Partly allowed

Rapani Ramulamma v. Shaik Mahaboob (Age Major)

Telangana HC6 Nov 2023MACMA/1838/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, the High Court held that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal was insufficient. The court enhanced the award to include specific heads for pain and suffering and extra nourishment.

What did the court decide?

Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal partly allowed; compensation enhanced from Rs. 3,000 to Rs. 15,000 with interest at 7.5% per annum.

Rapani Ramulamma Vs Shaik Mahaboob (Age Major) — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

MONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER . TWOTHOUSANDANDTWENTYTHREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

¶6

MOTOR ACCIDE CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1838 OF 2007

¶7

Appeal Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the ord€r and decree in M.V.O.P.No.904 of 2OOO dated 04-07-2005 on the fite of the Court of the Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -cum- V Additional Judgre, Nizamabad.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Rapani Ramulamma, Wo Siddaiah Oddera, R/o Gundaram Village, Nizamabad District

¶10

...AppellanUPetitioner

¶11

AND

¶12

Shaik Mahaboob (Age- Major), S/o. Thaher, Occ- Owner of Auto R/o 11-180/1 15, Kanteshwar, Nizamabad District

¶13

2 The National lnsurance Co Ltd, Rep. by its Branch Manager R/o 5-8-799/2, Jawahar Road, Nizamabad District

¶14

(Rl dismissed for vide court order dated 08-07-2016)

¶15

...Respondents

¶16

Counsel for the Appellant: Smt. K. SARALA MAHENDER REDDY

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: None Appeared

¶18

The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

¶19

¶20

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T{AGESH BHEEMAPAKA

¶21

.A.C.M.A. o.1a3a 2007

¶22

JUDGMENT:

¶23

This appeal is filed by the appellant_claimant aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated O4.O7.2OOS passed in O.p.No.9O4 of 2OO5 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribuna_l_Cum-V Additional District Judge at Nizamabad (for short, the Tribuna_t).

¶24

The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is resident of Dubba Colony of Gundaram village of Nizamabad district, she was earning Rs.2,500/- per month from her profession as oddera, while son on 2 I.O4.2OOO during night hours she was travelling in the crime auto bearing No.Ap-25-T-635S, when the accident took place on the way near Dairy Farm situated at a distance of 2 kilometers from the P. S.Traffrc Nizamabad, the auto driver has driven it rashly ald negligently causing the accident, as such police registered F.l.R. In ttre said accident she sustained fractures to her right hand and multiple injuries all over the body. Immediately, she was admitted in Government Hospital, Nizamabad as in-patient alld discharged on 26.04.2000. Because of the injuries she is unable to do work. The appeltant filed aforesaid Op against respondent Nos.1 and 2, owner and insurer of the auto, claiming compensation of Rs. 1, 1O,OOO/ - for the injuries sustained by the appellant.

¶25

Before the Tribunal, respondent Nos.I and 2 frled counter denying the averments of the claim petition and contended that the

)

r<br>

arnount claimed is excessive^{and prayed to dismissthe claim} petition.

¶30

After considering ttre oral and^{documentary evidence on} record, the Tribunal came^{to the conclusion that the accident} occurred due to the rash and^{negligent drivingof the driver of the} auto and awarded tota.l compensation^{of Rs.3,OOO/- with interest} @ 9%o per arrnum. Dissatisfred^{with the quantum of compensation,} the appeIant filed the^{present apPea.l,seekingenhancemeat of the} same.

¶31

Heard and Perused the record-

¶32

Basing on the evidence in^{t]1e record, this Court feels thatt}Ie} amount of Rs.3,OOO/-^{granted by the Tribunaltowardsone sirnple} injury on all counts is on^{lower side and holds not good.Moreover,} no amount was^{granted towards pain and suffering, extra} nourishment and transportation^{by the Tribunal. It is case of the} appellant that she sustained^{injury in the motor vehicleaccident,} admitted in Govemment^{Hospitalfor treatment and on examining} her doctor opined that ttre^{injury sustainedby the appellantis} simple in natur€. Be^{that as it may be, let it a single or multiple} injuries, the learned tribunal^{ought tohavegrantedthe} compensation on different^{counts to the extent requiredon} analyzing the facts and circumstances^{of the case, but inthe} present case, the learned tribunal erred^{in doing so. Therefore, in} view of the one shrrple injury^{sustained by appellant,t]:Ie amountof} Rs.3,OOO/- granted by the^{tribunal is enhanced to Rs.10,0OO/-'}

¶33

Further, in view of undergoing treatment for the alleged injury the appellant would had taken a special diet and had undergone reasonable amount of pain and suffering, as such the appellant is awarded an amount of Rs.2,5O0/- each under the head of Extranourishment ard Rs.2,SOO/- under the head of pain and suffering.

