Dismissed

United India Ins Co. Ltd., Hyderabad v. K Sathish Reddy, Mahabubnagar Dist and Anr.

Telangana HC7 Nov 2023MACMA/123/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an appeal by the insurance company challenging an accident compensation award. Upholding the Tribunal's findings on the claimant's income, 50% disability, and serious injury awards, the Court affirmed the decree of Rs. 13.41 lakhs.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed; the appellant was directed to deposit the compensation amount.

United India Ins Co. Ltd., Hyderabad Vs K Sathish… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

TUESDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW THREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

¶5

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLAN EOUS APPEAL NO: 123 OF 2015

¶6

Appeal Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the order and decree in O.P.No.305 ot 2012 dated 03/06/2014 on the file of the Court of the Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-lX Additional District Judge, Wanaparthy.

¶7

Between:

¶8

United lndia lnsurance Co. Ltd., Mahabubnagar, through its Regional office, TpHUB; Hyderabad rep.by its Manager.

¶9

...APPELLANT/R-2

¶10

AND

¶11

K. Sathish Reddy, S/o. Srinivasa Reddy, Occ Nil R/o Nakkalapally Village Peddakothapally (M) Mahabubnagar District.

¶12

2 K. Ramulu Neelam, S/o. Eedanna, Owner of Tractor/Trally No.AP.2 AB!O743 & 074, No 2-9411 , Falanagar, Wanaparthy Mahabubnagar District.

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

MACMAMP. NO: 300 0F 2014

¶15

Petition under Section^'151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of execution of the Award passed in OP.No. 305 of 2012 dt. 0310612014 by MACT-cum-lX Additional District Judge, Wanaparthy.

¶16

Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. A.V.K.S. PRASAD

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent No.'l: SRl. M. GOVIND REDDY

¶18

The Court made the following: JUDGMENT

¶19

i' 7

¶20

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY M.A.C.M.A.NO. 123 0F 2015

¶21

JUDGMENT:

¶22

Heard learned counsel Sri A.V.K.S.Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company and Sri.M.Govind Reddy, learned standing counsel for respondent No.1/claimant.

¶23

The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-insurance company assailing the award passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-lX Additional District Judge, Wanaparthy (for short, 'Tribunal') in O.P.No.3O5 of 2012, dated O3.06.2O 14 and thereby for seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶24

The brief factual matrix of the present appeal is as under:

¶25

On 09. 11.2O1O at about 11.00 a.m., while the claimant was proceeding on his motor cycle bearing registration No.Ap-22-BO968 along with one Shiva as pillion rider and when they reached near Gandhi Chowk towards Degree College, Wanaparthy, a tractor trailer bearing No.AP-22-AB/ 0743474 came in rash and negligent manner artd dashed to his motor cycle, as a result, himself and pillion rider fell down ald petitioner sustained multiple injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Government Area Hospital,

¶26

¶27

LNA) MACMANo.123 ol 2015

¶28

Wanaparthy and thereafter he was shifted to SVS Hospital and from there he was shifted to Galdhi Hospital, where he was treated as inpatient and underwent surgery for removal of left spleen and left kidney. The Police, Wanaparthy Town Police Station registered a case in Crime No. 154/2010 against the driver of tractor for the offence under Sections 337 and 338 of IPC.

¶29

The claimalt hled claim petition against the owner of the vehicle and insurance company under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the MACT claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,OO0/- along with interest on account of injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident.

¶30

The claimant was aged about 23 years as on the date of accident, hale and healthy and as a bore-well operator apart from doing cultivation and was earning an income of Rs. 15,000/- per month and contributing the same for the welfare ald maintenalce of the family alrd due to accident, he was suffering with permanent disability and thereby, the petitioner was unable to do any work and lost income source.

¶31

7 . The respondent No. 1, the owner of the crime vehicie remained ex-parte. The 2"d respondent-Insurance Company frled

¶32

LNAJ MACMA No 123 oI 2075

¶33

¶34

counter denying the material averments of the claim petition including the age, occupation and earnings of the claimant, the manner of accident and a valid driving license of the claimant to drive the motor vehicle. It was further contended that it was the claimant who was negligent and having lost control of the motor cycle fell down and sustained injuries and suppressing the same, got ltled case against the driver of the crime vehicle. Hence, 2.'d respondent is not [able to pay compensation.

