Allowed

Shivarla Rajender, R.R. Dist. v. Smt. P. Renuka and Another

Telangana HC1 Aug 2023MACMA/1127/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court allowed the Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, enhancing the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal from Rs. 1,00,000 to Rs. 5,65,820. The court considered the appellant's disability percentage, future prospects, and lost earnings to arrive at the enhanced amount, issuing a two-month deadline for the insurance company to deposit the funds.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs. 5,65,820 with interest at 7.5% p.a., to be deposited by the insurance company within two months.

Shivarla Rajender, R.R. Dist. Vs Smt. P. Renuka and… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁰⁴ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RA'ESHWAR^RAO

¶6

MOTOR AC IDENT CIVIL MISCEL EOUS APPEAL NO: 1 127 0F 2011

¶7

Appeal filed under Section¹⁷³ of M.V.Act.,^{aggrievedby the Judgment and} Decree dated. 14-03-2011^passed in OP^{No. 't060 ot 2007 on the file of the Motor} Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District^{Judge, Ranga ReddyDistrict at} L.B.Nagar.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Shivarla Rajender, S/o S. Krishna, aged^{29 years, Occ:Nil R/o H.No. 2oOlC,ll} Phase, Allvvyn Colony Kukatpally, Ranga^{ReddyDistrict.}

¶10

...APPELLANT/PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

Smt. P. Renuka, Wo P. Srinivas Aged:^{Major, Occ: Business R/o H.No.1-2-} 113, Godown Road, Kamareddy Nizamabad^District.

¶13

The United lndia lnsurance Co.^{Ltd., Rep. by its Regional Manager,Off.} United lndia Building Basheerbagh, Hyderabad

¶14

,..RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶15

Counset for the Appellant: SRl. JAGATHPAL^{REDDY KASI REDDY}

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent No.2:^{SRI SOMANCHIVENKATESWARLU}

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent No.1:^{None Appeared}

¶18

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU^{RAJESHWAR RAO}

¶20

M.A.C.M.A.NO.Ll27 0F 201¹

¶21

JUDGMENT:

¶22

This M.A.C.M.A is hled under Se:ction 173 of the^Motor Vehicles Act, 19BB by the appellant/cleimant aggrieved by the Judgment and decree dated 14.O3.2011, passed in O.P.No.1O6O of 2OO7 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-Principal District Judge, Rangareddy District at L.B.Nagar^(for short "the Tribunal").

¶23

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

¶24

Brief facts of the case are that on 27.O7.2OO7, at about 7.3O p.m., the appellant/petitioner and his friend were proceeding from Madhapur to Shapur:eagar side on his Passion Plus motorcycle bearing No.AP-28-BA-9912. When the petitioner reached Mahadevpur turnirrg, at the same time, one Eicher Lorry bearing No.AP-25V-2349 which was proceeding from Jeedimetla to Kukatpally side at ,a high speed in a rash and negligent manner trying to overtake another vehicle, dashed the motorcycle of the petitioner, due to which. the petitioner sustained fractures and multiple injrLries all over the body and was immediately shifted to Ram Hospital, Shapurnagar and was later shifted to NIMS Hospital. A case in Cr.No.633 of 2OO7 for

¶25

RRN.J MACMA ll27^20ll

¶26

¶27

theoffenceunderSection33TlPCwasregisteredbyPoliceP.S. Jeedimetla.^{The appellant filed the aforesaidO'P against} respondent^{Nos' 1 and 2,ownerand insurer of the lorry'} claiming compensation^{of Rs'3,OO,OO0/-for the injuries the} appellant/^{petitioner sustained'}

¶28

Before the Tribunal,^{respondentNo' 1 remained exparte'} Respondent^{No.2 filed a counter denying the avermentsof the} 1S claim petition^{and contended that the amount claimed} excessive and^{prayedto dismiss the claimpetition'}

¶29

5 Based on the^{evidence on record, the Tribunal framed the}

¶30

following issues:

¶31

(i) Whether the^{pteaded accid'entoccurred resultingin} injulres to^{the petitionerdue to rash and negligent} diuing of tte^{driuer of EicLer Van beanngNo'AP-2SV-} 2349, bg^{its diuer?}

