Partly allowed

S.Srinivas v. Mr.Mohammed Ali and 2 Others

Telangana HC23 Aug 2023MACMA/1144/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a motor accident miscellaneous appeal against the quantum of compensation. The court recalculated future loss of income based on the petitioner's disability, enhancing the award from 5,75,000 to 9,81,400 rupees.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs. 5,75,000 to Rs. 9,81,400 with interest at 7.5% per annum; respondents directed to deposit the amount.

S.Srinivas Vs Mr.Mohammed Ali and 2 Others — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

[³³⁰⁴¹

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR^RAO

¶7

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1144^{OF 2O1'l}

¶8

Appeal filed Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against^{the Order and} decree in [U.V.O.P.No.1746 of 2006 dated 31.08.2009 on the^{file of the Court of the} Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for the Trial of JHCBBC^{Cum Additional} Family Court cum XXlll Additional Chief Judge at Hyderabad.

¶9

Between:

¶10

S.Srinivas, S/o.late Balaiah, Occ: Business [Tiffin Center] Rio.H.No.2-2105512618, lndiranagar, Tilaknagar, New Nallakunta, Hyderabad.

¶11

...AppellanUClaimants

¶12

AND

¶13

Mr.Mohammed Ali, S/o.Md.Osman, Occ: Driver, R/o.84-536,^NearDada Masjid, Erragadda, Hyderabad.

¶14

Mr.Syed lsmail, S/o.Syed Mehtab Sahed, Occ: Business, Owner^{of Swaraz} Mazda Bearing No.AP^'10 U 4754 R/o.H.No.8-4-427l6,^Erragadda, Hyderabad.

¶15

ICICI Lombard General lnsurance Co Limited, rep^{by its Manager O/o.Osman} Plaza,6-3-35211, Road No.1, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.

¶16

...Respondents/Respondents

¶17

Counsel for the Appellant

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent No.3

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2

¶20

The Court delivered the following

¶21

: Sri G MOHAN PRAKASH

: STi K AJAY KUMAR

: NONE APPEARED

: JUDGMENT

rl ir

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶27

M.A.C.M.A No. 1144 of 2O11

¶28

JUDGMENT:

¶29

This M.A.C.NI.A is filed b1- the appellant/petitioner aggrieved by the aw.ard and decree dt.3l.OB.2OO9 in M.V.O.p No.1746 of 2OO6 passed by Additionat Metropolitan Sessions Judge For The Trail OF J.H.C.B.B.C._cum-Additional Family Court-cum-XXIII Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad (for short, 'the Court belowJ.

¶30

For convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as they are arra-yed bctore thc Ct;urt below.

¶31

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was injured in a motor accident on 28.08.2006, at about g p.m., due to the negligent driving of the vehicle No.Ap IOU_4254. Respondents 1 to 3 are the vehicle's driver, owner and insurer. The petitioner is aged 35 and earning about Rs.6,6OO/_ in a hotel business. On the accident date, the petitioners and others were returning in a van No.AP 9 W-5047. While they reached the outskirts of Thumki village, the vehicle of respondent No.2, coming in the opposite direction from the Hlrderabad side, in a negligent marrner dashed the van in which the petitioner and others were travelling. The petitioner sustained severe injuries, including

¶32

RRN,J MACMA No.1144 OF 2011

¶33

¶34

amputation of his left hand. The driver of the^{offending vehicle} was prosecuted in a criminal case. The petitioner^sustained injuries due to the accident, lost his business^{and suffered} permanent disability. Hence the petitioner filed the^OP compensation of Rs, 10,93,609 l-

¶35

Respondents filed separate counters, denying the^petition allegations and prayed to dismiss the claim^petition.

¶36

To prove their case, the petitioner examined PWs. I and² and got marked Exs.Al to A19. On behalf of the^respondents, no evidence was adduced.

¶37

Considering the oral and documentary evidence^available on record, the Court below awarded compensation^of Rs.5,75,000/- with [email protected]%^per arnum to the^petitioner payable by respondents No.2 and 3. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed by the petitioner, cha-llenging^the quanturn of compensatton.

