Dismissed

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

Telangana HC16 Jun 2023MACMA/1615/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal challenging the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's award of Rs.98,500/- compensation. The Court held there was no reason to interfere with the Tribunal's assessment of income and medical expenses.

What did the court decide?

The Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was dismissed without costs.

The Project Dir, Dist Women and Child Devp Agency… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³²⁰⁶ ]

¶2

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

¶3

FRIDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

¶6

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL^{NO: 1615OF 2008}

¶7

Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the Order and decree in M.A.T.O.P No.883 of 2003, Dated 12-07-2007 on the file of the Court of the Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-lV Additional District Judge, (FTC-Ill), Khammam.

¶8

Between:

¶9

1 .. The Project Director, Women & Child Development Agency, (ICDS) Bala Mahila Pranganam Complex, Tekulapally, Khammam.

¶10

The District Collector, Khammam.

¶11

...PETITIONERS/RESPONDE NTS

¶12

AND

¶13

Bala Bhaskar Rao, Sio. Veeraiah, age 32 years, Occ: Business R/o. Jammibanda Area, Khammam Town & District.

¶14

2- SK. A. Kareem, S/o. Abdul Hameed, Aged 49 years, Occ: Driver in ICDS, R/o. H.No. 1-9-35/2, Bokkalagadda, Nayabazar, Khammam Town and District.

¶15

..,RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS

¶16

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2008(MACMAMP. NO: 3636 OF 2008)

¶17

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 stay all further proceedings including execution^proceedings in MATOP.NO.883 of 03 on the file of the MACT Khammam pending the above MACMA.

¶18

Counsel for the Appellant : GP FOR ARBITRATION Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : SRI M.V.HANUMANTHA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRI KOWTURU PAVAN KUMAR

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE P. SREE SUDHA

¶21

M.A.C.M.A . No.16l5 OF 2OO8

¶22

JUDGMENT:

¶23

This appeal is preferred questioning the award and decree datecl 12.07 .2007 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Khammam (i., short "lribunal,), in M.A.T.O.P. No.883 of 2003 whereby the Tribunal has awarded the compensation of Rs.98,500/- along with interest C@ 7.5o/o per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit payable by the appellants herein, who are respondents 2 and 3 before the Tribunal, as against the compensation of Rs.3,00,0O0/. for the injuries sustained by the claimantrespondent in the accident occurred on 15. 1 1 .2OO 1 .

¶24

Heard and perusecl the material on record.

¶25

The appellants' counsel has mainly contended that

¶26

the income of the claimant was taken as Rs.5,000 /- pe, month u.ithout there being any basis. Learned counsel has stated that PW.3 is working in the said hospital from 2003, but the accident r.r,as occtrrred in the year 2OOI and therefore P. W.3 is not a proper p(,rson to depose abotrt the injuries sustained b_v t he claimant. Learned counsel has further

¶27

¶28

¶29

contended that as^{per Ex.A.3 medicalcertificate, the injuries} sustained^{by the claimantin the accident are simple in nature} and therefore the^{medicalexpenses awarded by the Tribunal} of Rs.50,OO0/-^{for treatment are exorbitant and therefore'the} learned counsel^{requestedthe Court toset aside the} impugned award.

¶30

A perusal of the material^{on record reveals that the} claimant got examined^{PWs2 and 3 on his behalf to establish} the treatment done and^{expenditureincurred'While} cqlculating the quantum of^{compensation,the Tribunalhas} recorded that the claimant^{claimedthat he was earning} Rs.1O,O0O/- per month by doing^{businessas auto consultant'} But in the absence of any documentary^{evidence, the Tribunal} has taken the amount^{of Rs.5,OOO/-per month as reasonable,} which cannot be faulted with.^{As regardsthe evidence of the} doctor (P.W.3), merely^{because he has not treatedthe} petitioner, his evidence cannot^{be disbelieved or brushed} aside since P.W.3 has^{deposedbefore the Court basing on the} evidence available on^record.

