Partly allowed

Biswajit Ganguly, Hakimpet, Secunderabad v. a.P.S.R.T.C.,Rep. by Its Gen Manager, Musheerabad, Hyderabad

Telangana HC21 Sept 2023MACMA/1848/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the motor accident civil miscellaneous appeal in part, setting aside the lower court's order that dismissed the claim petition without considering evidence. The court awarded Rs. 26,765/ towards fracture injury and loss of income.

What did the court decide?

Total compensation of Rs. 26,765/- awarded for fracture injury and loss of income with interest at 7.5% p.a.

Biswajit Ganguly, Hakimpet, Secunderabad Vs… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶5

MOToR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1848 OF 2011

¶6

Appeal Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the order and decree in O.P.No.447 of 2002 dated 31 .12.2004 on the file of the Court of the Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Xl Additional Chief Judge (FTC), City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

¶7

Between:

¶8

Biswajit Ganguly, Hakimpet, S/o. Ranjit Ganguly, Employee R/o. Quarter No. B-3, AF Station, Hakimpet, Secunderabad.

¶9

...APPELLANT/PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

Andhra Pradesh Road Transport Corporation, Rep by its MD General Manger A.P.S.R.T.C., RTC Cross Roads, Musheerabad, Hyderabad.

¶12

...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT

¶13

Gounsel for the Appellant: SRl. K. DHANUNJAYA REDOY

¶14

Counsel for the Respondent: SRl. N. PRAVEEN REDDY

¶15

The Court made the following: JUDGMENT

¶16

TIIE HON'BLE^{SRI JUSTICENAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO} M.A.C.^{M.A.No. 1848 of 20lL}

¶17

JUDGM^ENT:

¶18

The aPPellant/ Petitioner^{frledthe Present APPealagainst the} order and^{decreepassed by the XI AdditionalChief Judge' City Civil} Court^{(FTC), Hyderabad, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Court} below')^{in O.P.No'447of 2OO2'dated 31'12'2O04'}

¶19

For convenience,^{the parties will be hereinafter referred to as} they are^{arrayed before the Court below'}

¶20

The brief^{facts of the case are that on 12'08'2OO1' the} petitioner^{was proceedingon his Motorcycle from his quarters of} Navbharath^{P.G'ColIege, Bollaramwhen suddenlyone APSRTCbus} bearing^{No.AP- 1O-Z-8059'driven bY its driver at a highsPeed'} rashly^{and negligentlY dashedthe petitioner's motor cYcle from} behind.^{As a result, the petitionerfell down on the road and} sustained^{a fracture to the shaft of the tibia of the right leg and} grievous injuries^{aII over the body'The petitioner was taken to the} Military^{Hospital,Secunderabad'The Police registered a case in} Cr.No.23^{of 2OO 1 againstthe driver of the bus for the offence}

¶21

RRN,J MACMA_1848 201I

¶22

¶23

punishable under Section 33g of IpC. For the above said accident, the petitioner claimed Rs. 1,00,000/_ towards compensation.

¶24

Before the Court below, the respondent liled a counter_ alfidavit denying all the allegations made in the petition. They contended that the petitioner was proceeding alead of the respondent-bus and he suddenly swerved his vehicle towards the right without showing any signal, and thereafter observed the bus to his back, got confused, lost control of the vehicle, and fell down and sustained injuries. Accordingly, they prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

¶25

After hearing both sides, the Court below dismissed the Op. Challenging the same, the petitioner frled the present appeal.

¶26

t eamed counsel for the petitioner submitted that due to the accident' the petitioner sustained a fracture to the shaft of the tibia of the right leg and grievous injuries all over the body. To proof his claim, X-ray report is frled and marked as Ex.Ag. The Court below, without considering tl.e same, fixed the negligence on the part of the petitioner only' based on the ground that the petitioner himserf

¶27

RRN,J MACMA_1848-2011

¶28

¶29

took a right turn^{without giving any indication to the bus coming} from behind, which caused^{the accident.}

¶30

T.Icarnedcounselforthepetitionerfurthersubmittedthatthe petitioner was admitted^to the^{hospital frorn 26 'L2 '2OOl to} 28.O1.2OO2 for fracture^{treatment, and he was on sick leave frorn} 17.lO.2OOl to^{27.11.2O01and thereby sufferedloss of earningsfor} 42 days due to the^{accident. Ex.A6 is the salary slip of the} petitioner, which shows that he^{draws a salary of Rs'6,765/-per} month, and the Court^{below failed to award any compensation} towards fracture injury^{and loss of earningsand prayedthis Court} to consider and award^{just compensationto the petitioner'}

¶31

Per contra, Iearned^{cor'rnsel for the respondentsubmitted that} the Court below,^{after examining all the material/evidencein detail'} had rightly dismissed^{theOP, and tl-iscourt requires no} interference.

¶32

g. Heard both sides.^{Perusedthe materialavailable on record'}

¶33

On perusal of^{the order of the Court below, dated3t'12'2OO4'} it is apparent that^{thepetitioner was admitted inthe Sainik} Hospital on 26.12.2001 and discharged^{on 28.O1-2OO2'As per}

¶34

RRN,J MACMA_1848_2011

¶35

¶36

Ex'A3 injury certificate, the petitioner has suffered a compound fracture of the tibia (right), which was grievous in nature. However, the Court below, without considering the petitioner claim, erroneously dismissed the entire claim petition without awarding any compensation. Hence, this Court will to grant Rs.2O,0O0/_ (2O,OOO / - x 1) for the facture injury. As per Ex.A6, the petitioner was drawing a sarary of Rs.6,76s/- per month, and due to the accident, he was on sick leave from lZ.IO.2OOt to 2Z.ll.20Ol. This Court grants one month,s salar5r i.e., Rs.6,76S/_ towards loss of income. The amounts arrived at are as follows:

