Dismissed

Dandugula Rajaiah, v. Sri P. Ramchandram, (Major)

Telangana HC9 Jun 2023MACMA/1582/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal against an order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal was dismissed. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's refusal to grant substantial compensation, noting the absence of genuine medical documents verifying the claimant's injuries. Consequently, the court found it had no reason to interfere with the meager award.

What did the court decide?

The decree of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal dated 07-01-2008 in O.P.No.246 of 2003 is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed without costs.

Dandugula Rajaiah, Vs Sri P. Ramchandram, (Major) — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[3208 |

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

¶6

M.A.C.M.A.NO: 1582 OF 2008

¶7

Appeal Under Section 173 of M.V.Act., against the Order and^{decree madein} O.P.No.246 of 2003 dated 07-01-2008^on the^file of the^{Court of the Motor Accidents} Claims Tribunal^(Vl Additional District Judge^{(FTC), Nizamabad} at^Kamareddy.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Dandugula Rajaiah, S/o. Venkaiah, aged 30 years, Occ: Stone Cutter and^Building Contractor, R/o. Jangampally Village,^{Bhiknoor Mandla, Nizamabad District.}

¶10

...APPELLANT/PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

Sri P. Ramchandram, S/o.Not Known, aged major, Owner of the Car bearing No. AP-25-G-3231 F/o. 1-2-36, Sircilla Road, Kamareddy Tq.,^Nizamabad District.

¶13

The New lndia Assurance Company Limited, Kamareddy, Represented by its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Opp: Z.P.Office,Subhashnagar, Nizamabad.

¶14

.....RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶15

Counsel for the Appellant : SRI.S.SURENDER REOOY

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : M/s.P.SATYA MANJULA

¶17

The Court made the following Judgment : -

¶18

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P. SREE SUDHA

¶19

M.A.C.M.A No.1582 of 2OO8

¶20

JUDGMENT:

¶21

This Motor Accidents Civil Miscelianeous Appeal is filed by the injured appellantl claimant against ttre judgment and decree dated 07.01.2008 passed in O.P.No.246 of 2003 by the Motor Accidents Claims Trjbunal (VII Additional District Judge) (FTC), Nizamabad.

¶22

The claimant hled n petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.2,OO,OO0/- for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 1O.IO.2OO2. It is stated that on that day the claimant was travelling on his scooter on the road leading to Domakonda, at about 7-00 A.M., when the said vehicle reached in front of Ganga Reddy Brick Factory, suddenly the driver of Car bearing No.AP-25-G-3231 drove the vehicle at high speed, lost his control due to rash and negligent manner and dashed to his scooter, due to which the claimants fell down and received grievous injuries. Basing on the complaint, a case in Crime No.136 of 2002 has

¶23

¶24

been registered against^{the driver of the Car. Immediately after} the accident, the claimant^{was shifted to Government Civil} Hospital, Kamareddy and from^{there to Hyderabad for expertand} specialized treatment, the claimant^{had also taken treatmentin} Tirumala hospital, Nizamabad ald^{incurred an arnount of} Rs.1,50,0OO /- for his treatment. Hence the^{claimant hled claim-} petition against the respondent Nos. I and 2, being^{the owner} and insurer of the said Car.

¶25

Respondent Nos.l and 2 filed counters^{disputing the} manner of accident and also the nature of^{injuries sustainedby} the petitioner and treatment undergone by him.

¶26

Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal^framedthe following issues:

¶27

1 Wlether the pleaded accident had occwred resulting injuies to the petitioner due to^rash and negligent driuing of the motor^{uehicle (Car} bearing registration IVo. AP-25-G-323I)^{bg its} diuer?

¶28

Whetler th.e petttioner is entttled to^ang compensation, if so, at uhat quantum^and tuhat is the liability of^{the respondents?}

¶29

¶30

To tahal relief?

¶31

[n order to provc the case, PW. 1 was examined and Exs.Al to A11 qot rnarkerl on behalf of the petitioner. The Insurance Comprrny has go1 rlarked attested copy of the poticy issued by it for the car ol the 1.t respondent involved in the accident Ex.B1 .got markecl on behalf of the respondents by consent without or:rl evidencr:.

¶32

Considering the oral arLd documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal has ar.r,arded an amount of Rs. 10,000/towards compensation to the claimant along with costs and interest @ 7 .5ol' pcr annum liom the date of filing the petition till realization against the respor.rdcnts jointly ald severally.

¶33

Heard tl-rr: learned r;ounsel for the claimant and the learned Standing Counsel lbr the respondent No.2-lnsurance Company. Perused the material available on record.

¶34

The learned counsel for the claimant has submitted that although the claimant established the fact that the accident occurred due to the rash and n.gligent driving of the driver of the

¶35

t t

¶36

¶37

Car and he sustained^{permanent disabilitydue to the injuries} sustained by him in the^{accident,the Tribunal awarded very} meager amount under^{various heads.}

¶38

Learned Standing Counsel appearing^{for respondent No.2-} Insurance Company has submitted that^{a-fterconsidering the} nature of injuries sustained by the appellant^{and the treatment} undergone by him, the Tribunal has rightly^{awarded the} compensation, which needs no interference by this^Court. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss ttre appea-l.

