Allowed

Ade Ambaji v. S.H.Sukhvinder Singh and Anr.

Telangana HC1 Nov 2023MACMA/1105/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge permitted an appeal filed by a motor accident claimant against the compensation quantum awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The Court enhanced the compensation amount with interest against the truck owner and insurer.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs. 52,000 to Rs. 77,000 with interest @ 7.5% per annum from date of claim petition till realization.

Ade Ambaji Vs S.H.Sukhvinder Singh and Anr. — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA}

¶5

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCE LLANEOUS^{APPEA LNO:1105OF 2007}

¶6

Appeal Under Section 173 of Motor^{Vehicles Act against the orderand decree} in lr/.V.O.P.No.88 of 2004 dated 01-02-2007 on the^{file of the Court of the Chairman,} Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- District^{Judge,at Adilabad.} Between:

¶7

Ade Ambaji, S/o.Bansilal, Occ-^{Student,Rl/o. Lingapurvg,} [Vl,^{Sirpur -U} Mandal, Adllabad District.^{Presently Fl/o.ShantiNagar, Nirmal.}

¶8

...Appel lanUPetitioner

¶9

AND

¶10

S.H.Sukhvinder Singh, S/o.S.H.Gian^{Singh, Occ- Owner of TATA Truck} Bearing No.HR 38 BG 4316 Fi/o.Kakheli^{Tehguhla Village,Faridabad,} Haryana State.

¶11

The United lndia lnsurance Company^{Ltd, repby its Branch Manager, The} Branch lVlanager, United lndia lnsurance^{Company Ltd., Branch Samana.} Regl.Office - Chandigadh

¶12

(Rl dismissed vide court order dated^26-07-2017)

¶13

...ResPondents/ResPondents

¶14

Counsel for the Appellant: Sri.^{KONDADIAJAYKUMAR,Advocate}

¶15

Counsel for the Respondent^{No.2: Sri. G.S. PRAKASH RAO}

¶16

The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

¶17

: I

¶18

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAXA

¶19

M.A.C.M.A.No.1 IOS OF 2OO7

¶20

JT'DGMENT:

¶21

This appeal is hled by the aPpellant-claimant aggrieved by the Order amd Decree dated OL.O2-2OO7^passed in^{O.P.No.88of 2004 by the} Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum^{DistrictJudge,} Adilabad^(for short,^the Tribunal).

¶22

2- The brief facts of the case are that ol 17.O7.2OO3, while the appellant was^proceeding on his cycle from college^to Shantinagar,^{on the} way near Mancherial X Road, a lorry bearing No.HR-38-BG-4316, came at high speed and in rash and negligent ma.nner, came from^Adilabad side arld dashed the appellant and the front tyre of the lorry ran over^the right foot of the appellant. As a result, the appellant sustained injuries on his right foot, crush injury on right foot and the fingers of his^foot were dislocated. The Police, Nirmal Town registered a case in Cr.No.113 of 2003 against the truck driver and hled charge sheet against him-^The appellant filed aloresaid OP against respondent Nos.1 and 2, owner and insurer of the tmck, claiming compensation of Rs.2,OO,000/- for^the injuries sustained by the appetlant.

¶23

Before the Tribunal, respondent No.1 was set exparte and respondent No.2 hled counter denylng the material averments of the claim petition and contended that the amount claimed is excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

¶24

After considering the oral and documentarlr evidence on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver o[ the truck and awarded total compensation of Rs.52,00O/- with interest @ 7.5o/o per annum, i.e.,

\ T,;
)-'

Rs.45,0O0/- for^{three grievous} fracture injuries, Rs.5,0O0/- lor^purchase of medicines, Rs.2,000/-^{towards transportation.} Dissatished with the quantum of compensation, the appellant fited the present appeal, seeking^{enhancement of} the^same.

¶29

5. Hea-rd

¶30

6 The main contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the Court below erred in^{considering the disabilitypercentage} @ 107o though doctor is^{examinedand faitedto awardany compensation} under the^{head of painald suffering.}

¶31

Though it is the contention of the learned counsel for appellant that the^{injureddeveloped1O% of disabiliry due to the accidentard the} said aspect^{is adduced throughPW 2 who treatedthe injured but, as} observed^{by the learned tribunal no documentary proofis producedto} that effect^{issued by team of medical board.Therefore,theviewof the} leamed^{tribunal in not consideringthe disability} @^{IO%owarrantsno} ir\terference-

¶32

Further, it is contended that no amount^was awarded towards^pain and suffering. Keeping in view the nature of^grievous nature of injuries sustained by the claimant and while considering the evidence of Pw-2, an amount ofRs.15,OOO/- is granted towards pain and sufferinS. At this juncture, ttris Court feels it just and proper to award an amount of Rs.1O,OOO/- towards extra-nourishment, in view of the three gnevous injuries sustained by the injured. Therefore, the total compensation comes to Rs.77,OOO/-.

