The High Court allowed the appellant's appeal, holding that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal erred in awarding inadequate compensation. The Court enhanced the compensation amount from Rs. 4,36,000 to Rs. 6,41,000 due to the appellant's 35% disability and insufficient loss of income award.
The compensation amount is enhanced from Rs. 4,36,000 to Rs. 6,41,000.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[3258 ]
\
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OFTELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY SEVENTHDAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW THREE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVARAONAIDU
MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCEL LANEOUSAPPEAL NO: 177 OF 2011
Appeal Under Section 173 of MotorVehicles Act against the order and decree in OP No.'1934/2008 dated 20.04.2010on the file of the Court of the Motor Accident claims Tribunal cumXXll Additional chief Judgecum vlll Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, City CriminalCourts,at Hyderabad.
Between:
Ejaz Palel, Sto.Aziz Patel, Occ: Business,Fl/o.H.No.7-1-321N'1211 'Leela Nagar' Ameerpet, Hyderabad.
...APPELLANT
AND
...RESPONDENTS
Counsel for the Appellant:SRl.T. RAMCHANDER RAO
Counsel for the Respondents:Mr. V. KRISHNA RAO
The Court made the following:
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU
M.A.C.M.A. No.177 OF 2Ol1
JUDGMENT:
The appellant herein is thc: petitioner in O.p.No.1934 of 2OO8 on the file of the XXll Addirionat Chief Judge-Cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, City Oriminal Court, at Hyderabad (for short 'the Tribu.ral'). This appcal is liled under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short,M.V. Act,) assailing the Aq'ard dated '2O.O4.2OlO r,,,hereunder, Lhe Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs. +,36,0O0/- undcr varions heads together with costs and in terest
'1t:
2 MACMANo.177oJ 2O11
considerthe fact that thc above said Disability Cerl-iltcatcwas issuedby the MedicalBoard' Osmania GeneralHospital and has simplyheldthatthedisabiiitymaynotbehavinganyimpacton the lifestyleof the appellantsincehe is a cloth merchant who can earn hugeincomeby engaging employees'without there being any necessityto lift the cloth bundles manually The appellant furtherpleadedthattheTribunalfailedtoappreciateEx.A9-the bunchofincometaxreturns,whichspecifiedtheactualincome of appellantand contended that without consideringthe entries in Ex.A9,the Tribunal wrongly considered the income of the It is alsothe case of as Rs.4,000/- Permonth appellant that theAward oI the Tribunat waspassed on appellant assumptionsand presumptionssince the oral evidenceof PW 1 and thedocumentsmarked as Ex'A1 toEx'A9 were not considered.
3.Ascanbeseenfromtheimpugnedjudgment,itappears thatthe appellantherein filedO P No'1934 of 2OO8underthe Section163AoftheM.V.ActclaimingasumofRs.8,O0,000/-for the injuriescausedon account of a roadaccidentthht occurred on 16.02.2OO8According to the petition filed beforethe Tribunal' it wasalleged that on the abovereferred date the appellantwas going ona motor bike from Begumpetlowards Basheerbaghand
3
MACMA No.777 of 2O11
when he reached near Union Bank, Lakdikapool, the driver of a pnvate bus bc:aring No.Apl6TX30O4 drove the bus rn a high speed in a rash and negligent manner arrd dashed the bike ol the appellan t due to which he lell down and suffered multiple injuries. He was immediately shifLed to Global Hospital, Lakdikapool and underwent surgeries and spent huge amounts for the said surgeries and medical aid.
