Partly allowed

P Rajendra Prasad v. Alka Deshmukh

Telangana HC25 Jul 2023MACMA/1750/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A civil miscellaneous appeal filed under the Motor Vehicles Act challenging the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The High Court held that while the specific disability percentage was mild, the applicant's occupation necessitated compensation for hearing aids. The compensation was enhanced.

What did the court decide?

The compensation amount was enhanced from Rs. 1,79,000 to Rs. 3,79,000, with proportionate costs and interest at 9% per annum.

P Rajendra Prasad Vs Alka Deshmukh — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³²⁵⁸ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU

¶6

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISC ELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1750 OF 2018

¶7

Appeal filed under section 173 of M.V. Act aggrieved by the^judgment and decree dated 30th day of August, 2017^passed in MVOP No.¹ 988 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-Xl Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad

¶8

Between:

¶9

P. Rajendra Prasad, S/o Late Lakshminarayana Age - 35^years, Occu^- Videographer HIG-1, Phase-lV, KPHB Colony Kukatpally, Hyderabad - 72.

¶10

...APPELLANT/PETITION ER

¶11

AND

¶12

Alka Deshmukh, W/o M. Deshmukh Age - Major, Occu - Business 3-5-83112, P.No.302 Mithila Apartments, Vivekanandanagar Kukatpally,.Hyderabad 7 2

¶13

National lnsurance Co Ltd., Rep by Sr DO, 1st Floor, Jublee Bldg, Nampally Stn Rd, Nampally, Hyderabad

¶14

..,RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶15

Counsel for the Appellant: SMT. B ROJA RAMANI

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent No. 1: NONE APPEARED

¶17

Gounsel for the Respondent No. 2:. SRI A. VEERA SWAMY

¶18

The Court made the following: JUDGMENT

¶19

f;7

¶20

THE HON'BLE^{SRI JUSTICESAIIIBASIVA RAO NAIDU} M.A.c.M.^{A.No.1750 oF 2018}

¶21

JUDGMENT:

¶22

Being^{aggrieved by the order dated 30'082017 passedin} M.V.O.P.No.19^{88 of 2012 on the fi1': of the MotorAccidents} Clairns Tribunal^{Cum XI Additionat Chief Judge'City Civil} Court, at^{Hyderabad, rvhereunder, thr: learnedChairman'Motor} AccidentsClaimsTribunal,Hyderabad(forshorr'M-A'CT1 awardedaSumofRs.l,Tg,Oo0/-togctherwitlrproportionate costs and^{interest at the rate of 9o/o pet annum from the date of} petition i.e.,26.O9.2012^{itll the date of actual deposit'against} hisclaimforRs.5,00,oCCi-,thepelitionerinthesaidpetitiori filed this^aPPeal.

¶23

The appellant/^{pctrtionerin M V O P'No 1988of 2072 filed} this appeal^{underSection 173 of tee Motor VehicleAct' 1988} (for short^{'M.V. Act) and sough for enhancementof the} compensation^{under various heads As could be seen from the} order impugned^{in the present appeal'the appellant/ petitioner} hled the^{saidM.V.().P.,against re';pondent Nos land 2' ltis} assertedthatonl3.l2.2o|lwhiletheappellanthereinwas proceeding^{on a motor bike near Prerna Hospital' Kukatpally'} the respondent^{No.1 rt'asriding an<>ther bikc who rvas comingin}

¶24

¶25

¶26

2 MACMA No.175O^{oJ 2O18}

¶27

the opposite direction^{at a high speed in a rash and negligent} manner and dashed the^{bike of the appellant herein, thereby,he} fell down and suffered^{grievousinjuries. He was immediately} shifted to the^{RemedyHospital, Kukatpally,where he was} treated as inpatient^{till 17 .12.2011 . Even after discharge,he} has undergone^{some treatment as an outpatient for six (6)} months. The appellant^{herein has claimed that due to the said} accident, his hearing^{efhciency of left ear was badly affectedand} he suffered pain and^{disability.Therefore,he prayedfor an} Award against the^{respondentNo.1 i.e., he being the riderof the} bike, and respondent^{No.2being the Insurance Company from} which the respondent^{No.1 obtained the policy against the bike'} Both the respondents^{haveappeared before the Tribunal, filed} their respective^{counters, based on which the Tribunalframed} three (3) issues,^{as follows:}

¶28

1 . Whether ttrc^{pteaded accident ocanrredresulting tn} injuies to the^{petitioner;P.RajendroPrasad,due} to his inuoluement in a^{motor uehicle accident} inuoluing the Motor^{Cgcle beaing No'AP 28CE} 9424, tahile it was^{in use in a public place?}

¶29

Whether the petitioner^{isentitled toanA} compensation and., if^{so, at Luhat quantumand} tohat is the liabilitg of the^respondents?

