Allowed

Sudati Surender Rao , Sudhakar Rao, Warangal Dist v. Chinthala Narahari, Warangal City and Dist and Anr.

Telangana HC21 Jul 2023MACMA/1153/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, enhancing compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The Court held that one-third deduction for living expenses was unsustainable for injury cases, adjusted future loss of income based on notional income, increased pain and suffering compensation, and raised interest from 16% to 7.5% per annum.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs. 4,53,600 to Rs. 6,73,126 with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition.

Sudati Surender Rao , Sudhakar Rao… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2023)

[³³⁰⁴ ]

'ti;

'n Y ;rt,

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶5

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTTCE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶8

M.A.C.M.A. NO: 1153 OF 2015

¶9

Appeal filed under Section 173 ot Motor Vehicres Act against the Judgment and decree dated 04-03-2014 passed in M.V.o.p. rrro.rog'ioizoos on the fire of the court of the chairman Motor Vehicres Rcciaents cr"-, Tribunal-cum-l Additional District Judge, Warangal.

¶10

Between:

¶11

Sudati Surender Rao @ Sudhakar Rao, S/o.Narsinga Rao, Aged 31 years, Occ previously_ Agriculture, presenfly Rl/o.Shyamnagar,^" H/o.Moraricnrpufy' fri, ' fV"n Bhupalpally, Warangal District.

¶12

...PET|T|ONER/APPELLANT

¶13

AND

¶14

Chinthala Narahari, S/o.papaiah, Aged Major, Occ Owner of the Crime Vehicle, Rlo.1-9-1240, Sahakara Nigar, Hunter Road, Hanamkonda, Warangal City and District.

¶15

The Oriental lnsurance C^oTp"ly Limited,, Rep by its Branch Manager, Branch Office at H.No.96-54, Second Ftoor, dr.KS.R.Buitding, .l.p."fl- hoaO, Warangal City and District

¶16

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶17

Counsel for the Appetlant SRI AJAy KUMAR MADISETTY

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI V. VENKATA RAM| REDDY

¶19

The Court delivered the following JUDGMENT:

¶20

l:.!:, ,i ,,.,,t,

¶21

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO M.A.C.M.A. No.1153 0F 2015

¶22

JUDGMENT:

¶23

This Ivl.A.C.lr{.A is filed by the appellant/petitioner under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, aggrieved by the order ald decree dated 04.O3.2014 passed in M.V.O.P.No. 109 I of 20O9 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents claims Tribunal-cum-r Additional District Judge, Warangal (for short,,the Tribunal,,).

¶24

For the sakc of convenience, the parties will be hcreinafter referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.

¶25

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, l9B8 claiming compensation of Rs. 1 1,O0,OOO / - on account of injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 15. lO.2OO7.

¶26

3.1. On 15. IO.2OO7, the petitioner during the evening was proceeding from Shyam Nagar along with a

¶27

RRN,J M. A. C.M. A. No.115i of²⁰¹⁵

¶28

pillion rider by his mo[oi-cycle bearing^{No.AP-36R-3077,} w'hen they crossed the Rupireddypally^{'cus stage at about} 4.15 p.m., the driver of the^jeep bearing^{No.AP- l5K-5060} (for brevity, crime vehicle) drove it at high^{speeci in a rash} and negligent manner^{proceeding from Bhupalpaliyto} Parkal side and dashed against^{their motorcycle, due to} which, he and the pillion rider fell^{down on the rcad. The} petitioner sustained a closed head injur-y,^{injury on the} right iorearm, tiacture o[ the^{right fenrur, and fracture of} both bones of the right leg.^{Immcdiately afterthe} accident, hc nas shilted to^{Govcrnmcnt l{ospital, Parkal,} and from therc he was shifted^{toJaya Hospital,} Hanamkonda. As he^{was immediately admitled to the} Hospital for the treatment,^{and as his family members} were atterrding him, they^{could not lodge a complaint} immediately. But, his^{father lodged a complainton} 3O.LO.2OO7 with the^{SHO, P.S. Regonda. The SHO,} Regonda after a thorough^{investigation hled a chargesheet} against the driver of^{the crime vehicle holding that he was}

¶29

RRN,J M.A.C.M. A. No.115l of 2015

¶30

rash and negligent while driving the jeep and was responsible for the accident.

¶31

3.2 The petitioner was admitted as an inpatient on L6.LO.2OO7 in Jaya Hospital, Hanamkonda and later, he was shifted to Osmania General Hospita-I, Hyderabad, on 17.LO.2OO7 and admitted in the Hospital till 10.LL.2OO7 Thereafter, he was shifted to Aditya Hospital, Hanamkonda on 10.11.2007 and he continued his treatment as an inpatient up to 15.12.2007. Again, he was admitted as an inpatient on 19.09.2008 1n City Orthopedic Hospital, where he underwent an operation and got removed implants on 20.09.2008 and he was admitted till O1.10.2008. Even after the said discharge, the petitioner is still unable to attend to his normal duties and he is constantly taking treatment. Due to fractures sustained by him, he became permanently disabled to the extent of 4O"h. The petitioner spent more than Rs.2,0O,OOO/- towards treatment and he being an agriculturist lost his income to the tune of Rs.4,37,5O0/-

¶32

¶33

¶34

RRN, J M.A C.M A. No.1 151 cf 2015

¶35

during the period of his treatment. Hence. the clarm petition.