¶35

On the basis of the pleadings, the MACT has framed the following issues:

¶36

i) Whether the accident dated 09.11.2O10 near Jamrnichettu at Gandhi Chowk of Wanaparthy village was due to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor/trolley bearing registration No.AP-22-AB/0743-074 by its driver and that the petitioner has suffered injuries in that accident ?

¶37

ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation from the respondents and if so, to what extent and from whom ?

¶38

iii) Whether the petitioner/rider himself was negligent in riding the motor cycle and as such he was responsible for the accident ?

¶39

iv) To what relief ?

¶40

LNA) MACMANo'12i ol 2015

¶41

¶42

¶43

In order to substantiate the case, on behalf of the claimant, P.Ws.l to 4 were examined and Exs.Al to A15 and Exs.Xl to X3 were marked. The 2"d respondent-insurance company did not choose to examine any witness, but copy of policy was marked as Ex.B 1.

¶44

The MACT, on due consideration of the evidence and material placed on record, came to conclusion that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor trailer arld awarded compensation of Rs.13,41,OO0/- to the claimant along with interest @ 7.5o/o per annum. The owner of the vehicle and the Insurance company i.e., respondents 1 and 2 were held to be jointly and severally liable to pay the said compensation.

¶45

During the course of hearing of appeal, learned counsel for appellant submitted that the MACT committed error in taking the monthly income of the claimant as Rs.5,00O/- in the absence of arty cogent evidence. The MACT also erred in taking 5O% disability for assessing the loss of earning in the absence of any evidence. He further submitted that MACT erroneously granted further sum of Rs.7,50,O00/- towards ioss of kidney and spleen and finally prayed to allow the appeal setting aside the award passed by MACT.

r.r s,

LNA,J MACMA No-123 oJ 2015

¶50

¶51

Consideration:

¶52

The main contention raised by the learned counsel for appellant is that the MACT grossly erred in taking the monthly income of the claimant as Rs.500O/-. Perusa.l of record would show that on due consideration of documentar5r evidence i.e., Exs.AlO and Al1, which are the pahani and pattadar pass books, which shows tl at claimant owns Acs.5.00 agricultural land, the MACT had assessed the monthly income of the claimant at Rs.5,000/-. In considered opinion of this Court, the MACT has rightly assessed the income of the claimant in the light of Exs.AlO and A11 and no ground has been made out to interfere with the assessment of monthly income of the claimant by MACT.

¶53

The other contention of the learned counsel for appellant is that the MACT erred in taking 50% disability for assessing the loss of earnings capacity at Rs.5,40,OO0/- arld erred in gralting further sum of Rs.7,5O,000/- towards loss of kidney and spleen. In support of the disability, the claimant got examined p.W.4Dr.Geetha, who has produced case-sheet of the claimant a_long with its attested Xerox copy, which was marked as Ex.X3. p.W.4 deposed that claimant was admitted in Osmania General Hospital

¶54

_-/

¶55

¶56

LNA) MACMANo.123 o12015

¶57

¶58

¶59

on 09.11.2010 at 10.26 p.m., with history of road tralfic accident ald on examination he was found to have sustained great-Ill spleenic laceration thrombosis of left renal artery and suspected fracture of left wrist joint and that claimant was operated on 10. 1 1.2010 splalectomy left nephrectomy was done ald on L2.1O.2OIO fracture of left wrist below elbow stab was applied, treatment was given for 1O days.

¶60

It is further revealed from the evidence of P.W.4 and the contents of Ex.X3 ttrat spleen was removed in splenectomy and left kidney was also removed. Considering the evidence of P.W.4 and material placed on record, the MACT has assessed that claimant has sustained 5O% disability and considering the medical evidence on record that removal of kidney, petitioner cannot live like a normal person having chances of infection for rest of his life and awarded Rs.7,5O,OO0/- for loss of vital organs i.e., removal of kidney and spleen and awarded total compensation of Rs. 13,41,000/-.

¶61

The Tribunal has recorded elaborate reasons for awarding Rs.7,50,OO0/- towards loss of vital organs. It is admitted fact that the claimant sustained grievous, internal injuries and two vital

¶62

LNA,I MACMA No 123 ol2015

¶63

¶64

t I

¶65

organs i.e., kidney and spleen were removed because of the injuries sustained by the claimant. In the light of above, in considered opinion of this Court, the MACT has not committed any error in awarding Rs.7,50,OO0/- towards loss of vital organs.