IbIACMA No.1750^{of 2018}

¶34

3. To uhat relief

¶35

During the enquiry,^{the appellantherein was examinedas} PW.1 and three^{more u'itnesscsw':re examinedapart from} marking Ex.Al to Ex.A21.^{The respondentNo'1 wasexamined} as RW.l and^{the coplrof the insurance policy wasmarkedas} Ex.B1. The Chairman,^{M.A.C.T.,having considered the oral and} documentary evidence^{and after hearingboth the parties,} passed the order dated^{30.O8.2017gratingasumof} Rs. 1,79,00O/- under^{various heads.}

¶36

The appellant herein^{has filed lhe present appeal on the} ground that without appreciating 'he^{oral and documentary} evidence, the Tribunal^{committedu'rong and grantedless} compensation. The appellant^{has claimedthat takinginto} consideratron the documents^{marked as Ex'A10 to Ex A16and} Ex.A19 to trx.A21,^{and the evidence of PW.4 whichproved that} the appellant suffered^{57o permanentdisability and he cannot} regain the complete^{hearingof th': Ieft ear, the Court below} ought to have^{grantedcompensation as sought for inthe} M.V.O.P.No.19 88 of 2012.^{He hasa. so claimed that the accident} has caused him^{grave pain andrsufferingand mentalagony} rvhich caused hindrance in^{discharging his official duties,}

¶37

) \

¶38

¶39

MACMA No.1750^{oJ 2O18}

¶40

I I . i I I I I

¶41

thereby, sought^{forenhancement of theamount of} compensation

¶42

Heard both sides

¶43

Now the point for consideration^{in this appealis whether} the Court below is^{wrong inawarding anamount of} Rs. 1,79,000/- against^{the claimof Rs 5,00,000/-,if so, whether} the compensation^{canbe enhanced, and to what extent'}

¶44

Before adverting^{to the groundsof the appeal and other} material placed^{before the Court, it is appropriate to makea} mention about the^{very recentjudgmentof the Hon'blethe Apex} Court in Sidram^{Vs. Divisional Manager, UnitedIndia} Insurance Company^{Limited and Anotherl whereunder'the} Hon'ble The Apex^{Court was pleased to observetha| "the} process of detennining^{the compensationby the Courtsis} essentiollg a^{uery dfficult tosk ond can neuer be an exact} science. Perfect^{compensation is hardlg possible, more so in} claims of injury^{and' disability.Moneg cannot reneu) a phgsicol} frame^{that has been batteredTLrcprincipleconsistentlgfollowed} in assessing motor uehicle^{compensation claims,is to place the} uictim in o-s neor a^position os^{she or he tuas in beforethe}

¶45

| 12023) 3 SCC 439

¶46

¶47

MACMA No.1750^{of 2078}

¶48

accident, uith^{other compensatoryd-irectionsfor loss of amenities} and other^poYments"

¶49

There is no^{much dispute aboltt the manner of accident} and injuries^{causedto the appellanthereinEven accordingto} the oral evidence^{of RW. I and other material piaced beforethe} Court, it is^{very clear that on13'722071 the appellant} succumbed to^{multiple injurieswherLthe bike of RW' 1 dashed} his bike and^{he fell on the ground, I'esultingin permanent 5%o} disabiliry of left^{ear. As couldbe seen from the evidence of ENT} Doctor n'ho^{n'as examined as PW'4i[ is very clear that lhe loss} of hearing of^{the appellant is mild as it is belou' 407o audiogram} and the chances^{of regaining hearingin the left ear are ni['}

¶50

g. Learned counsel^{representingthe respondents before the} Tribunal argued^{that though the apuellant suffered disabilityin} the left ear, it^{is only57o whichis trivial and canbe correctedby} using a hearing^aid.

¶51

At this stage,^{the most impcrtantaspectto be noted is} that apart from other^{businesses the appellant herein is a} videographer and^{whileassessirtgthe compensation,the} Tribunal took^{cognizance of tht: statement made by the} appellant in the^{affrdavit that due t': the accident he was unable}

¶52

I I

¶53

¶54

MACMA No.775O of 2018

¶55

¶56

to attend to his duties for two^{(2) months and awarded a sum of} Rs.S0,OOO/ - towards loss of earnings^{which was accordingto} his own assessment. Apart^{from the said amount, the Tribunal} has also awarded Rs.47,000/-^{towards medical expenses based} on the medical certificates^{and bills(Ex.AS to Ex.A7 and Ex.A25} and a sum of Rs.20,000/-^{underthe head of pain and} sufferings.

¶57

According to^{the oral and documentary evidence placed} on record on behalf^{of appellant herein,it is seen that he was} treated as inpatient^{only for four (4) days and the accident took} place on 13.12.2011 and^{he was dischargedfrom the hospital} on 17.12.2011. However,^{if the evidenceof the MedicalOfficers} i.e., PW.2 to PW.4 is^{considered, the chancesof appellant} regaining complete^{hearing in the left ear was certifiedas nil} and the disability^{was considered as 57o. It may be true that} such a mild difficulty^{can be corrected by use of a hearingaid} but in the Iight of^{the observations referredabovein Sidram} (supra) only because of the accident^{the appellant is forced to} use hearing aid, more^{particularly,in view of his occupationas} a videographer, the^{reasonableand sufficientcompensation} need be awarded for^{suchdifhcul$. Therefore,if the appellantis} required to purchase a^{hearing aid itcosts not Iess than}

¶58

¶59

¶60

MACMA No.175O^{of 2ola}

¶61

! !