4
MACMA No.177oJ 2O11
B. The respondentsdid not choose to file any crossappeal disputingthe compensation awardedby the TribunalAccording to the findingsrecorded by the Tribunal' the Tribunalaccepted the claim ofthe appellantthat due to the rash and negligent driving bythe driverof a privatebus' the appellantsuccumbedto muttiple injuriesand was hospitalized According to the evidence produced by theappellant and thc evidenceof PW'2 and PW'4' it
-.i-".E
,,| I
J
MACMA No.177 of 2O17
is very clear that the appellant suffe:ed inter condylar right humerous lracture of right hip joint, fracture of right superior and inferior ramusr extra peritoneal and urethral rupture, besides other injuries,
9 . The me:dical record filed on beha lf of the appellant clearly indicatcs that he nas treated as inpa_ient from 17.02.2008 to O3.O3.20O8. Ex.A3 is the Medrco Legal Record and Ex.A4 is the discharge sunrmary issued by the Glotral Hospital. Ex.AS is the discharge summarl/ issucd by Sri ).Sanjiv patels, Urologr Ccnter, Ilajkrrt. The oral cvidence of PW.2 and pW.4 r,,,as corroborated by the certificates marke,l as Ex.A3 to Ex.AS. The Tribunal htrving accepLed the evidence of all the four witnesses and gcnuineness o[ the medical re(rord, awarded a sum of Rs.45,000/ - undcr the head of pair and suffering ancl also awarded Rs.5,000/- under the head of loss of future amenities of life.
6
MACMANo- 177oJ 2O1 1
,1.-
\
employees, withoutthere being any necessityto lift the cloth bundles manually.It is noticed that the cvidence of PW 2 and PW.4 categoricallyshows that the appellant suffered 357o disability inview of the grievousinjuriescausedto him and that no compensationwas awardedby the Tribunal for such injuries and only asum of Rs'50,000/-was awarded towardspain and sufferingand ioss to future amenities lt is further noticed that even thoughthe Tribunalobservedthat the appellant can earn huge incomebYengagingemployees,whileconsidering the mo nthly lncome of appcllantas Rs 4,OOO/ -per month' Lhe 'l'ribunal awarded asum ofRs 16,000/-ascompensatlon towardsthetreatmentundergonebyhimforaperiodoffour months
1 1. The respondentsdid not placeon recordany material against theabovestated findings i e 'the professionof the appetlantand the loss of incomeassessed by the Tribunal as Rs.16,000/-whichis a meageramount
7
MACMA No.177 of 2O11
very lcss amount iI'the evidcnce of PW.2 and PW.4 are considered stating that the appellant suffered 35% disability. Moreover, even if the age of zLppellant is considered a.s 50 years, he is still entitled to claim compensation based on the income by applying the relevarnt mlLltiplier. ln vieu, thereof, th.e appellant is entitled to some more arnount towards compensation for injuries.
As a sequel, per-rding Miscellaneous r\pplications, if any, shall
stand closed.
//TRUE COPY//
Sd/- B. SARASWATHI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Gp SECTION OFFICER
To,
Cof4-
\ 3. One CC to SRl. V. KRISHNA RAO, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies
DL b VH
I
r
/l
HIGH COURT
DATED:2710712023
JUDGMENT
MACMA.No.'177 of 2011
.,'.:- : :,l q;,. '.,..
- c,. i..
.'. , '<br>, ,,'
2 i i'i 2fl1 :i
!
PARTLY ALLOWING THE M.A.C.M.A
@cesl€' M....--161tqaa
[32s8 ]
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TEI-ANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THURSDAY,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU
MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCEL NEO US APPEAL NO: 177 OF 2011
Between:
Ejaz Patel, Slo.Aziz Patel, Occ: Business, Ri.io.H.No.7-1-321N1211 , Leela Nagar, Ameerpet, Hyderabad.
...APPELLANT
AND
...RESPONDENTS
Appeal Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the order and decree in OP No.1934/2008 dated 20.04.2010 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum XXll Additional Chief Judge cum Vlll Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, City Criminal Courts,at Hyderabad.
ORDER: This appeal coming on for hearing and uponperusing thegrounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the materialpapersin the case and upon hearing the arguments of SRl. T. RAMCHANDER RAO, Advocate for the Appellant and of Mr. V. KRISHNA RAO Advocatefor the Respondent.
I ,l
This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:
To
//TRUE COPY//
Sd/. B. SARASWATHI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR qD seciior,r oFFtcER
g
n
HIGH COURT
DATED:2710712023
DECREE
MACMA.No.177 of 2011
PARTLY ALLOWING THE M.A.C,M.A
ffi*,
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal committed error by awarding less compensation than claimed?
Whether the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal can be enhanced by this Court?
Whether loss of income and future amenities compensation are adequate given the 35% disability found?
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Ejaz Palel
K. Srinivas
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited
Sri Justice Sambasivarao Naidu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
