Allowed

P.Madhava Reddy v. P. Raji Reddy and Another

Telangana HC22 Feb 2023MACMA/1539/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal filed by an injured claimant against the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The Court enhanced the disability compensation using the 15-year multiplier and increased medical expenses, resulting in a total revised award.

What did the court decide?

Allowing the appeal, the Court enhanced the total compensation to Rs. 3,19,000/- comprising Rs. 2,70,000 for loss of income, Rs. 10,000 for medical expenses, and other heads, with interest at 7.5% per

P.Madhava Reddy Vs P. Raji Reddy and Another — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

132s41

¶2

oF TELANGANA rN rHE^HrGH "ouTf3$rtffoBt#E

¶3

WEDNESDAY,^{THETWENTY SECOND DAY Of F-EBRUARY} "-"''-"-nrro IlousAND AND TWENTY^THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{SMTJUSTICE G'ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY} MOTOR^{ACCIDENT ctvlLMISCELLANEO US APPEALNO:'15390F 200I}

¶6

Appeal filed^{under Section 173 of M V Act-'aggrievedby the order and} decree^{dated2}-O1-2OO4passed in M V'O P' No 903 of 2001 on the file of the} Motor^{Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-V Additional Chief Judge' City CivilCourt'} Hyderabad

¶7

Between:

¶8

"jii:"[1Y'rFit"1'i,#3,,X'i,ii313;&',",,:e,','"'J,fdft'J:'3""0?lE'li]ili''"

¶9

...APPELLANT'PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 P. Raii Reddy^{S/o Narasimha Reddy' aged maior' Occ: BusinessR/oH no l-} 110, R.C.Puram^{MedaK Drst'}

¶12

2 UnitedlndialnsuranceCo.ltd.,rep.byitsDivisionalManager,D'o'V.24' Vengalraonagar,^HYderaoao'

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

Counsel^{for the Appellant: SRl' C' MOHAN PRAKASH}

¶15

Counsel^{for the Respondent No'2:SRI' A' V' K' S' PRASAD}

¶16

The Court^{deliveredthe following:JUOGMENT}

¶17

¶18

I I O N' I} I, E SMl', .I TJSI'I(]IJ G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVAR'III Y

¶19

M.A.(l.M.A.No.l 539 of 2008

¶20

,lt l)(i\lt:'l:

¶21

Ihis appcal is arising our of the orders in O.P.No.903 ol' l(X)1. dltccl 19 01.2004 on the file of Motor Accident Claims I rrt,trnul cLrrr.r \j Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, I Ir rle ru lrld

¶22

I irr tlrc selic ol convr'nience, the parties are relerred to as lulrrrr tri irr tltc O.[)

¶23

I llrc .rppcllanr is rhc claimant. The O.P. was filed by thc e l.rnrrnr Lrnclr,r Scction l6(r ol the Motor Vehicles Act, clairning .(,rnlr.nsirtiLrrr ot'Rs. 1.00,000,'- on account of the injuries sustainecl fr lrrr. in tlrc lrccidcnt r.r,hich occurred on 31.03.200 I at 3.-j0 a.ur. lire .:riii :rcertlent occurrcd. while the claimant and villaqcrs ol ( lrirrrr l(ur Lrl.rpllll cpqascti a [-orry bearing No.AP-02-'l -9 j69. lirr ir'.ri\l)()rri,:, regctatrlcs to (itrdintalkapur, Hyderabad and *hcn thc :rriil i.rr'r re :rcircd^'l'.l<atLa qate. the driver of the lorry dr.r,c it at a lrirrlr .rrecrl u.cl i. e r-ash a.rl ,egligent lnanner, as a r.esurt. it tLr.red lLuLle :rrrrl rlrt clninlint sLrsrained head injury, IiacILu.c t() lcli

¶24

)