¶39

The hnding of the Tribunal with regard to the manner in which the accident took place has become final since the^same was not challenged by either of the respondents.

¶40

1S As regard the quantum of compensation concerned, a perusal of the^judgment would show that the appellant mainly relied upon attested copy of the^Wound Certihcate, but the Tribuna,l in Issue No.2 clearly observed that after initia-l treatment in Area hospital, Kamareddy, the appellant was referred to Hyderabd for specialized and expert treatment and took treatment in Tirumala hospital, Nizamabad, but he has

¶41

¶42

not produccd any mcdic:rl rr c:ord from the sairl hospital. Ex.A-7 and Ex.A-S u,erc origrnally rssLrcd in the name ol one Yellaiah and over that name the appellarrL s name was inserted with a different ink pen, so also he filecl Ex.,-9 and Ex.A-10 where the name of Rajaiah was inserted r.r,it h nLanuscript in place of Venkataiah Considering the nature of the injuries sustained by the appellant, the Court belo<sup>/ grantecl Rs. 1O,OOO/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a., as the appellant has not exarnined any Doctor and the documents hled by him were not genuinc. Therefore, this Court hnds no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Court below.

¶43

Accordingly appeal is clismissed. No order as to costs.

¶44

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Motor

¶45

Accidents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal sha-ll stand closed.

¶46

Sd/.N.SRIHARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// (jb

¶47

¶48

SECTION OFFICER

¶49

The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunat (Vl Additional District Judge (FTC), Nizamabad at Kamareddv. 2 One CC to SRI.S.SURENDER REDDY, Advocate IoPUCI 3 One CC to M/s.p.SATYA IVANTUt n, nOvocate IOFUCJ^-' 4 Two CD Copies

I I I

HIGH COURT

DATED:0910612023

JUDGMENT

MACMA.No.1582 of 2008

¶57

(.e s t^r6 (
N8
[us j'a
i ri
u
9
\.*

DISMISSING THE^MACMA

WITHOUT COSTS.

I³²⁰⁸ I

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶62

FRIDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTHREE

¶63

PRESENT

¶64

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

¶65

M.AC.M.A.NO:'l 582 OF 2008

¶66

Between:

¶67

Dandugula Rajaiah, S/o. Venkaiah, aged 30 years, Occ : Stone Cutter and Building Contractor, R/o. Jangampally Village, Bhiknoor Mandla, Nizamabad District.

¶68

...APPELLANT/PETITION ER

¶69

AND

¶70

1.Sri P. Ramchandram, S/o.Not Known, aged major, Owner of the Car bearing No. AP-25-G-3231 R/o. 1-2-36, Sircilla Road, Kamareddy Tq., Nizamabad District.

¶71

2.The New lndia Assurance Company Limited, Kamareddy, Represented by its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Opp: Z.P.Office, Subhashnagar, Nizamabad.

¶72

.....RESPONDENTS/RESPONOENTS

¶73

Appeal Under Section 173 of M.V.Act., against the Order and decree made in O.P.No.246 of 2003 dated 07 -O1-2OOB on the file of the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Vl Additional District Judge (FTC), Nizamabad at Kamareddy.

¶74

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.S.SURENDER REDDY, Advocate for the Appellant and of M/S.P.SATYA MANJULA, Advocate for the Respondent No.2.

¶75

This court dcth order and^{rlecree thatthe decree oi lhe court of the Motor} Accidents claims Tribunal^{(vl ArlditionalDistrict Judge), Fast Trackcourt,} Nizamabad at Kamareddy^{passed in oP.No.246 of 2003 dated 07-01-2008be and} hereby is dismissed^{and thatthere be no order as to costs in this appeal'}

¶76

Sd/-N.SRIHARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// (fo

¶77

SECTION OFFICER

¶78

To 1.The tvlotor Accidents^{Clairns Tribunal(Vl Additional DistrictJudge (FTC)'} Nizamabad al Kamaredd1'.

¶79

2.Two CD Copies SA $-

HIGH COURT

DATED:0910612023

DECREE

MACMA.No.1582 of²⁰⁰⁸

DISMISSING^{THE MACMA}

¶85

WITHOUT^COSTS.

¶86

-.1 ,5

Dandugula Rajaiah, v. Sri P. Ramchandram, (Major)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dandugula Rajaiah, v. Sri P. Ramchandram, (Major)

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

A. Srikanth Vs J. Bal Reddy

Smt Kodali Vineela Vs Smt. Kodali Shobharani

T.S. Mahalaxmi Vs M. Ravindranath

Neeradi Ratna and 2 Ors. Vs Amin Virani and Anr.

Ameena Bai Vs Abdul Satha (died) by LRs

Gandla Nageshwar Rao Vs Gandla Laxmi