Partly allowed

K. Bikshapathi v. S. Subbaraiyulu Naidu and Another

Telangana HC23 Jun 2023MACMA/1299/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court heard an appeal against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award granting Rs.48,195 to a driver for injuries sustained in an accident, leading to partial disability. The Court enhanced the compensation award significantly based on medical evidence.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs.48,695 to Rs.1,59,180 with interest at 7.5% per annum; Insurance company to pay deposit.

K. Bikshapathi Vs S. Subbaraiyulu Naidu and Another — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³²⁰⁸ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTHREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

¶6

DENT CIVIL MISCELLANE PE O: 1299 OF

¶7

Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the judgment and decree in M.V.O.P.No.1143 of 2006 dated 01.02.2008 on the fite of the Court of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- Xlll Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hiderabad.

¶8

Between:

¶9

K Bikshapathi, S/o Achari, Age: 30 years, Occ: Driver R/o Karkalpa had Village, 46"nnrl Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District. Presently R/o H.No. 1-31 25, Atzalgur.j, Hyderabad.

¶10

...PETITIONER/APPELLANT

¶11

AND

¶12

S. Subbaraiyulu Naidu, S/o not known .age major Business Rl/o Shop No.4, HIG Shopping Centre, BHEL, Ramchandrapuram, Medak District.

¶13

The National lnsurance Company Limited,, Rep-by its Divisional Manager, D.O.ll, lV Floor, Swapnalok Complex, S.D.Road, Secunderabad - 500003

¶14

...RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS

¶15

l.A NO: 1 OF 2008(MACMAMP. NO: 3204 OF 2008)

¶16

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 expedite the appeal in the interests of^justice.

¶17

Counsel for the Appellant : Sri P. RAMAKRISHNA REDDY

¶18

Counsel for Respondent No.l : Smt. T.P. NIVEDITHA REDDY

¶19

Counsel for Respondent No.2 : None appeared

¶20

The Court made the following: JUDGMENT

¶21

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

¶22

M.A.C.M.A.No.1299 of 2OO8

¶23

JUDGMENT:

¶24

This appeal is frled against ttLe award and decree dated Ol .O2.2OOa in M.V.O.P.No. 1143 of 2006 passed by the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Olaims Tribunal-cum-Xlll Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad (for short 'the Tribunal').

¶25

Heard the arguments of learne,C counsel appearing for the appellant. Perused the material available on record.

¶26

The appellant hled a claim-pe:tition before the Tribunal, claiming compensation of Rs.2,5rl,OOO/- for the injuries sustained by him in an accident that occurred on 15.O3.2O06 and the Tribunal has granted Rs.48,1i95/ - with interest at^{7 .So/u} per annum from date of petition til.l the date of deposit. The particulars of the compensation granted by the Tribunal are as

¶27

follows:

¶28

I	Disability	Rs.25,000/-
2	Shock,Painand Suffering	Rs.1O,OOO/ -
3	MedicalExpenses	Rs.1,695/-
4	TransportationCharges	Rs.1,OOO/-
5	Lossof income	Rs.9,OO0/

¶29

¶30

¶31

6	Extra nourishment	Rs.2,OOo/-
	TOTAL	Rs.48,595/-

¶32

Aggrieved by the^{said award and decree the appellant} preferred this apPeal.

¶33

learned counsel^{appearingfor the appetlantcontended} that due to the^{accident occurred,the appellant has sustained} functional disability^{at10O% and he cannot continuehis} profession as driver.^{He further contended that the Tribunal} has granted^{meageramounts under variousheads and prayed} this Court to^{grant additional compensation'}

¶34

There is no dispute^{regardingthe occurrence of accident'} but the quantum of^{compensation is only challengcd in this} appeal.

¶35

As seen from the record,^{the appellant himselfexamined} as P.W.1 and also^{examined P.W.2,who is an Orthopedic} Surgeon, Sai Sanjeevani^{Hospital, Dilsukhnagar and marked} Exs.A. 1 to A. 16 on his^{behalf. On behalf of respondents,Ex'B1} was marked. As per^{Ex.A6-DischargeCard issued by Sai} Sanjeevani Hospital,^{the appellanthad taken treatment for a} period of one month for^{Grade-lllcompound commuted fracture}

¶36

¶37

of right leg. Further, the date of admission of appellant in the hospital was on 14.O4.2006 and discharged on 17.O4.20O6. As per Ex.A8, which is another discharge card issued by the same hospital, the appellant was admi:ted in the hospital on 05.06.2006 and date of discharge \vas on 07.06.2006. The Tribunal has granted Rs. 15,OO0/- as far as one grievous injury i.e., commuted fracture of right leg. P.W.2 - Doctor issued Ex.Al3 and according to him, therr: is 2Oolo disability. The Tribunal having observed that Medical Board is constituted, Disability Certificate under Ex.Al3, cannot be taken into consideration. P.W.2 - Doctor stated that there is post traumatic stiffness of right knee joint, which is permanent. The 'l'ribunal has granted Rs. 1O,OOO/- r_owards disability, which appears to be meagre. Admittedly, the appellant has taken trezrtment as in-patient in various hospitals for a considerable period and he has undergone numl>er of operations for the frac ture.