¶25

G.4c,.t l'lACltll^{no' I5'l9 o| 2l)0ti}

¶26

occipitat^{bone,left intra ventricular bleed' hariplegiaand spasticttv} caused.^{lmmediately'he was shifted to Osmania General Hospital} and^{from thereto Sri Sairam Hospital' Basing on the cornplaint' a} case^{was registered against the driver of the lorry' for the oflence} punishabte^{under Section 337 of IPC in Cr'No'77 of 2001' on the} flrle^{of Moinabad Police Station}

¶27

It is the^{caseof the claimant that he was aged'10 -vcarsat thc} time^{of the accident and used to eam Rs 3'000/- per tronthas atr} agriculturist^{and milk vendor and that he incurred huge amounts} also^{sustaiued Pcl'tllanellt} Ibr his^{treatment, otherexPenses'} disability^{and lost his eamingcapacrty}

¶28

5.^{Adetailedcounter affidavit\vas tiletl b)'thc} responden^{lnsuranceCompany disputing the age' inconrr-'} occupation^{and also the expenditure incurrccl by the claimatit} Further,^{it was contended that there was no ncgligence on the patl} of the^{driver of the Lorry'}

¶29

6 The^{Tribunal, after considering the oral and doctrtnentatl} evidence^{on record' granted a colrlpensatiot.lo l- lts (rl'000i}

¶30

¶31

¶32

GAC, J MACMA.No. t 539 or 2008

¶33

1 Bcirr!t rigqrieved as to the quantum of compensation awarded b1. Lhc lribunal. rhc clainranI has filed this appeal seeking

¶34

enhaucernenI of cornpcnsation. So, the appreciation of evidence ri,or-rld bc ri'ith rcspect to lhe quanturn alone.

¶35

8 Ilcarrl lclrncd counsel fbr both the parties and perused the fcc of(],

¶36

(). It is cont..ndcd bv thc learned counsel for the claimant that tirc^-l'rrhLLnal hns crred in not considering the income of the clainranr es [{s.j.000,'- pcr rronth and also did not consider thc clisability ol^(r()'r o. thoLrglt it il,as assessed by the medical board and thc-r'cftrrc. Ir|l) etl to consiclcr. the income and disability while g[antir)g c0rirIcirsaLion arrcL also to grant compensation under the olhcr notiLrrtr I lte I rls.

¶37

10.^()rr Llrc trrhe r- hancl. thc learned Standing Counsel for the 2,,d rcsporcic.t l.sur-u.cc (iornpany contended that there is no error or. tt'r'cqLrlarirr i. thc o.clcrs passed by the Tribunal so as to intert-ere

¶38

¶39

G.1(',.t MACMA.No^{l539ol 20t)t}

¶40

br withthesame'andtherefore,prayedtodismisstheAppcal confin.ning^{the judgmentof the Tribunal}

¶41

u On^{perusal of the entire evidenceon tecord'thetclsIlo} dispute^{as to the manner of the accidentwhich occLrrred olr} 31.0i.200r.^{It is specificary pleadedby the ctaimant bcrbrc thc} 'fribur-ral that he was aged 40^{years as on the date of the acciclcrrt'} though^{it is mentioned as 38 years in Ex A-4' ic ' the disabilitr} ccrtificate.^{Butthe Tribunal has considered the age of the clairnant} as 40^{years basingon Ex'A-2lCharge sheet andarr at clctllt} Iumpsum^{amount ol- Rs'50'000/-underthe head "disabilitl"lhc} l'ribunal^{has consideredthe income of the deceasedas t{i l '()00-} p.ru.^{though it is pleaded by the claimantthat lte s 3s crtt ttittrl} Rs.1,000/-^{p.m' Admittedly' thereis no documentatleridctrcttttt} record^{to prove the income of the claimant as Rs 3'000/-p'ttr'}

¶42

i2.^{'[he evidenceof P'W'3/Dr'K'VishnuPrasadclcar l] dise losc} tllat the^{clairnant hassushinedserious head irrjury ancl thc irr'lLrltcs} mentioned^{in the claim petition are corroborated with tlic er idettcc} ol l'.W.3.^{llut, the Tribunaldid not consider t:x '-J clisabilitl}

¶43

¶44

GAC, J ttl,,rCMA. No. I 539 o! 200t

¶45

certillcate in its trr-rc sprriL. ri,hllg granting compensation. No reasolls are assigrled bv the I r-ihrrnal lor discarding tix.A_4.

