Krishna, Advocate for Respondent No.2 and^None Appeared for the Respondent No.1 either in^person or by Advocate.

¶76

This Court doth Order and Decree as follows

¶77

1 . That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is^partly allowed;

¶78

That the compensation amount be and hereby is enhanced from Rs.72,000/to Rs.1,43,000/- (Rupees one lakh forty three thousand only) with^interestat the rate of 7.syo pq annum from the date of filing the^petition till the date of realization;

¶79

t liflflx"."li;Tondents^{1 and 2 are jointlv and severa[y tiabte to pay} rhe

¶80

That the respondenl frf o_Z]l1s.uran9.e Company shall deposit the entire amount within a period of one month from the oriJ"ilra#, ".

¶81

That on such deposit. the appellant is entifled to withdraw the said amount along Wth interest accrued on it;

¶82

¶83

,lTl;lr,;,ffit""Ji.:aid'^{the decree of the Lower court sha, stands} confirmed

¶84

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

¶85

//TRUE COPY//

¶86

SD/.P.PADMANABHA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶87

To,

¶88

sECTto OFFICER

¶89

' ff !ll+s:n lr'4otor Acci6"nts claims rribunat-cum-tV Additionat District

¶90

Two CD Copies

HIGH COURT

DATED:2411112023

DECREE

MAGMA.No.1056 ot 2013

¶97

PARTLY ALLOWING THE M.A.C.M.A. WITHOUT COSTS. @q3 Ctl

Nadigottu Ramu, Warangal Dist v. N. Anjaiah, Warangal Dist and Ano

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nadigottu Ramu, Warangal Dist v. N. Anjaiah, Warangal Dist and Ano

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

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs J Mallesh Allias Mallesham

K. Ramchandra Chary, Vs C.S. Kumar

The New India Assurance Company Ltd., and Another Vs Elagandula Srinivas Chary and 3 Others

Rangam Akhil Vs Rangam Laxmibai

The District Collector Vs M.Kashinath

Dayyala Bikshapathi and 3 Others Vs E.Narsimha Yadav and Another