¶34

7 . In the result, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed, enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the Tribuna.l from Rs.3,OOO/- to Rs.ls,OOO/-. The enhalced amount shall carry interest @ 7 -5o/o per €rnnum from the date of claim petition till realizaLion.

¶35

Miscellareous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.

¶36

)

¶37

Sd/. V. HARI PRASAD ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Chairman Motor Accident Claims^Tribunal -cum-^{V AdditionalJudge'} Nizamabad.

¶42

One CC to Sri. K. SARALA MAHENDER^{REDDY, Advocate} [OPUC]

¶43

One CC to Sri. V.^{VENKATA RAMI REDDY, Advocate} [OPUC]

¶44

Two CD Copies

¶45

PSR ,w-

?i,

l {

HIGH COURT

DATED:0611112023

JUDGMENT

1HE SIA r
tt
T
c ililB 202 4
(J t I
:2
* .l)r'.-...., ,

¶53

MACMA.No.1838 of 2007

¶54

PARTLY ALLOWING THE M.A.C.M.A.

¶55

CI$vo}'v'

¶56

¶57

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

¶58

MONDAY, THE SIXTH^{DAY OF NOVEMBER} TWO THOUSAND^{ANDTWENTYTHREE}

¶59

PRESENT

¶60

THE HONOURABLE^SRI JUSTrcE^{NAGESHBHEEMAPAKA}

¶61

MOTOR ACCI DENT CIVIL^{MISCELLANEOU S APPEAL NO: 1838 OF 2007}

¶62

Between:

¶63

Rapani Ramulamrna,^{W/o. SiddaiahOddera, Ryo GundaramVillage,} Nizamabad District

¶64

...APPellanUPetitioner

¶65

AND

¶66

'1. Shaik Mahaboob (Age- Major), S/o. Thaher, Occ- Owner of AutoRyoll-180/1 15, Kanteshwar,^{Nizamabad District}

¶67

The National lnsurance^{Co Ltd, Rep. by its Branch ManagerRyo 5-8-799/2,} Jawahar Road, Nizamabad^District

¶68

(Rl dismissed for vide court order dated^08-07-2016)

¶69

...Respondents

¶70

Appeal Under section¹⁷³ of^{Motorvehicles Actagainstthe order and decree in} M.V.O.P.No.9o4 0f 2000^{dated 04-07-2005 0n the file of the court of the chairman} Motor Accident Claims^Tribunal -cum-^{V Additional Judge, Nizamabad'}

¶71

ORDER: The appeal coming^{on for hearingand upon perusingthe groundsof} appeal, the Judgment and^{Decreeof the LowerCourt andthe material papersin} the cas€ and upon hearing^{the argumentsof Smt. K. SARALAMAHENDER} REDDY, Advocate for the and^{for the Respondent No.2 None Appearedeither in} person or by Advocate.

¶72

This Court doth Order and Decree as^follows:

¶73

That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous^{Appealbe and hereby is partly} allowed, enhancing the Compensation^{amount awarded by the Tribunal from} Rs.3000^ to Rs.1 5,000/-

¶74

The enhanced amount^{shallcarry interest} @7.5%^{per annumfrom the date of} Claim Petition till the realization.

¶75

That save as aforesaid, the^{decreeof the LowerCourt shallstands}

¶76

confirmed in all other respects;^and

¶77

That there be no order as^{to costs in this appeal}

¶78

Sd/. V. HARI PRASAT) ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶79

SECTION OFFICER

¶80

To,

¶81

The Chairman Motor Accident^{Claims Tribunal --cum-V Additional Judge,} Nizamabad.

¶82

Two CD Copies

PSR

c\k

HIGH COURT

DATED:0611112023

DECREE

MACMA.No.1838 of²⁰⁰⁷

PARTLY ALLOWING^{THE M.A.C.M.A.}

¶92

S**

Rapani Ramulamma v. Shaik Mahaboob (Age Major)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rapani Ramulamma v. Shaik Mahaboob (Age 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

Devender Goud, S/o Narsaiah Goud Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

Ishak Khan, Vs The State of Telangana

Merugu Ramesh and Anr. Vs Mohd. Hyder and 3 Ors.

M. Bal Singh Died per Lr Vs Apsrtc, Hyderabad and Another

M/S.United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sri Ravula Laxmaiah and Anr.

Jadhav Sitharam Vs The Project officer, Itda Utnoor