¶46

I3.^{'l-hc 'l-riburral} ltas arrrLr.rlcd cotnpensation to the claimant

¶47

tunclcl thc lirllorr ine hcatls

¶48

ll 1l"tl	[)errtr N4cdi ancrrtdisabilir_r calcxpclrscs I!a1n^{qndsul'll.r.in1r}	Rs.50,000/- Rs.2,9721- I{s.5.000/-
4	L.osso I'r.u[rrinq:	Rs.4,000/-
5	+ll'q,,sl!,1	Rs.1,000/-
6	Extra-rtorrrishrlcrrr .I'O'I'AL	Rs.63,972l- Rs.1,000/-

¶49

Consicic.rirs rhe larr i.rtl cl.*,n by the Hon,ble Supreme

¶50

Cou|L in a cittcn.t ol' jrrti-rDre nl,. rlris C'oun is olthe considered view that the clainlrlt i: errtitlctl t,r nt()rc cornpensation than awarded bv lltc^'l'ribLt.ul. ..\s tltt.re \ ]1. 1l9s11111g11tary evidence as to the incor.,e ol'thc crcccuscrr. rrrr' r'irrLrnal has rightly considered the incorne of thc. cl.rirrant rrs [i.. i {)00./- p.nr. But the .l.ribunal ought t'tOt tO hat,c qrtnLC(l lur|1.,511111 illll()LtnI torvar.dS perrnanent diSability and it ouqht to llrrc lirllgrrerl rlrc ptLrltiplicr. rnethod for just and l'ail cornpensltion. llrliirrrl rlre incorne ol Ihc claimant as Rs.2,000,/-1t. rtr . rl l5, rr lrrlrrrt. i.rirsl)ccts is aclcled in ter.nts of the

¶51

¶52

¶53

G1(...t MACltlA. No. I 53 9 of 2 00t

¶54

judgrnent of the Hon'ble supreme court in Nationar Insu rarcc Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & othersr, it would come to Rs.2,500r(Rs.2,000 + Rs.500). Further, as per rhe judgmenr of I_lon,blc Supreme Court in Smt.Sarla Verma v. Delhi -fran.sport Corporation & another2, thc lrultiplier applicable is , 15, for. the age group of 35 to 40 years. As per Ex.A_4 and the oral evidencc of P.W.3iDoctor, the claimanr sustained 60% of disability. Thereforc, the claimant/injur.ed is entitled for an amount ol. Rs.2,70,000/- towards loss of future income (Rs.2,500 X l2 X l5 X 60/100). fhc claimant is also entitled for an arnourrI ol Rs.25,000/- torr.ards pain and suflering as he sustaincd scr.ious injuries and iiacturcs as per Ex.A-3ldischarge card. T.l_re lcarnecl counsel lbr claimant contended that the claimant incur.rccl Rs. I0,000i- tou,ards rnedical expenses, but the Tribunal has onlr granted Rs.2.971l- and no reasons are assigned by the Tribunal lbr granting Its.l.97li- alone. I he'efbre, the claimant is entitlecJ ltrr Rs. 10,000/- tcirvar.ds ntedical expenses, as per Ex.A_5. As per thc evidencc ol- P\/s.I a.d 2, the clairnant suffered loss of earninos fir' 1 zotl acs zloo

¶55

'z^{(2009) 6 scc 121}

¶56

¶57

¶58

GAC, J MACMA.No.I fi9 of 2008

¶59

¶60

¶61

a period of tr,r'o mon[hs duc to Lhe injur-ies sustained by him in the accider.rt.^'lhcrefbre, he is entitlcd tbr an amount of Rs.4,000/-, whicl'r was alleady glanted Ll thc^'l'ribunal. Further, the claimant is also entitlcd to Rs. 10.00(),'- torr rrds transpofiation, attendant clralses and cxtla-nouris[rmcn t