¶36

Respondent No.1 remained ex parte l>efore the Tribunal. Respondent No.2/lnsurance Compar-ries hled counter by denying all the material averments and contended that the driver of the crime vehiclc did not possess a valid and elfective driving licence, and that the vehicle was not road worthv to pty, and that tl-re accident occurred ciue to rash ald negligent and rmmature driving On the narl of the nelilinrrer rvilhnrrl !-nllnrrrincr rncd .,,loo They fs65"r contended that there is an inordinatr: dclay in lodging the complaint and it clearly shows that the petitioner in collusion with the owner of the jeep, falsely implicated the jeep to claim compensation. Hencc, prayed for the dismissal of the petition.

¶37

5 Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the foilowing issues

¶38

i) Whether the accident was due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the Jeep bearing No.AP- 1 5K-5060?

¶39

)

¶40

RRN,J M.A.C.M.A. No.1153 of 2015

¶41

ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, at what amount and from whom? iii)To what relieP

¶42

The petitioner to prove his case, examined pWs. I to 5 and got marked Exs.Al ro A16 and Ex.Xl ro X7. On beha.lf of respondent No.2, neither oral nor documentar5r evidence was adduced.

¶43

After considering the evidence available on record, the Tribunal allowed the claim petition 1n part by gralting Rs.4,53,60O/- to the petitioner towards compensation. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, the present appeal.

¶44

Heard both sides and perused the record.

¶45

Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the Tribunal erred in deducting 1 / 3ra of the income of the petitioner towards his livrng expenses and as the case on hand is one that of an injury, there is no question of deducting any portion of income towards personal expenses. It has a-lso been contended that the monthly income of the petitioner was taken at Rs.3,OOO/-, which is very meagre. He further contended that the compensation awarded under other heads is very

¶46

6 RRN,J 1"{. A. c. M. i. No.115l of 2015

¶47

meagre and prayed to enhance the same b5r allowing the appeal.

¶48

Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the 2"d respondent would contend that the Tribunal rvas justified in fixing the compensation and no interlerence is required by this Court. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the appeal

¶49

11 It has been rightly argued by thc learncd Counsel for the petitioner that the Tribunal erred in deducting 1/3.4 of the income of the petitioner torr,ards i-ris or:rsonal,lliving cxpenses as the present case is not one t-hat of a cieath but that of an injury. Hence, the deduction made b1,' the^'l-ribunal is not sustainable and the total income ol thc petitioncr r,r'ithout any deduction is to be taken into consideration lor the purpose of calculation of future loss of income on the erccount of disability

¶50

t2. Coming to the earnings of the petitioner, the Tribunal has assessed the income of the petitioner at Rs.3,000/- per month considering the age ol the petrtioner as 3l years, and the petitioner failed to prove that he sustained loss in agriculture. Hoq,ever, the petiticner contencls that he

¶51

¶52

RRN,J M.A.C.M.A. No.'l'153 of 2015

¶53

being an agriculturist was earning Rs.2,00,000/- per annum. The petitioner also filed some receipts of Tak Patties issued by the Market Yard committee, which show that the petitioner received a sum of Rs.5,235/- on i6.4.2007. In the absence of any concrete proof, this Court is inclined to fix the notional income of the petitioner at Rs.4,50O/- p.m. in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramchand.rappa os Man@ger, Rogal Sundarq.m Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd.r. The annual income of the petitioner would come to Rs.54,OOO/-. The petitioner was aged 31 yea-rs at the time of the accident, thus, the appropriate multiplier for the purpose of calculation of loss of earnings due to disability is '16'as per Sarlrr Vertna Vs. Delhi Road Transport Corporationz. Thus, the loss of future earnings due to disability at 4Oo/o comes to Rs.3,45,6OO/- (Rs.Sa,OOO x 16 x 4Oa/ol.

¶54

The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.50,OO0/- to the petitioner under the head 'pain and suffering'. Keeping in view the gravity of the injuries and the prolonged suffering even after a year of the accident, this Court is inclined to award Rs.7S,OOO/- towards the said head. It is

¶55

r( 2011 ) 13 scc 236 2 {2OO9l 6 SCC 12 I .