¶32

(ii) Whether *E^{petitioner iserutitledtoanA} ampensation,^{and if so, tthat quanhtm and uhat is the} liabilitg of^{th'e resPondents?}

¶33

(iii) To uhat relief

¶34

Considering^{the claim, counter and the evidence'both oral} and documentary,^{brought on record, the Tribunalallowed the} O.P. in part awarding^{compensationof Rs'1'0O'OOO/- together} with interest at^{7.5Yop.a. from the date of the petition tiIl its}

¶35

RRN.J MACMA I I27 2OI I

¶36

¶37

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

¶38

7 . Heard both sides and perused tl-re material available on record.

¶39

The short question that arises :or consideration in this appeal is:

¶40

"Whether the compensation auarded by the

¶41

Tibunal is just and equitable"?

¶42

lrarned counsel for the appellar:,t/petitioner submits that the Court belou. ought to have seen l.hat the appellant was in the hospital for more than 2O days anrl that both the legs of the appellant were operated and nailing c.one. Thus he might have lost the earnings during the period rrf treatment atleast for a period of six months before resuming to duties. Therefore, Rs.3O,OOO/- under the head 'loss of income during treatment' should have been awarded.

¶43

1O. As per the impugned orde:r, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that one private medical professor has issued a disability certificate, still irr several cases, the Court below held that in the hope of issuing. of disability certificates by enhancing the disability age, the disability certifrcate is required

¶44

¶45

RRN,J MACMA l r27 20ll

¶46

to be issued by the medical board. In^{the present case, the} disability certificate was issued by^{aregisteredmedical} practitioner but not by the^{Medical Board.}

¶47

1 1. Considering the arguments^{of learned counselfor the} appellant, the disability^{has to be taken as 4Oo/o as per} Ex.A2/Disability^{Certificate.The petitionerlvas workingas a} security guard, and as^{per Ex.Al4-salary certifrcate, the} petitioner was earning Rs.4,500/-^{per month' Per contra'} learned counsel for^{the respondentssubmitsthat the petitioner} only produced the salary^{certifrcate, but there is no evidence} regarding the^{petitioner'soccupation.But as per Ex'A14-this} Court finds that the^{petitioner's salary is Rs'4,500/- per month'}

¶48

This Court is^{inclined to considerthe monthly income of} the petitioner at^Rs.4,SOO l-^{p.m even in the absence of proof of} avocation in^{view of the decisionof the Hon'ble Supreme Court} 'tn Romchanilrappa vs Mdnage4 Rogal Sundaram Alllance Insttrance Co. Ltdr.^{The monthlyincome of the petitionerat} Rs.4,SOO/-^{p.m as arrivedat supra,deserves to be added with} future prospects at^{4Oo/oas the petitionerwas aged 25 years at} the time of the^{accident, in view of the decision Natlonal}

¶49

Insurance Compang^{Ltd.Vs' Pranag Sethlz} ' Thus' the

¶50

r( 2011 ) 13 SCC 236. 2 l2or7l t6 SCC 680.

¶51

)

¶52

RI(N.J MACMA I t27 201 I

¶53

) )

¶54

petitioner's annual income including future prospects would come to Rs.75,600/- (Rs.4,SOO/-^{+ 4Oot'o} x 12). The appropriate multiplier is '18' as per Scrla Verma3 as the petitioner is aged 25 years. In view of Ex.Al2,^4Oo/o is to tre considered on account of disablement. Thus the total loss of future earnings on account of disability would come to Rs;.5,44,32O1- (75,6001- x la x 40/10O). The Tribunal granted Rs.7,OOO/- towards loss of earnings during the treatment period, and the same is enhanced to Rs. 1l,5OO/- as the monthly earrning capacity 15 nOW considered at Rs.4,SOO/-. This Court Iinds that the amount granted by the Court below towards pain and suffering 1S meagre, and in vie',r, of the sufferirrg of the petitioner, the amount is enhanced to Rs.1O,OOO/-.

