Partly allowed

R.Chandrakala v. the Ap State Road Transport Corporation

Telangana HC1 Aug 2023MACMA/1971/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court enhanced compensation awarded in a motor accident case from Rs.40,499 to Rs.80,999, adjusting for medical expenses, income loss, and interest, partly allowing the appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs.40,499 to Rs.80,999 with interest at 7.5% p.a.; respondent directed to deposit the amount.

R.Chandrakala Vs the Ap State Road Transport Corporation — Medical Negligence | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁰⁴ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENIY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶6

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1971 OF 2011

¶7

Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act Against the Order and Decree in O.P.No.187 of 2006 dated 04.02.2009 on the file of the Court of the Special Judge for the Trial of Offences under S.Cs and S.Ts (pOA) Act-cumVl Additional Metropolitan sessions Judge-Additional Metropolitan sessions judge- Additional chairman Motor Accident claims Tribunal-cum- XX Additional Chief Judge, at Secunderabad.

¶8

Between:

¶9

R.ctrandrakala, w/o. R. chandra sekhar, aged about 34 years, occ: speciar in all Type.s of Bindhg, Occ:. Special in aI iyfieJ of arOi"g'G;:ri'irO"IJ.g'lrO Lamination, Frat No.203, Mariasa Apartmentb, warasiguda", secundera'bad. " -'

¶10

AND

¶11

...APPELLANT/PETIT|ONER

¶12

Ilfiiitrta-^{t c.' rep bv its Managing Director, RTC X Roads, Musheerabad,}

¶13

...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT

¶14

Counset for the Appettant: SRt. p GANGA RAMI REDDY

¶15

Counset for the Respondent: SRI THOOM SR|NIVAS, (SC FOR TSRTC) The Court made the following: JUDGMENT

¶16

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO M.A.C.M.A .No.1971 OF 2O11

¶17

JUDGMENT:

¶18

This appeal is filed by the appellant/ petitioner under Section 173 of the Motor^Vehicles Act, aggrieved b1, the Award and decree, dated^{04.02.2009passed} in^{O.P.No.187 of 2006 on the file} of the Special Judge for the trial^{of offencesunderSCs and STs} (PoA) Act-cum-Vl Additional Metropolitan^{SessionsJudge-Addl'} Chairman^{MACT-cum_XX Addl. Chief Judge at Secunderabad,(for} short^{"the Tribunal").}

¶19

For the^{sake of convenience, the partieswill be hereinafter} referred^{to as they are arrayeribeforethe Tribunal'}

¶20

Brief^{factsof the case are that the petitioner filed a claim} petition^{under Sectlons166 :"nd 163-A of the MotorVehicles Act'} 1988,^{claimingcompensation of Rs'1'50'000/- on the account of} injuries^{sustained by her in a motor vehicle accident' It is stated} that^{the petitioneris an expert in all types of Binding' Gold} Embolding^{and Lamination' She was assisting ntt n""0"":^ti:-*} business^{as a specia\ist and the value of her services to tt\e1r} business^{woulcl costs not less ttr4'n Rs 5'OOO/ - per month' While}

¶21

.qre

¶22

Rt,.\ l !lA( N1A No lql I ol:l0l^I

¶23

tire things stood so, on 24.Ol.2CtO6 the petitioner and her rninor son were travelling as pillion riders on her husba,nd,s Her.o Flonda Splendor motorcycle bear.irrg No.Ap-1 IL.-|TOS lrorn Chaderghat towards Amber artd at about 10.Q0 a.m., when they reached near Shalem Church, Golnaka cross-roads, an ApSRTC bus bearing No.AP- 1 12'5159 came in the same direction driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner w-ith high speed dashed their motorcycle. As a result, the petitioner, her son and her husband fell dor,r,n and the motorcycle rvas damaged. Immediately, ali <_,f them were shifted to Osmania Gtrneral Hoslrital, Flyderabad, and subsequently, they were ta-Ken to Vijaya Hospital, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad. Police P.S. Amberper r-egistered a case in Cr.No.24 of 2006 under Section 337 IPC against the driver of said Bus. As sur:h, the petitioner hled the clairn petitiorr.

¶24

4 . Respondent filed a coun,ri denying all the allegations made in the petition

¶25

To prove her case, the petitioner got examined pWs.l to 4 and marked Ex.A I to A7. On beha_lf of the respondent, neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced.

¶26

¶27

-) RRN,] MACVA No l97tot20

¶28

On appreciation of tHe evidence on record, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.40,499 l- to the petitioner under various heads. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, the present appeal is filed by the petitioner.