¶56

8 RRN, J M.A.C.M.A.No. 1 151 of 2015

¶57

observed from the irnpugned order that the Tribunal awarded Rs.1,8O,OOO/- to the petitioner towards medical bills, by rounding off the same from Rs. 1,83,126l-. This Court is of the opinion that such rounding olT and gralting compensation on the lower side despite there being cogent evidence is unjust Hence, the petitioner is awarded Rs. 1,83,126l- towar-ds medica-l biils. The petitioner^r,vas a'"varded a sum of Rs.60,0OO/- and Rs.lO,0O0/- tou,ards injuries and transportation charges etc. The same is reasonable and thtts caiis for no interference.

¶58

t1 In ail, the petitioner is entitled to compensation o[ Rs.6,73,i26/- (Rs.3,a5,600 + Rs.75,O00 + Rs.6O,00O + Rs i0,00O⁺ Rs. I ,83, I26)

¶59

15 It is further noticed from the impugnecl order that the petitioner was awarded interest on the compensation (l 6oh p.a. The same is hereby increased to 7.SYo p.a as lhe Hon'ble Courts are time ald again granting interest on the compensation amount at 7 .5o/o.

¶60

16 Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed by enhancing the compensation amount awarded bv the Tribunal

¶61

RRN,J M.A.c.M.A. No.115l^or20',15

¶62

¶63

t; {u

¶64

fromRs.4,53,6OO/-toRs'6'7g'L261-(RupeesSixLakh' Seventy Three^{thousand, One hundred and twentysix only)} with interest @^{7 .5o/o from the date of petition till the date of} realization.^{Therespondentsshalldeposit thesaid} compensation^{amount together with interestand costs after} giving due credit^{to the amount already deposited'ifany'} within a^{periodof two monthsfrom the date of receipt of a copy} of this^{judgment' Upon such deposit'thepetitioneris} There shall^{be no} permitted to^{withdraw the entire afilount'} order as^{to costs.}

¶65

Miscellaneous^{petitions, ifany, pending shallstand}

¶66

closed.

¶67

Sd/.A.V.S.PRASAD ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

/,TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To, 1 The Chairman, Motor^{Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-l AdditionalDistrict} Judge, Warangal^(with records) -

¶72

OnJCC to Sri Ajay^{Kumar Madisefty, Advocate} [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri^{V. Venkat Rami Reddy,Advocate [OPUCI} 4. Two CD Copies PI

ss ',t----

HIGH COURT

DATED:211A7nA23

.:: ,': {i;# L::;d rt tt .$,

¶78

JUDGMENT+DECREE .llt1\rltlr1.lt1r. irn ni, A f,la^.l I 4Ea I rrr, lr,! ^C Z.l,/, I^er,a,/t i,E

¶79

g: .1, t-i 3":
f
t'-.,
,/^*
,, :. ti tt1 iffl

¶80

ALLOWING THE APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS.

¶81

)
A
N\i)-
\d<br>

¶82

.;ri ., :i'f# 'ffi., .i.T-,:: €*

}

ii1.'

'ts:i.. tr#

1r..,

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶88

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶89

PRESENT

¶90

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶91

M.A.C.M.A. NO:1 153 0F 2015^'

¶92

Between:

¶93

Sudati Surender Rao @ Sudhakar Rao, S/o.Narsinga Rao, Aged 31 years, Occ previously Agriculture, presenfly R/o.Shyamnagar,^- H/o.Moraricfrapay' iv), ' Uan Bhupalpally, Warangal District.

¶94

AND

¶95

...PET|T|ONER/APPELLANT

¶96

3 Chinthala Narahari, S/o.Papaiah, Aged Major, Occ Owner of the Crime Vehicle, PJo.1-9-1240, Sahakara Nagar, Hunter Road, Hanamkonda, Warangal City and District.

¶97

4 The Oriental lnsurance Company Limited,, Rep by its Branch Manager, Branch Office at H.No.96-S4, Second fbor, dr.K.S.R.Buitding, .l.p]ru. noaO, Warangal City and District

¶98

t ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶99

Appeal filed under section 123 of Motor vehicres Act against the Judgment and decree dated 04-03-2014 passed in M.v.o.p. No.1o9-1 of 2009 on the file of the court of the chairman Motor Vehicles Accidents claims Tribunal-cum-l Additional District Judge, Warangal

¶100

oRDER: This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lou/er court and the material papers in the case and upon hearing the arguments of sri Ajay Kumar Madisetty, Advocate for the Appellant and sri V. Venkata Rami Reddy, Advocatre for the Respondent No.2

¶101

This Court doth Order and D'ecree as follows:

¶102

That the Motor Accident civil Misceltaneous Appeal filed by the Appellant be and hereby is allowed by enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.4,s3,600/- to Rs.6,73,126/- (Rupees six Lakh seventy Three Thousand, one hundred and twenty six onry) with interest @ 7.so/o from the date of petition till the date of realization;

¶103

That the respondents shall deposit the said compensation amount together with interest and costs after giving due credit to the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment;

¶104