¶31

Insofar as the another^{ground raised by the learned} counsel for the appellants^{that the arnount of Rs.50,OO0/-}

¶32

¶33

a\r'arded by the^'lribnnal towards medical expenses is exorbitant rs concerned, the Tribunal, duly considering the medical bi1ls and receipts and the prescriptions submitted by the claimant coupled u,ith the evidence of the doctors, has granted the sum of Rs.50,000/- towards medical expenses and the same does not recluire any interference of this Court in the absence of any colrtra proved by the appellants. Even the rate of interest au,arded by the Tribunal i.e. 7.5h per annum also cannot be said to be on higher side . Thus, viewed from aly angle, this Corrrt does not find any reason to interfere with the impugncd award.

¶34

Accorclinglv, the appeal is dismissed.

¶35

Miscellarreous applir:ations pending, if any, shall stand

¶36

closed. No orcler as to costs

¶37

SD/.K.VENKAIAH ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR

¶38

//TRUE COPY// SECTI FFICER

¶39

To, 1. The Chairman Motor Accident Claims Trib.unal-cum-lv Additional District ' j;;";: GiC-lll). Khammam' (with re.cords if anv)

¶40

1. OndCC to^{Gp FOR nniiitiAirOr.r, Higrr Court firi tne State of Telanganaat} Hvderabad. [OUT]

¶41

s lj'"l"ctiJ dir"n^{r lv. Hn r.r u rvAN T H A RAo, Ad vocateto?^u-ql.} ^. ;. 5;; 6c i; sRi^{xowrunuiAvAN KUMAR, Advocate[oPUC]} 5. Two CD Copies. BSK

HIGH COURT

DATED:1 610612023

JUDGMENT

MACMA.No.1615 of 2008

¶47

$E STAIC:
'c
c
o rt 4 [lJB 2m
":"
f.
\ .'-a-"^,,-f.il

¶48

DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS

¶49

/- \c)

¶50

[³²⁰⁸ ]

¶51

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶52

FRIDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶53

PRESENT

¶54

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

¶55

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANE OUS APPEAL NO: 1615 OF 2008

¶56

Between:

¶57

The Project Directo_r, Women & Child Development Agency, (ICDS) Bala Mahila Pranganam Complex, Tekulapally, Khammam.

¶58

The District Collector, Khammam.

¶59

...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS

¶60

AND

¶61

1., Bala Bhaskar Rao, S/o. Veeraiah, age 32 years, Occ: Business Fl/o. :Jammibanda Area, Khammam Town & District.

¶62

SKI A. Kareem, S/o. Abdul Hameed, Aged 49 years, Occ: Driver in ICDS, R/o. H.No. 1-9-35/2, Bokkalagadda, Nayabalar, Khiammam Town and District.

¶63

...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS

¶64

Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the Order and decree in |M.A.T.O.P No.883 of 2003, Dated 12-07-2007 on the file of the court of the chairman Motor Accident claims Tribunal-cum-lV Additional District Judge, (FTC-lll), Khammam.

¶65

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 Government pleader for Arbitration, for the Appellant and of Sri M.V.Hanumantha Rao, Advocate for the Respondent No_1 and of Sri Kowturu Pavan Kumar, Advocate for the Respondent No.2.

¶66

This Court doth Order and Decree as follows :

¶67

'1 . That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is dismissed; and

¶68

That there be no order as to costs in this appeal

¶69

SD/.K.VENKAIAH ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY//

¶70

SECTI OFFICER

¶71

To,

¶72

The Chairman [,4otor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-lV Additional District Judge, (FTC-Ill), Khammam. (With records if any).

¶73

Two CD Copies BSK

HIGH COURT

DATED:1 610612023

DECREE

MACMA.No.1615 of 2008

¶78

DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS

¶79

g6'h
(5'

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Rathod Ganesh , Ganu Vs the State of A.P.

M/S. Pooja Corporation Vs M/S. Parameshwari Dall Mill and 2 Others

Mr.Mirza Saleem Baig Vs Smt.Sabira Begum

Kum Panden Bagya Vs K. Ganesh and Anr.

Suddala Parsharamulu Vs Nerella Kankaiah and 2 Ors.

Syed Meer , Syed Ameer Vs Abdul Waheed and Another