¶29

7 Heard both sides. Perused the record

¶30

Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner had contended that the Tribunar while awarding the compensation, did not consider the fact that the- petitioner was an expert in all types of Binding, Gold Embolding and Lamination and that she was arso assisting her husband in his business as a speciarist and the value of her services at Rs.5,000 / _ per month. He further contended that the Tribunar .dicr not grant any amount towards loss of income even though the petitioner, after the accident, took six months bed rest for healing of injuries.

¶31

Per contra, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that there is no irregularity in the Award passed by the Tribunal and prayed to dismiss the appeai.

¶32

1 0. There is no dispute u,ith regard to the accident and involvement of both vehicles. While answering issue No.l: Whether the accident has tak.en place d.ue to rash and. negligent

¶33

->,

¶34

¶35

,.+ PjtN I M?\C.l/\ No I9ll 0l ll)1 I

¶36

..1

¶37

d,riuirtg of the APSRTC Bus hetuittq No..Ap-l lZ 5159 b!! its driuer?, the Tribunal elaboratei'7 discussed the issue a.nd came to thc concltrsion that in vierv of Ex.A1-FIR ancl the evidence of direct w'itness PW. 1, it is pr:oved that the accident was on account of rash alrd neglieent driving of the APSRTC Bus bearing No.Ap- I 1Z5159 by its driver. As such, the hnding of the Tribunal that the respondents are liable to pa--v compensation to the petitioner has attained finality.

¶38

1 1. It is observed from the impugned order that the pretitioner got e><amined PW.2/doctor-, who trea,ted l-he petitioner, deposed that the petitioner recei.r,ed injuries in a road traIfic accident; severe bleeding injury on the heiiii, deep cut injury on the back of the scapular region, deep cut il-rJ,:iry on the left elbow, head injurl. causing vertigo headache, and that the petitioner incurred

¶39

Rs.4,499 /- charges. The injuries received by the petitioner is not denied in his cross-examination including expenditure by the respondent. PW.2 issued Ex.A-3 medical prescriptions, and that petitioner received two simple injuries and one head injury. For this, the Tribunal granted Rs.3,000/- each for simple injuries and Rs.20,OOO/- for head injuries. The said amounts are very meagre. Hence, this Court is inclined to enhance the said amounts from

¶40

¶41

)

¶42

RRN.J M,\CMA No l97lof20ll

¶43

{

¶44

Rs.3,OOO/- ro Rs.1O,O00/- and Rs.2O,O00/'to Rs.3O,000/-. Since the petitioner received two simple injuries and one grievous injury, she is entitled to Rs.SO,OOO/- (i.e. Rs. 10,000/- x 2 + Rs.3O,00O/-).

¶45

The petitioner got examined PW.4/ Maid servant, who worked under the petitioner due to an accident receiving of head injury. She deposed that the petitioner would not have been in a position to attend her kitchen work for three months. As such, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 1,000/- per month; total Rs.3,000/-. h is very meagre and this'. Court is inclined to increase the remuneration to the Maidservant from Rs.1,O0O/- to Rs.1,500/-, as such, the petitioner is arvarded Rs.4,SOO/- (i.e. Rs.1,500/-x3 months). The Tribunal rightly awarded Rs.4,499/- towards the purchase of medicines, Rs.S,OOO/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.l,OOO/- towards transportation charges and Rs. l,OOO/towards extra nourishmeri and no need to interfere in the said amounts.

¶46

Insofar as the income of the petitioner is concerned, the petitioner claimed that she was ar1 expert in all tvpes of Binding, Gold Embolding and Lamination and that she was also assisting her husband in his business as a specialist ald the value of her services at Rs.5,000/- per n-ronth. To prove her contention, she

¶47

¶48

I{ri'\l ( \l \ '.'^LL)rl r1 lolL

¶49

(;

¶50

¶51

got examined PW.3, u/ho depo,'j(:d that he worked under the husbald of the petitioner in place of the pctitioner and he used to get Rs.5,OO0/- per month. The Tnburnal observeci that the real person to say about the income of the petitioner is, her husband, but he was not examined by the petitioner and no receipts are filed ernd thercfore, there is no proof that ttre petitioner assisted her husband, as such, the Tribunal did not award amount under the head loss of inconre. However, this Cor-rrt placing reliance of the judgrnent tn Antn Kumar Agarutal Vs. I'Iational Insurance Co. Ltd,l; Kirti us. Orientat h:.surance Compang Ltd.z and Rajendra Singh us. Nationq.T Insurance Compang Ltd.s wherein the question involved w,as r-elated to the fixation of income of housewives in the cases of nrot.,' :iccidents for the purpose of compensation and the Hon'ble Courrt found it appropriate to flx the same at Rs.5,000/-p.m. As such, the pctitioner is arvarded Rs.15,OOO/- (i.e. Rs.5,000/- x 3 montl'rs).