¶38

Heard both sides and^perused the^record.

¶39

l,earned Counsel for the petitioner contended^{that the} Court below failed to consider the^{evidenceof PW2 and PW3,} who are the doctors who spoke as^{to the disabilityand treatment} of the petitioner. The Court below erred in^{not awardingany}

¶40

RRN,J MACMA No.1144^OF2011

¶41

¶42

¶43

compensation^{under the head of disabilityby ignoring 7 Oo/oof} disability suffered,^{as per Ex.A I 0 medicalcertihcate issued by} the Gandhi^{Hospital, Secunderabad'The Court below has not} considered the^{aspect of future loss of earning capacity As per} the^judgment of^{the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jakir Hussein} Vs. Sabir and^{othersrlwherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court} held that when it^{comes to loss of earningdue to permarlent} disability, same^{may be treated as I 007n loss caused to} appellant since^{he will never be able to work as a driver again'} Accordingly,^{prayedto a-llow the appeal'}

¶44

g. Per contro, learned^{Counsel appearing for the respondents} would submit that^{the Court belowhas rightly awardedthe} compensation considering^{the evidence on record and no} interference is required^{by this Court' Accordingly, prayed to} dismiss the aPPeal.

¶45

It is observed^{that the Court below did not grant any} arnount towards^{futureloss of income due to the disabiliEy,but} the Court below^{granted a lump sum amountof Rs'4,00'000/-'} It is incorrect, as the^{calculation is applicable is as per ttre} multiplier method.

¶46

'(zors)^{z scc zsz}

¶47

¶48

RRN,J MACMA No.1144 OF 2011

¶49

As the petitioner lost his earning capacity from his business a.d as there is no dispute with regard to the avocation of the petitioner, this Court is inclined to fix the notiona_l income of the deceased at Rs.6,OOO/- per month. It comes to Rs.72,000/- (6,000 x l2) annually. The age of the petitioner at the time of the accident was 35 years, the appropriate multiplier as per the decision of Sarta Vertna Vs. Delhi Ttansport Corporation2 is " 16".

¶50

12' This court is inclined to considerin g 7 oo/o disability for to calculate of future loss of income in view of Ex.AlO. So accordingly, this court berieves in the medical board certificate issued by the Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad and considers the disability of the petitioner at Tooh. Thus, the totar loss of future income due to disability would come to Rs.g,O6,40Ol_ (Rs.72,000/- x 16 x zO / r)o).

¶51

The Court below has rightly awarded Rs.3O,OOO/_ towards fracture of the skull arrd Rs. I,OO,OOO/- towards pain and suffering and medical expenses considering the oral and documentar5r evidence and Rs.4S,(X)O/_ towards loss of income, as such, there is no interference by this Court.

¶52

t (zoog)o scc rzr

¶53

RRN,]. MACMA No.1144 OF 2011

Therefore, this Court is inclined to enhance the quantum .,/ ol compensation as under:

¶58

Head	Amount arrived atbythe Court below	Amount arrived at bythisCourt
Disability	Rs.4,00,000/-	Rs.8,06,400/-
Loss ofincome	Rs.a5,O00/-	Rs. 45,000/-
Loss ofpainand suffering	Rs.1,00,000/-	Rs.1,00,000/-
Fractureofskull	30,000/-	Rs.30,000/-
Total	Rs.5,75,00O/-	Rs.9,81,4OOl-

¶59

Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A is allowed in part, and the compensation amount awa-rded by the Court below is enhanced from Rs.5,75,OOOl- to Rs.9,8l,4OO/- rvith interest at7.5o/o per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of petition till the date of realization. The respondents No.2 and 3 are directed to deposit the said amount together with costs and interest deducting the amount, if any, already deposited within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Upon such deposit, the petitioner is permitted to u,ithdrarv the entire amount. There shall be no order as ro costs.

¶60

¶61

RRN,J MACMA No.1144 OF 2011

¶62

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any are

¶63

pending, shall stand closed.