¶62

TItus, the clairnant is e nritlecl lbr cornpensation as under:

¶63

	Lossolincorne		Rs.2,70,000/-
2	Medicalexpenses		Rs.10,000/-
3	Pain andsulferin		Rs.25,000/-
4	Lossofearnings {irrtuonrorrlhs '''		Rs.4,000/-
5	lransport,cxtranourishtrcnt attenclant charqes '''	&	Rs.10,000/-
L	IO1AL		Rs.3,l 9,000/-

¶64

Accoldingly, tlie al)ir:ciLl rs allorrcd. granting a total compensation of I{s.3,19,t10() Lo tl)c claimant with costs and interest at the r-ate ol- l.5o/o pcr irtnurll ti'om the date of petition till thc date of realization. .joinLIr rLrril sri cr-allv payable by respondent Nos. I ar-rd 2 u ithin t\ o nl()u[hs iirrr the datc. of receipt of a copy ol this order.^-['he claimarrt is pcrrnitted to rvithdraw the entire amount o1-contltensation. as tlrc lrccidcnt occur.red in the year 2001,

¶65

on payutent o1'dcllcir CoLrrt tcc

¶66

¶67

GA(-, J ttlACMA.No.l 5-19 0[ 2008

¶68

I I I iI I i J

¶69

I t I I I

¶70

Pending miscellaneous applications, il any, shall stand

¶71

closed.

¶72

Sd/. P.GOWRI KAR ASSISJANT G TRAR //TRUE COPY// b ICER

¶73

To,

¶74

The Motor Accidents^{ClaimsTribunal-Cum-V Additional Chief Judge, City Civil} Court, Hyderabad^{(with records)}

¶75

One CC to SRl. C. MOHAN^PRAKASH ,^Advocate [OPUC]

¶76

One CC to SRl.^{A. V. K, S. PRASAD,Advocate} [OPUC]

¶77

Two CD Copies

¶78

¶79

¶80

HIGH COURT DATED: 2210212023

¶81

JUDGMENT

¶82

MAGMA.No.1539 of 2008

¶83

{ rE S i,r
( ,..
1 5 J'il ?[2]
'

¶84

ALLOWING THE APPEAL

¶85

I\ft^
rI\ (r,r

¶86

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶87

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶88

PRESENT

¶89

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE G.ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY

¶90

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1539 OF 2008

¶91

Between:

¶92

P. Madhava Reddy, S/o Kista Reddy, aged about 40 years, Occ: Agricutturist R/o H.no. 1-26 Ravulapally Village, Chevalla Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶93

...APPELLANT/PETITIONER

¶94

AND

¶95

P. Raji Reddy S/o Narasimha Reddy, aged major, Occ: Business R/o H.no.1110, R.C.Puram Medak Dist.

¶96

United lndia lnsurance Co. ltd., rep. by its Divisional Manager, D.O.V. 24, Vengalraonagar, Hyderabad.

¶97

...RESPONDENTS

¶98

Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V Act., aggrieved by the order and decree dated 29-O1-2OO4 passed in M.V.O.P. No. 903 of 2001 on the file of the [4otor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-V Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad

¶99

This Appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the ground of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the case and upon hearing the arguments of SRl. C. MOHAN PRAKASH FOR SRl. B. PARAMESWARA, Advocate for the Appellant and SRt. A.V.K.S. PRASAD, Advocate for the Respondent No.2

¶100

7./

¶101

This Court Doth Order and Decree as follows:

¶102

'1. That the appeal be and hereby is allowed, granting a total compensation of Rs. 3,19,0001 to the claimant with costs and;

¶103

That the compensation amount will carry interest at the rate of 7.5yo per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization;

¶104

That the jointly and severally respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are liable to pay the compensation amount within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order;

¶105