¶62

I I

¶63

Rs.20,OO0/-, the Tribunal^{ought trl have awardedspecific} amount for purchasing^{the hearingairl'}

¶64

Learned counsel^{for the appellrlnt has submittedthatin} the light of the evidence^{of PW.4that the appellant suffered5%} disability and in view^{of his monthly 'ncome,age, etcetera,he is} entitled to claim compensation^{at the rate of Rs.2,4O,O00/-.}

¶65

However, it^{is very clear from the evidenceol PW 4 that} the clifficulty in hearing^{is mild trased on the examination} conducted by him. Therefore,^{the s?.me cannot be treated as a} permanent disability which^{warrantsiawarding of compensation} by using the multiplier^{based on his age.However, in the lightof} evidence ol all the witnesses^{u'hich is not seriouslychallenged} by the respondents, the^{fact remainri that the appellantsuffered} 5% disability, and damage^{to the p€ rmanent hearing of left ear'} Therefore, the appellant^{is entitled to an amount of Rs.25,OO0/-} for purchasing a^{perfect hearingaid and a sum of Rs.1,75,OO0/-} towards compensation for^{loss causedto him. Therefore, in} addition to the amount alreadl'^{awarded by the Court below,the} appellant is entitled to another^{amountof Rs.2,O0,0O0/-as} directed atlove.

¶66

With these obsen'ations,^{the M.A.C.M.A.,is partly allowed} and the compensation amount^{is e,nhancedfromRs.1,79,OO0/-}

¶67

¶68

IACMA No.1750 of 2018

¶69

¶70

to Rs.3,79,000/- together^{with proportionate costs and interest}

¶71

at the rate ol^9o/o Per^annum.

¶72

As a sequel,^{pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any,}

¶73

shall stand closed

¶74

Sd/- MOHD. SANAULLAH ANSARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-Xl Additionat Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad (with records)

¶80

One CC to SMT. B. ROJA RAMANI, Advocate [OpUC]

¶81

One CC to SRl. A. VEERA SWAMY, Advocate [OpUC1

¶82

Two CD Copies

? VH

0 i

HIGH COURT

DATED: 2510712023

DECREE

1 $E ),.
q
iclaJ 31 [[T ?1?3 i
-.\ ,'.

¶89

MACMA.No.1750 of 2018

¶90

PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA

¶91

M 6'"

¶92

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶93

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶94

PRESENT

¶95

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU

¶96

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLAN EOUS APPEAL NO: 1750 OF 2018

¶97

Between:

¶98

P. Rajendra Prasad, S/o Late Lakshminarayana Age - 35 years, Occu - Videographer HIG-1 , Phase-lV, KPHB Colony Kukatpally, Hyderabad - 72.

¶99

...APPELLANT/PETITIONER

¶100

ANO

¶101

Alka Deshmukh, Wo tvl. Deshmukh Age - Major, Occu - Business 3-5-83112, P,No.302 Mithila Apartments, Vivekanandanagar Kukatpally, Hydercbad 72

¶102

National lnsurance Co Ltd., Rep by Sr DO, 1st Floor, Jublee Bldg, Nampally Stn Rd, Nampally, Hyderabad

¶103

...RESPON DENTS/RESPON DENTS

¶104

Appeal filed under section 173 of M.V.Act aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 30th day of August, 20'17 passed in MVOP No. 1988 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-Xl Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad

¶105

These appeals 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 AMT- B. ROJA RAMANI, Advocate for the Appellant, None Appeared for Respondent No.1 and SRl. A. VEERA SWAMY, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2.

¶106

This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

¶107

That the appeal is partly allowed and the compensation amount is enhanced from Rs. 1,79,000/- to Rs. 3,79,000/- together with proportionate costs and rnterest at the rate of 9% per annum;

¶108

¶109

That save as aforesaid, the decree of ther lower court shall stands confirmed in all other respect; and

¶110

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

¶111

Sd/. MOHD. SANAULLAH ANSARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR q

¶112

//TRUE COP\Z

¶113

SECTION OFFICER

¶114

To, 1. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-Xl Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad

¶115

1. Two CD Copies

I t

HIGH COURT

DATED: 2510712023

JUDGMENT

MACMA.No.1750 of 2018

¶122

PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA

¶123

(, 'to* G

P Rajendra Prasad v. Alka Deshmukh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P Rajendra Prasad v. Alka Deshmukh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bandaru Jagan Mohan Reddy Vs Beeram Ranga Reddy

Saroja, Mahabubnagar Dist and 3 Others Vs Sujatha, Mahabubnagar Dist and 3 Others

Panganti Laxmi Narasimha Vs Kalakonda Srinivasulu

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Shaik Raheem

R Hari Prasad Vs Avula Pedda Obulesu

P.Manikya Vs Eslavath Chander