¶38

Looking into the nature of irjuries sustained by the appellant, nature and period of treatfirent undergone by him in Osmania General Hospital, Hyderatrad and Sai Sanjeevani Hospital, Hyderabad and the amount spent by him towards mcdical expenses, transportation, att(:ndant charges and extra

¶39

¶40

nourishment,^{this Court finds it reasonableto award an amount} of Rs.25,000/-^{forone fractureinjurysustainedbythe} appellant and^{Rs.25,0OO/-for pain and suffering' Apart from} that, appellant^{is also entitled Rs' 1O,OO0/-towards} transportation^{charges, Rs.S,OOO/-towards extra nourishment} and Rs.S,OOO/-^{towards attendant charges' The contention of} the learned Counsel^{for the appellant isthat thoughthe} appellant filed^{medica-l bills to a tune of Rs'9,98O/-under} Ex.A1O, but the^{Tribunal awarded only Rs' 1,695/-' The record} discloses that the^{appellant has takentreatment as inpatientlor} a considerable^{period and he has to spendsome amountfor} purchase of medicines.^{Therefore,this Courtis of the view that} the appellant is entitled^{to Rs.9,98O/-under the head of} medical expenses.^{P.W.1statedthat he was earning Rs'6'0OO/-} per month and could not^{attendhis duties for three monthsdue} to the accident occurred.^{Therefore, Rs'18,000/-is granted} towards loss of earnings.^{Admittedly,the appellantis a driver} by profession and as^{per the evidence of P'W'2, the doctor' who} treated the appellant^{there is post traumaticstiffness of right} knee^{joint, which is permanentand P'W'2has assessed the} disability at 2Oo/o.^{As Ex.A13, disability certilicateis not issued} by the Medical^{Board and issued by the privatedoctor' the} Tribunal has not considered^{the said disabilitycertificateand}

) )

)

awarded only Rs. 10,0OO/ - for the dis,ability. The Tribunal erred in not considering Ex.A 13 on the 5pound that the szune was issued by a private doctor. As the appellant has suffered with post traumatic stiflness of right kne,: joint, this Court is of the view that the appellant has suffered disability at 5olo and in view of the said disability, the appellant is entitled to loss of earnings. As the age of the appellant at the time of accident was between 26-30, the appropriate rnultiplier is'17'. Therefore, adopting the said multiplier the loss of earnings on account of the disability comes to Rs.6,0OO/- x 12 x 17 x 5/ 1OO = Rs.6l ,2OO/ -. Thus, in all, the appellant is entitled for the

¶47

compensation in the following heads:

¶48

1	OnefractureInjury	Rs.25,OOO.OO
2	Painand Suffcring	Rs.25,OO0.OO
3	MedicerIExpenses	Rs.9,980.0O
4	TransportationCharges	Rs.1O,OO0.0O
5	Extra nourishment	Rs.5,0OO.0O
6	Attendantcharges	Rs.5,0OO.0O
7	[.ossof Earningsduringtheperic,dof treatment	Rs.l8,O0O.0O
8	Lossofearningsonaccount ol'the 5%disabilitysustainedbythe appcllant Rs.6,OOO 100 -x12x17x5	Rs.61,2OO.0O
	TOTAL	Rs.1,59,18O/-

¶49

¶50

¶51

i i I iI ti I It E I i t

¶52

¶53

In the result, the appeal is^{partly allowedby enhancing} the compensation amount from Rs.48,695/ - to^Rs.1 ,59 ,l8O I^- (Rupees One lakh Fifty Nine thousand one hundred and^eighty only) with interest at the rate of^{7 .sVo per annum from the date} of filing the petition till date of realization.^{RespondentNos. I} and 2 are^jointly and severally liable to^{pay the compensation} amount. Respondent No.2/Insurance Company^shall deposit the compensation amount within a^{periodof one} month from the date of receipt of a copy of this^Judgment. On such deposit, the appellant is entitled to^withdrawthe said amount. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶54

