Dismissed

Giri Kondal, v. A.S.R.T.C. Muheerabad

Telangana HC31 Jul 2023MACMA/1550/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by an injured motorcyclist against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The Court affirmed the Tribunal's award of Rs.38,500/-, finding no error in assessing the medical expenses, loss of income, and injury compensation based on the evidence produced.

What did the court decide?

The Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was dismissed without costs, and the decree of the lower court was confirmed.

Giri Kondal, Vs A.S.R.T.C. Muheerabad — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

MONDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU

¶5

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO:^{1550 OF 20'19}

¶6

Appeal Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the Order^and Decree in M.V.O.P.No. 234 of 2013 dated 18-03-2016 on^{the file of the Court of} the Chairman, lvlotor Accident Claims Tribunal - Cum^- Additional^{District Judge-} cum-Special Judge for SC/STs^(POA) Act cases, Nalgonda.

¶7

Between:

¶8

Giri Kondal,, S/o Maraiah, Aged about 30^years, Occ- Agriculture,^R/o. Thanedarpally Village, Gurrampode Mandal, Nalgonda District.,^Presently Residing at Reddy Colony, DVK Raod, Nalgonda Town, Nalgonda^District.

¶9

... Appe llanUC laima nt

¶10

AND

¶11

A.S.R.T-C. Muheerabad, Hyderabad, Represented by its General Manager/Managing Directtor.^(Owner of APRTC Bus bearing^No. AP-28-Z44Oe).

¶12

...ResPondenUResPondent

¶13

Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. P.S.P. SURESH KUMAR, Advocate

¶14

Counsel for the Respondent: None Appeared

¶15

The Court made the following: JUDGMENT

¶16

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU

¶17

M.A.C.M A.N 1 f2 19

¶18

DGMENT:

¶19

Being aggrieved by the order of learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-Cum-Special Sessions Judge for Trial of SC/STs (POA) cases. Nalgonda in Op.No.234 of 2013 dated 24-03-2016 by which the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.38,500/- as against his clarm for Rs.1,00,000/-, the petitioner in the above referred OP.No.234 of 2013 filed this appeal under Section 173 oF Motor Vehicles Act (for short 'M.V. Act') on the following grounds.

¶20

The Tribunal failed to appreciate the contention of the appellant that he suffered fracture and obtained treatment as in-patient from 24-Ol-2013 to 28-01-2013, thereby, awarded less amount of compensation. The Tribunal failed to appreciate the contention of the petitioner that in view of the injuries, he could not attend the agricultural works and suffered a lot, thereby, compensation amount needs to be enhanced. The appellant further claimed that the Tribunal iailed to appreciate his contention that he being aged about 30 years was able to earn Rs.6,000/- per month but due to the accident, he lost income and on that ground,

¶21

SSRN,] MAcMA.No.1550^{0f 2019}

¶22

he is^{entitled to receive enhancedcompensation' The Tribunal} failed^{to appreciatehis claim that he spent Rs'40'000/-for his} treatment^{and he has producedEx A5 i'e ' Bunch of Medical bills'} he has^{examined PW'2 to Provethe treatment, but the Tribunal} awarded^{a meageramount, thereby,soughtfor enhancement of} the comPensation^'

¶23

As^{per the briefcase of his petitionbefore the Tribunal'} 3, it seems^{that on 24-OI-20L3at about 3'30 p'm'' while the} appellant^{and one AnanthaReddy wereproceedingtowards their} village,^{therewasan accident when the driver of a Bus bearingNo'} AP 28 Z^{4402 drovethebus in high speed' in a rash and negligent} manner^{and dashedthe motor-bike of the appellant causing him} The appellant^{has filed the abovereferred} g rievous^{inj u rles} sum of^{Rs.1,00,000/-as compensation on} petition seeking^a various^heads. The respondent-R'T'C'^{disputed the claim'} the witnesses^{and after} However,^{the Tribunal having examined} evidence,^{came to the} considering^{the oral and documentary} toa sum^{of Rs.38,500/-} conclusion^{that the appellantis entitled} for treatment^and which includes^{an amount of Rs'23'500/-} Rs.15,000/-^{towards compensationfor the grievousinjury'}

¶24

S5RN,] MACMA.No.1550 of 2019

¶25

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. There is

¶26

no representation for the respondent.

¶27

Now the point for consideration is :

¶28

Whether the Tribunal committed any error in awarding Rs.38,500/- and whether the appellant is enti ed to enhanced compensation?