¶64

¶65

sD/- P.GowRl sHA R ASSISTANT REGIS R

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

'1. The Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for the Trial of JHCBBC Cum . Additional Family Court cum XXlll Additional Chief Judge at Hyderabad.(With Records)

¶70

One CC to Sri C MOHAN PRAKASH, Advocate IOPUC]

¶71

One CC to Sri K AJAY KUMAR, Advocate [OPUCI

¶72

Two CD Copies

-.,--_-:-=:!Et

HIGH COURT

DATED:2310812023

/1 ?'
, - r,! ;\i,:
C)
21 $\xs1t1[
.)) *.:,
'.,,
\i-
...:,,

¶80

JUDGMENT

¶81

MACMA.No,1144 ot 2011

¶82

PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA

¶83

cq4&

¶84

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶85

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY TH]RD DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶86

PRESENT

¶87

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶88

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 11 14 0F 2011

¶89

Between:

¶90

S.Srinivas, S/o.late Balaiah, Occ: Business [Tiffin Center] R/o.H.No.2-2105512618, lndiranagar, Tilaknagar, New Nallakunta, Hyderabad.

¶91

...AppellanUClaimants

¶92

AND

¶93

Mr.Mohammed Ali, S/o.Md.Osman, Occ: Driver, Fl/o.84-536, Near Dada Masjid, Erragadda, Hyderabad.

¶94

Mr.Syed lsmail, S/o.Syed Mehtab Sahed, Occ: Business, Owner of Swaraz Mazda Bearing No.AP 10 U 4754 R/o.H.No.8-4-427l6, Enagadda, Hyderabad.

¶95

lClCl Lombard General lnsurance Co Limited, rep by its Manager O/o.Osman Plaza,6-3-3521'l , Road No.1 , Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.

¶96

...Respondents/Respondents

¶97

Appeal filed Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the Order and decree in M.V.O.P.No.1746 of 2006 dated 31.08.2009 on the file of the Court of the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for the Trial of JHCBBC Cum Additional Family Court cum XXlll Additional Chief Judge at Hyderabad.

¶98

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 learing the arguments of Sri C. M PRAKASH, Advocate for the Appellant and of SRl. K AJAY KUMAR, Advocate for the Respondent No.3 & None appeared for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2.

¶99

This Court doth order and Decree as follows

¶100

1 . That ttre Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and is hereby Allowed in Part;

¶101

That the amount of Compensation amount is hereby enhanced from Rs.5,75,0001 to Rs.9,81,4001 is with interest at 7.5o/o per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of^petition till the date of realization;

¶102

¶103

3 That the Respondents Nos.2 & 3 are directed to deposit the said amount together with costs and interest deducting the amount, if any, arready deposited within two months from the daG of receipt of a copy of thii Judgment;

¶104

That upon such deposit, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the entire amount;

¶105

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

¶106

SO/. P.GOWRI SHANKAR ASSISTANT REGIS R //TRUE COPYII

¶107

SECTION OFFICER

¶108

To,

¶109

The .Additional..Metroporitan sessions Judge for the Triar of JHCBBC cum ^^{Aooruonat hamrty Court cumXXlllAdditionalChiefJudge at Hyderabad.}

¶110

Two CD Copies

A,{ .?

1".^',4' : ,,^...; J

HIGH COURT

DATED:2310812023

DECREE

MACMA.No.1144 of 2011

¶118

PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA

¶119

\c!$"t#"

S.Srinivas v. Mr.Mohammed Ali and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Srinivas v. Mr.Mohammed Ali and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B.Venkateswara Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Vemula Seetaramaiah, Nizamabad Vs Maharashtra State Road Transport and Another

Yerla Edikondaloo, Vs Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation

Kuruva Mallamma and Anr. Vs Chandra Kanth and Anr.

Mali Tulsi Bai Vs N. Jayaram and Another

Kum. Purushotham Laxmi, Khammam District Vs M/S. Vidya Junior College and Anr, Khammam District