¶52

In all, the petitioner is awarded Rs,8O,999/- (Rs.50,000/+4,500/-+ 4,499/- +5,000/- + 1,000/- + 1,000/- " 15.0o0/-) The Tribunal granted interest on the compensation amount at 60/o p.a. basing on the rate of interest prevailing at that time. Ho^,ever,

¶53

'^{2oro(9) scc 218} , (202 r) 2 SCC r 66

¶54

r (2020) 7 scc 2s6

¶55

¶56

RRN.,' i"l,^CNlA No l97l of20ll

¶57

¶58

this Court is inclined to grant interest Qi1.7.5%o p.a. on the enhanced amount from the date of petition till the date of realization

¶59

Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is allo',r,ed in part by enhancing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.40,499/- to Rs.8O,999/- {Rupees eighty thousand, nine hundred and ninety nine only) with interest at 7.Sok p.a. on the enhanced amount from the date of petition till the date of realization. The respondent shall deposit the said compensation amount together with interes;t and costs after giving due credit to the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of two months from the date of reccipt of a copy of tl'ris judgment. The petitioner is permitted to ri,ithdraw the same. There shall be no ord er as to costs.

¶60

As a sequel of rvhich, miscellaneous petitions, if any,

¶61

pcnd irrg shall stand closed

¶62

ASsEsr{NTo#DG,!t+[ik

¶63

lifr^{#1'#ffi :+,$.,ffi ift f#'H"'"fr ,u:'[.#sF=}

¶64

ASSISTANT^REGITRAR //TRUE^coPY// sEcrtoNgFFlcER

¶65

"''llE,",:i'4#j"qqi:1ffii+;''.3#d.:,;lilff.jl{{ft #:'}xBf i{$}d Sessions^Judge-cur Records^{if any)}

¶66

One CC to SRl. P GANGA RAMI REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRl. THOOM SRINIVAS, SC FOR TSRTC [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies

pr Y1--

HIGH COURT

RRN, J

DATED: 0110812023

E STATF
( (.)- ...
c
o
? $ lilL?' ?'nq
;-./
" r!t' ^.'- , ' '

¶72

AMENDED JUDGMENT MACMA.No.1971 ot 2011

¶73

PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA

¶74

G^l-4** fr,.

¶75

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶76

TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶77

PRESENT

¶78

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶79

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1971 OF 2011

¶80

Between:

¶81

R.Chandrakala, W/o. R. Chandra Sekhar, aged about 34 years, Occ: Special in all Types of Binding, Occ: Special in all Types of Binding Gold Embossing and Lamination, Flat No-203, lvlanasa Apartments, Warasiguda, Secunderabad.

¶82

...APPELLANT/PETITIONER

¶83

AND

¶84

The A.P.S.R.T.C., rep by its t/anaging Director, RTC X Roads, Musheerabad, Hyderabad.

¶85

...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT

¶86

Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act Against the Order and Decree in O.P.No.'187 of 2006 dated 04.02.2009 on the file of the Court of the Special Judge for the Trial of Offences under S.Cs and S.Ts (POA) ActcumVl Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-Additional Metropolitan Sessions judge- Additional Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- XX Additional Chief Judge, at Secunderabad.

¶87

ORDER: This appeal coming on for hearing and upon^perusing the^grounds of appeal, the^judgment and Decree of the Lowe Court and the material^{papers in} the case and upon hearing the arguments of SRI P GANGA RAMI REDDY, Advocate for the Appellant and SRI THOOM SRINIVAS, SC for TSRTC for sole Respondent.

¶88

This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

¶89

1- That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be^{and hereby is} allowed in part by enhancing the compensation awarded^{by the Tribunal} from Rs. 40,4991- to Rs. 80, 9991(Rupees eighty thousand,^{nine hundred}

¶90

and ninety nine only) with interest at 7.5o/o p.a. on the enhanced amount from the date of petition till the date of realization;

¶91

That the respondent shall deposit the said compensation amount together with interest and costs after giving due credit to the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this^judgment;

¶92

That the petitioner be and hereby is permitted to withdraw the same;

¶93

That save as aforesaid, the decree of the Lower court shall stand confirmed in all respects; and

¶94

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

¶95

Sd/. MOHD. ISMAIL ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶96

Note: That the typographical error crept in wrongly reading the date of Order in the decree dated 01/08/2023 and the same has been conected suo motu. This amended decree shall substitute the earlier decree which has already been dispatched on 1910212024.

¶97

Sd/-T.JAYASREE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SEcTIoNIFFIcER

To,

The Additional Chairman, Motor Accidenlcum-Special Sessions Judge for Trial of offences under SCs and STs(POA) Act-cum-Vl Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-XX Additional Chief Judge, Secunderabad.

¶102