¶29

As could be seen from the impugned award, it is quite clear that the appellant was examined as pW.1 and whereas, Dr.K.Vijaya Kumar examined as pW.2. The appellant has produced the certified copies of F.I.R., charge sheet and medical certificate which were marked as Exs.A1, A2 and A4. The Discharge card was issued by Leelavathi Hospital, Nalgonda is marked as Ex.A3. Bunch of Medical bills marked as Ex.A5. According to the evidence placed before the Tribunal, it seems the appellants suffered one grievous injury and he was treated as in-patient from 24-01-2013 to 28-01-2013. According to the evidence of PW.2, it is very clear that the claimant received one soft tissue injury on right knee and a lacerated wound with cut exposed quadriceps muscle, which was operated on 25_01_2013 and claimant spent a sum of Rs.23,500/- for medical treatment, extra nourishment and attendant charges. The appellant herein could not place any other material before the Court below to show

¶30

.1 SSRN,] MACMA.No.1550 of²⁰¹⁹

¶31

that he suffered financial^{loss due to the above said injury. The} Tribunal having considered the evidence^{of PWs.1and 2 and based} on the documents awarded^{Rs.38,500/-including the medical} expenses, thereby, the appellant is^{not entitled toseek} enhancement of the comPensation.

¶32

In the result, the appeal is dismissed.

¶33

Consequently, Miscellaneous^{applications if any, are closed.}

¶34

No costs.

¶35

//TRUE COPY//

¶36

Sd/- A.V.S. PRASAD ASSISTANT REGIgfRAR r/ SECTION OFFICER

¶37

To,

¶38

The Chairman, lVolor Accident Claims Tribunal - Cum - Additional District Judge-cum-Special Judge for SC/STs (POA) Act cases, Nalgonda.

¶39

One CC to SRl. P.S..P SURESH KUMAR, Advocate [OPUC]

¶40

Two CD Copies

¶41

PSR &

HtGH COURT

SSRN,J

DATED:31 10712023

JUDGMENT MACMA.No.1550 of 2019

¶46

of 1 E LA
q^.Y .$ rt I
ltJ I
F a
<)
u.o b=+
N
*
HC$

¶47

DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS. CryqO P*o--ft.*

¶48

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

¶49

MONDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY^OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶50

PRESENT

¶51

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVARAO^NAIDU MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL M sCELLANEOUS^{APPEAL NO: 1550 OF2019} I Between:

¶52

Giri I Kondal,, S/o Maraiah, Aged about 30 years, Occ- Agriculture, R/o. Thanedarpally Village, Gurrampode Mandal, Nalgonda^{District., Presently} Residing at Reddy Colony, DVK^{Raod, NalgondaTown, Nalgonda District.}

...AppellanUClaimant

AND I

nt.S.n.f .C. Muheerabad, Hyderabad,^{Represented by its General} t Manager/Managing Directtor.^{(Owner of} APRTC^{Bus bearingNo.AP-28-Z-} t 4409). IIt ...ResPondenUResPondent

¶57

...ResPondenUResPondent

¶58

i I

¶59

Appeal Under Sectlon 173 of Motor Vehicles^{Actagainst the Orderand} I Decreelin M.V.O.P.No. 234 of 2013 dated 18-03-2016 on the file of the^{Court of} I the Chdirman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -^{Cum - Additional District Judge-} I cum-Sp'ecial Judge for SC/STs^(POA) Act^{cases, Nalgonda,}

¶60

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 paper in the} case and upon hearing the arguments of SRl.^{P.S..P SURESH KUMAR, Advocate} for the^lAppellant and none appeared either in^{person or by Advocatefor the} I Respondent.

¶61

.t t t I I I I li I I :

¶62

--7 This rt doth Order ad Decree as follows ,1 I Tfat the Motor Accident Civil Misceltaneous Appeal be and hereby is dismissed; and 2 Ttat this court doth Judgment and Decree that the decree of the Lower court bb and hereby is confirmed and this MACMA is dimissed. I 3. That there shall be no order as to costs in this MACMA Sd/. AV.S. PRASAD ASSISTANT REGIS*AR //TRUE COPY// / To, ,tr.'\ secrroruJlrrcen 1. Trhe Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal _ Cum _ Additional District Judge for SC/STs (pOA) Act cases, Natgonda. fdOe-cum-snecial 2. "o "o''"" PSR. fo 6 i I I I l'' I I I I

i I

I tI

t I I I

HIGH COURT I I

SSRN,J

DATED:3't tO7l2O23

ati

I DECREE I MAGMA:No.1550 of 2019

¶74

r 1 E I A
o o
t,
A.t
t!!,) ,s P*
s o
o
o <br>*
c H c A

¶75

¶76

DISMISSING THEIMACMA WITHOUT COSTS.

¶77

I
!

Giri Kondal, v. A.S.R.T.C. Muheerabad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Giri Kondal, v. A.S.R.T.C. Muheerabad

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 Tsscpdcl Vs Sherali Lalni

The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporationand Another Vs Kommu Nagalaxmi and 4 Others

M/s. National Insurance Company Limited, Vs Vasa Thirupathaiah

Alwanpally Ashanna, Mahabubnagar Dist Vs Kheda Narsimha Chary, Mahabubnagar Dist and Ten Others

B Janaki Devi Vs B Surya Prakash Rao

M Gopala Krishna Vs Smt.P Padma Kumari and 3 Others