¶66

Further, with regard to award of 5O% disability, the MACT has considered that in view of removal of remova_l of vital orgarrs and a-lso injuries sustained by him in the accident, the claimant calnot live like a normal person and the claimant also been on regular medication. Therefore, in considered opinion of this Court, the Tribunal has justified in awarding 50% disability to the claimant. No ground is made out by the appellant waffanting this Court to interfere with the said finding of tJle MACT.

¶67

Conclusion:

¶68

In the light of factual matrix of the case, in considered opinion of this Court, there is no irregularity in the award passed by the MACT and further, the appellant-insurance company failed to make out any ground warranting this Court to interfere with the award passed by the MACT. Therefore, the appeal fails ald is accordingly dismissed, affrrming the award passed by the MACT. The appellant-insurance company is directed to deposit the entire

¶69

LNA,J MACMANo-12j ol 2075

¶70

¶71

compensation amount within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, duly adjusting the amount, if any,

¶72

already deposited. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶73

Pending miscellaneous applications if any shall stald closed.

¶74

SD/. MOHD. ISMAIL ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFIGER

To,

1 . The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-lX Additional^{DistrictJudge,} Wanaparthy.

¶80

One CC to Sri. A.V.K.S. PRASAD, Advocate [OPUC].

¶81

One CC to Sri. M. GOVIND REDDY, Advocate [OPUC].

¶82

Two CD Copies

HIGH COURT

DATED: 0711112023

JUDGMENT

1$E stA r€
(
J q v
3 09 JAN 2024 a
4-

DEs PAT C{gO

MACMA.No.123 of 2015

APPEAL IS DISMISSED

@pP W

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶93

TUESDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶94

PRESENT

¶95

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

¶96

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MlsCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 123 OF 2015

¶97

Between:

¶98

United lndia lnsurance Co. Ltd., Mahabubnagar, through its Regional office, TpHUB; Hyderabad rep.by its Manager.

¶99

...APPELLANT/R-2

¶100

AND

¶101

1 K. Sathish Reddy, S/o. Srinivasa Reddy, Occ Nil R:/o Nakkalapally Village Peddakothapally (M) Mahabubnagar District.

¶102

2 K. Ramulu Neelam, S/o. Eedanna, Owner of Tractor/Trally No.AP.2 ABl0743 & 074, R/o 2-9411, Falanagar, Wanaparthy Mahabubnagar District.

¶103

...RESPONDENTS

¶104

¶105

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. A.V.K.S. Prasad, Advocate for the Appellant and of Sri. M. Govind Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent No.1.

¶106

This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

¶107

That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed against the order and decree of the Court of the Motor Accident claims Tribunal-cum-lX Additional District Judge, Wanaparthy passed in O.P.No.305 ol 2012 dated 03.06.2014 be and hereby in confirmed and the Appeal is Dismissed;

¶108

That the appellant-insurance in directed to deposit the entire compensation amount within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, duly adjusting the amount, if any already deposited.; and

¶109

That there be no order as to costs in this appeal

¶110

SD/- MOHD. ]SMAIL ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶111

//TRUE COPYII

¶112

To,

¶113

The Motor Accident Wanaparthy.

¶114

SECTION OFFICER

¶115

Claims Tribunal-cum-lX Additional District Judge,

¶116

Two CD Copies

HIGH COURT

DATED: 0711112023

DECREE

MACMA.No.123 of 2015

APPEAL IS DISMISSED

@q'8 W

United India Ins Co. Ltd., Hyderabad v. K Sathish Reddy, Mahabubnagar Dist and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

United India Ins Co. Ltd., Hyderabad v. K Sathish Reddy, Mahabubnagar Dist 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

MD Moqeed Pasha, Siddipet Dist. Vs Prl. Secy., Home Dept., Hyd Dist., and 4 Others

K.Sahadevudu, Vs The State of Telangana

V Siva Shankar Vs State of Tg,Prl.Scy,Labour,Hyd,and Anot

United India Ins Co. Ltd., Karimnagar Dist Vs Mamidi Bumaiah, Karimnagar Dist and 2 Others

United India Ins Co. Ltd., Hyderabad Vs Green Wood High School, Warangal Dist and 2 Others

Abdul Waseem Vs Shaik Khaleel and Another