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall^stand

¶55

closed

¶56

sd/^{- B. CHAND RA PRAKASH} ASSISTANT^REGIS

//TRUE^COPY//

SECTION^OFFICER

To,

1 lxsf"l';l$t;ll:fJf^{',i;1""?fjx,i;,[il'":sJ;""i..-XrrrAdditionarchier} 2. onJcc^{to Sri P' RAMAKRIsHNA REDDY' Advocate[oPUCl} J One^{CCto Smt' T P NIVEDITHA REDDY' Advocate [OPUC]}

¶61

4 Two^{CD CoPies}

¶62

Njb

¶63

N{x

¶64

i i i I t I I ! : : : I i II I i i I

HIGH COURT

PSS,J

DATED:2310612023

i'
r$ s
I \1
..'t.)

JUDGMENT + DECREE

MACMA.No.1299 of 2008

¶71

PARTLY ALLOWING THE

¶72

APPEAL 1VITHOUT COSTS

¶73

rr?
\0 "
6<br>}\r!

¶74

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

¶75

FRIDAY ,THE TWENW THIRD DAY^{OF JUNE} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶76

PRESENT

¶77

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

¶78

MOTOR IDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL^{NO: '1299OF 2008}

¶79

Between:

¶80

K. Bikshapathi, S/o Achari, Age: 30^{years, Occ:} Driver R/o Karkalpahad Village, Amangal Mandal, Mahaboobnagar^District Presently Rt/o H.No.'1-31 25, Atzalguoj, Hyderabad.

¶81

...PETITIONER/APPELLANT

¶82

AND

¶83

S. Subbaraiyulu Naidu, S/o^not known ,age^{maior Business R/o Shop No.4'} HIG Shopping Centre, BHEL,^{Ramchandrapuram, Medak District-}

¶84

The National lnsurance Company^{Limited,, Rep,byits Divisional Manager,} D.O.ll, lV Floor, Swapnalok^{Complex, S.D.Road, Secunderabad- 500003}

¶85

...RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS

¶86

Appeal filed under Section¹⁷³ of^{MotorVehicles Act against the judgmentand} decree in M.V.O.P.No.1143 of^{2006 dated 01.02.2008 on the file of the Courtof} the Chairman, Motor Accident^{Claims Tribunal-cum-Xlll AdditionalChief Judge,} City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

¶87

ORDER: This appeal coming on^{for hearingand uponperusingthe groundsof} appeal, the Judgment and^{Decreeof the Lower Courtand the material papers in the} case and upon hearing the^{argumentsof Sri P. RAMAKRISHNA REDDY, Advocate} for the Petitioner and Smt. T.P.^{NIVEDITHA REDDY,Advocate for the Respondent} No.1 and none appeared,^{Advocate for Respondent No.2}

¶88

This Court doth Order and^{Decreeas follows:-}

¶89

That the MACMA be and hereby^{is partly allowed by enhancingthe} compensation amount from^{Rs. 48,695/-to Rs. 1,59,180/- (Rupees one lakh} fifty nine thousand one hundred and^{eighty only) with interest at the rate of} 7.570^per annum from^{the date of filingof the petition till the date of realization.}

¶90

That the respondent Nos. 1 E 2 be and hereby are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount.

¶91

That the respondent No.2/lnsurance company be and hereby shall deposit the compensation amount within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶92

That, on such deposit, the appellant be and hereby is entitled to withdraw the said amount;

¶93

That save as aforesaid, the decree of l:he Lower Court shall stands confirmed in all other respects; and

¶94

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

¶95

Sd/- B. CHANDRA PRAKASH ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

a- SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- Xlll Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. (\ rith records)

¶100

2 Two CD Copies

Nib

HIGH COURT

PSS,J

DATED:2310612023

DECREE

MACMA.No.1299^{of 2008}

¶109

PARTLY ALLOWING^THE

¶110

APPEAL WITHOUT^COSTS

¶111

K. Bikshapathi v. S. Subbaraiyulu Naidu and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Bikshapathi v. S. Subbaraiyulu Naidu and Another

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

The Project Dir, Dist Women and Child Devp Agency and Another Vs Bala Bhaskar Rao, Khammam and Another

Syed Meer , Syed Ameer Vs Abdul Waheed and Another

M.R.Chandra Shekar and Anr. Vs M/S.Road Carrier of India and Anr.

Mohammad Gouse Vs Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Hyd.

Shaik Yakub R/O Dichpally Mandal, Nizamabad Dist Vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and 2 Other

Gandela Padma and Anr. Vs a. Sathyamaiah and Anr.