¶37

Fracturernju[ Head	A.Erountarrardedby theTdbunal	At[ou.ntawardedby th.isCourt Rs.20,fl)O/-
onemonth sala l,ossof lncome		lx20 ooo Rs.6,765l-
Total		Rs.26,7651-

¶38

In the result, the Appeat is allowed in part by setting aside the impugned Order dated 31.12.2004, passed in O.p.No.44 7 of 2OO9 on the file of XI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courr (FTC), Hyderabad, and the petitioner is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.26,765/ - (Rupees TVenty Six Thousand Seven Hundred and

¶39

RRN,J MACMA 1848 201 1

¶40

¶41

Sixty Fivel with the intetest @ 7.So/o p.A. from the date of the petition, till the da!9 of realisation. The Respondent is directed to deposit the said compensation arnount along with interest, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this Judgement. On such deposit, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the same. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶42

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, i[ any, shall

¶43

stand closed.

¶44

SD/. A.V.S.^PRASAD ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR . 4/'-,

¶45

//TRUE^COPY//

¶46

SECTION^OFFICER

¶47

To, 1. The^{Chairman, MACT-cum-Xl Additional Chief Judge (FTC)' City Civil Court'} Hvderabad.

¶48

, B'""""#iJsri.^{K. DHANUNJAYA REDDY'Advocate.[oPUC]'} :. 5,#;6^{i; #. ru. pnnvreuREDDY' AdvocateIoPUCI'} 4. Two^{CD CoPies}

ASFYJAK

"k-

HIGH COURT

DATED:211O912O23

JUDGMENT

MACMA.No.1848 ot 2O11

¶55

SlAT E Or
o
q \tr\ 1\1\ D
t1 "A
oo i
t fiF.!? |

¶56

PARTLY ALLOWNG MACMA WITHOUT COSTS

¶57

@ v{

¶58

HIGH COURT^{FOR THE STATEOF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD}

¶59

THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY^{FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^THREE

¶60

PRESENT

¶61

THE HONOURABIE SRI JUSTICENAII/IAVARAPU^RAJESHWARRAO

¶62

MOTOR ACCIDEN T^{CIVIL MISCELLANEOU S APPEAL NO: 18,18 OF 2011}

¶63

Between:

¶64

Biswajit Ganguly, Hakimpet,^{S/o. Ran,iit Ganguly' Employee R/o. Quarter No'B-3'} AF Station, HakimPet, Secunderabad

¶65

...APPELLANT/PETITIONER

¶66

AND

¶67

Andhra Pradesh Road^{Transport Corporation,Repby its MD General Manger} A.P.S.R.T.C., RTC Cross Roads,^{Musheerabad,Hyderabad.}

¶68

...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT

¶69

Appeal Under section 173^{of MotorVehicles Act against the order anddecree} in o.P.No.447 0f 2002^{dated31.',12.20040n the file of the courtof the chairman} Motor Accident claims^{Tribunal-cum-Xl Additionalchief Judge (FTC), City civil} Court, Hyderabad.

¶70

ORDER: This appeal^{coming on for hearing and upon perusingthe groundsof} appeal, the Judgment and^{Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the} case and upon hearing^{the argumentsof Sri. K. DhanunjayaReddy,Advocate for the} Appellant and of Sri.^{N. PraveenReddy,Adovate for the Respondent'}

¶71

This Court doth Order^{and Decree as follows:}

¶72

That the MACMA^{No. 1848of 2011 be and hereby is allowedin partbe setting} asidetheimpugnedOrderdated3l-12.2OO4,passedinO'P'No'447of2009 on the file of Xl Additional^{Chief Judge, City Civil Court (FTC),Hyderabad;}

¶73

That the^{petitioner be and hereby is entitled to a total compensation of} Rs.26'765/.(RupeesTwentySixThousandSevenHundredandSixtyFive)

¶74

with the interest @ 7.5%^{P.A. from the date of the petition,till the date of} realization;

¶75

That the Respondent be and^{herebyis directedto depositthe said} compensation amount alolg wrth^{interest,wrthin a period of two months from} the date of receipt of the copy of this Judgment;

¶76

That on such deposit, the Petitioner be^{and hereby is permiftedto withdrawthe} same; and

¶77

That there be no order as to costsⁱⁿ this^appeal.

¶78

/ffRUE COPY//

¶79

SD/. A.V.S. PRASAD ASSISTANT REGISTRAR V

¶80

SECTION OFFICER

¶81

To,

¶82

The Chairman, MACT+um-Xl Additional Chief Judge^{(FTC), City Civil Court,} Hyderabad.

¶83

Two CD Copies

*\ },ASR/JAK

HIGH COURT

DATED:21109/2023

DECREE

MACMA.No.1848 ot 2011

¶89

PARTLY ALLOWING MACMA WITHOUT^COSTS

¶90

Biswajit Ganguly, Hakimpet, Secunderabad v. a.P.S.R.T.C.,Rep. by Its Gen Manager, Musheerabad, Hyderabad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Biswajit Ganguly, Hakimpet, Secunderabad v. a.P.S.R.T.C.,Rep. by Its Gen Manager, Musheerabad, Hyderabad

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

Baddam Jangamma , Gangamma Vs P. Gopal Reddy and Another

Divya Vs M. Rama Chari and Another

Smt Rabiyaunnisa , Asiya and 3 Others Vs M.E.Sloman Raj and 3 Others

The Icici Lombard General Insurance Co.Ltd Vs K.Narotham Reddy

Bodi Anjaiah and 3 Ors. Vs Ch.Raja Mouli and Anr.

Alala Renuka Vs Liyaqat Ali Khan and Another