H*rc

In the result, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.S2,OOO/- to Rs.77,O0O/-. Tte enhanced amount shall carq/ interest @ 7 -sVo pet annum from the date of claim petition till realization. The respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation as they are directed to deposit the awarded amount by setting of the amounts, it any, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of thrs judgment.

¶37

Miscellaleous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No

costs.

//TRUE COPY//

Sd/. K. AMMAJI ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR

¶42

SECTIO OFFICER

¶43

To,

¶44

,l.TheChairman,MotorAccidentClaimsTribunal-cum-DistrictJudge,at Adilabad^{(with records)}

¶45

One CC to^{Sri. KONDADI AJAY KUMAR, Advocate[OPUC]}

¶46

One CC^{to Sri. G.S. PRAKASHRAO, Advocate[OPUC]}

¶47

Two CD CoPies

PSR

als). 6\

HIGH COURT

DATED:01 11112023

JUDGMENT

i\ P."l E Or'
]
)o \5 \\ 1\1<br>+
I ni,r. "

¶54

MACMA.No.1105 ot 2007

¶55

ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS

¶56

G )s<br>$ ${A

¶57

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶58

WEDNESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶59

PRESENT

¶60

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

¶61

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1105 oF 2007

¶62

Between:

¶63

Ade Ambaji, S/o.Bansilal, Occ- Student, Fl/o.Lingapurvg, [Vl, Sirpur - U Mandal, Adilabad District. Presently Rl/o.Shanti Nagar, Nirmal.

¶64

...AppellanUPetitioner

¶65

AND

¶66

S.H.Sukhvinder Singh, S/o.S.H.Gian Singh, Occ- Owner of TATA Truck Bearing No.HR 38 BG 4316 R/o.Kakheli Tehguhla Village, Faridabad, Haryana State.

¶67

The United lndia lnsurance Company Ltd, rep by its Branch Manager, The Branch Manager, United lndia lnsurance Company Ltd., Branch Samana. Regl.Office - Chandigadh

¶68

(Rl dismissed vide court order dated 26-07-2017)

¶69

...Respondents/Respondents

¶70

Appeal Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the order and decree in M.V.O.P.No.88 of 2004 dated 01-02-2007 on the file of the Court of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- District Judge, at Adilabad

¶71

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 papers in the case and upon hearing the arguments of Sri. KONDADI AJAY KUMAR, Advocate for the Appellant and of Sri. G.S. PRAKASH RAO, Advocate for the Respondent No.2

¶72

This Court doth Order^{and Decree as follows;}

¶73

That the^{[vlotorAccidentcivil Miscellaneous Appealbe and hereby is allowed}

¶74

That the Compensation^{amount awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from} Rs.52,000/-^{to Rs.77,0001 (Rupees Seventy Seven Thousandonly)}

¶75

That the enhanced^{amount shall carry interest} @7.5%^{per annumfrom the} date of Claim^{Petitiontill realization.}

¶76

That the respondents^{be andherebyJointly and Severally liable to pay the} Compensation^{as they aredirected to depositthe awarded amount by setting} of the amounts,^{if any, withinone month from the dateof receipt of a copy of} this Judgment.

¶77

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

¶78

That there be^{no orderas to costsin this appeal}

¶79

Sd/- K. AMMAJI ASSISTANT R GISTRAR

¶80

SECTION FFICER

¶81

To,

¶82

1- The Chairman,^{Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge,at} Adilabad^{(with records)}

¶83

Two CD CoPies

PSR

HIGH COURT

DATED:01 11112023

DECREE

MACMA.No.1105 of 2007

¶90

ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS

Ade Ambaji v. S.H.Sukhvinder Singh and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ade Ambaji v. S.H.Sukhvinder Singh 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

M.Suma Vs Union of India, Rep.Byits General Manager, and 2 Oths

Mohd. Abdul Azeem, Hyd. Vs the Depot Manager and Another

Visista Estates Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad. Vs K. Chandra Sekhar Rao, Hyderabad - 20, and Anr.

Dhanisetti Anjaneyulu Vs State of Telangana

Duddu Venkaiah and Another Vs K.Vinod Kumar and 2 Others

Smt. Gadda Badhramma Vs Bommidi Balaiah