¶55

In all, the petitioner is entitled :o Rs.5,65,82Ol- towards compensation. Though the pe titioner claimed only Rs.3,0O,OOO/-, invoking the principle of just compensation, and in view of the law laid down by the l{on'ble Supreme Court in RaJesh as. Rajblr Singh+ and in a catena of decisions, this Court is empowered to grant compensation beyond the claimed amount, subject to the payment of deficit Court fees on the enhanced compensation.

¶56

r lzooey o scc rzr o uaNUlsclo+solzo t 3

¶57

¶58

RRN,J MACMA I t27 201 I r,

¶59

In the result, the MACMA is allowed by enhancing the compensation .awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.1,OO,OO0/_ to Rs.5,65,82Ol- (Rupees Five Lakhs Sixty Five Thousand Eight Hundred and Twenty only) with interest at Z.So/o per annum fiom the date of petition till the date of realization. The 2d respondent/Insurance Company shall deposit the said amount with costs and interest within two (O2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the entire amount, subject to payment of deficit court fee on the enhanced compensation within two (O2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. No order as to costs.

¶60

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

¶61

To,

¶62

//TRUE COPY//

¶63

Sd/- T. JAYASREE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR qP

¶64

SECTION OFFICER

¶65

'1 . The Motor Accidents Ctlh1.Ilgrl"t_cum_principat District Judge, Ranga ^^{Reddy_District at L.B.Nagar. (With Recordiif ;;;i-} 2. one CC ro SRt. JAGAr{pnlnEooV xasi niijtjv, Advocate topucl 3. One CC to SRt. SOMANCHT VENKATESWARLU, Advocate tOpUCI

¶66

Two CD Copies

¶67

pr DL /

¶68

\ I

¶69

HIGH COURT DATED: 0110812023

¶70

JUDGMENT

¶71

MACMA.No.1127 ot 2011

¶72

--a' AIE
?t$1
D
D
+" ts'\i

¶73

ALLOWING THE MACMA

¶74

( r^
1b\ " \r,

¶75

IN THE HIGH COURT^FOR THE STATE^{OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶76

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

¶77

PRESENT

¶78

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICENAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO}

¶79

MOTO ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCE^{LLANEOUSAPPEAL NO:1127 0F 2011}

¶80

Between:

¶81

Shivarla Rajender, S/o S.^{Krishna,aged29. years, Occ:NilRl/oH No' 2061C' ll} Phase, Allrrrryn Colony Kukatpally,^{Ranga Reddy District.}

¶82

...APPELLANT/PETITIONER

¶83

AND

¶84

Smt. P. Renuka, Wo^{P. SrinivasAged: Major, Occ: Business Fl/o H No l-2-} 113, Godown Road, Kamareddy^{Nizamabad District.}

¶85

The United lndia lnsurance^{Co. Ltd., Rep.by its Regional Manager,Off'} United lndia Building Basheerbagh,^Hyderabad

¶86

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶87

Appeal filed under Section^{173of M.V.Act., aggrieved by the Judgment and} Decree dated.^{14-o3-2O11passed in oP No. 1060 of 2007 on the file of the Motor} Accidents claims Tribunal-cum-Principal^{DistrictJudge, Ranga Reddy Districtat} L.B.Nagar.

¶88

oRDER: These appeals^{coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of} appeals the Judgment^{and Decree of the Lower Court and the} material^papers in the^{case and upon hearingthe argumentsof sRl. JAGATHP{L} REDDY KASI REDDY,^{Advocatefor the Appellantand SRI SOMANCHI} VENKATESWARLU, for the^{RespondentNo.2 and Noneappeared for the} Respondent No.1.

¶89

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

¶90

l.Thatthisappealbeandherebyisallowedbyenhancingthecompensation awarded by the Tribunal^{from Rs.1,0O,OOO/- to Rs.5,65,820/-(RupeesFive}

¶91

Lakhs Sixty Five Thousand Eight Hundred and Twenty only) with inlerest at 7.Soh per annum from date of petition till the, date of realization;

¶92

That the respondenVlnsurance Company shall deposit the said amount with costs and interest within two (02) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment;

¶93

That on such deposit, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the entire amount, subject to payment of deficit court fee on the enhanced compensation within two (02) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment.

¶94