Partly allowed

Smt. Gadda Badhramma v. Bommidi Balaiah

Telangana HC1 Nov 2023MACMA/2208/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, enhancing the Tribunal's compensation award from Rs. 45,000 to Rs. 1,04,500 based on medical evidence, age, occupation, and final expenses, with interest at 7.5% per annum.

What did the court decide?

The compensation awarded by the Tribunal was enhanced from Rs. 45,000 to Rs. 1,04,500, carrying interest at 7.5% per annum.

Smt. Gadda Badhramma Vs Bommidi Balaiah — Medical Negligence | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁰⁰ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH^BHEEMAPAKA

¶6

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL^{TTIISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 2208 OF 2008}

¶7

Appeal filed Under Section^'173 of Motor Vehicles^{Actagain-st the- Order-and} decree in M.V.O.P.No.425 of 2003 dated.22-04-2008^{on the file of the Courtof the} Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-^V Additional^{DistrictJudge, Nizamabad}

¶8

Between:

¶9

Smt. Gadda Badhramma, Wo llaiah, Occ:^{Agirucltureand Milk BusinessR/o} Khanapur Village and Mandal, Nizamabad District.

¶10

...APPellant

¶11

AND

¶12

Bommidi Balaiah, S/o Yellaiah, age major Owner^{of Auto Rickshaw No} AP 25 U 696 R/o H.No.6-16-89 Ambedkar^{Colony, Nizamabad.}

¶13

National lnsurance Company Limited, Rep.by^{its Branch ManagerBranch} office, B. Laxmiraj Complex, Jawahar^{Road,Nizamabad}

¶14

...Respondents

¶15

Counsel for the Appellant : SRl. Y S YELLA^{NAND GUPTA}

¶16

Counsel for the Respondents: None^appeared

¶17

The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

¶18

THE ON'BLE JUSTICE N ESH BH AKA

¶19

M.A.C.M.A. N .2204^{oF 2008}

¶20

JUDGMENT:

¶21

This appeal^{is frled by the appellant-claimantaggrieved by the} Order and^{Decreedated22-O4.2OOapassedin O P No 425 of 2OO3} by the Motor Accidents^{Claims Tribunal (V AdditionalDistrict} Judge), Nizamabad^{(for short,the Tribunal)'}

¶22

The brief facts^{of the case are thaton 25'01'2003' while the} appellant^{was travellingin the auto rickshawNo'AP-25-U-3565} from Nizamabad^{to Khanapur and at about10'45 p'm} '^{when the} auto rickshaw^{reached near Lakshmipathi oil mill'Khanapur} shivar, one auto^{rickshaw bearing No AP-25-U-696 came in an} opposite direction^{in a rash and negligentmanner and dashed the} auto rickshaw^{bearing No- AP-25-U-3565'As aresult'the} appellant and other^{inmates of the autofell down and sustained} injuries. The appellant^{sustained fracture of left elbow'fracture of} left foot, fracture^{of right foot 5h metatarsalbone, injurieson head'} chest, legs, hands,^{multiple and grievous.injuries on other parts of} the body and^{thereafter, the appellant was shifted to Government} Headquarters^{Hospital, Nizamabadand later thepetitioner} admitted in Private^{nursinghome and took treatmenta-nd he} sustained^{permanentdisability. He frled aforesaidO P" against} respondent Nos.l^{and 2, owner aldinsurerof auto' claiming} compensation^{of Rs.2,OO,OOO/- for the injuries sustainedby the} appellant.

¶23

¶24

¶25

Before^{the Tribunal'respondentNos l} and 2^hledwritten claim Petition^and statement^{denying the averments ofthe} contended^{that the amount clarmed is excessive and prayedto} dismiss^{the clairnPetition}

¶26

oral and^{documentary evidenceon} 4. After^{consideringthe} to the^{conclusionthat the accident} record,^{the Tribunal came} occurred^{due to the rash and negligent drivingof the &iverof the} auto^{and awardedtotaf compensation of RS'45'OOO/-withinterest} @^{7.SYoper annum'i e 'Rs'1S'OOO/-towards medicalexpenses'} extra^{diet aIId attendance'Rs 18'oO0/- towardspain and suffering} Dissatisfred^{with the} and^{Rs.9,OOO/-towards loss of income} quantum^{of compensation'the appellant fed the preseot appeal'} seeking^{enhancementof the same'}

¶27

Heard

¶28

A perusal^{of the record'it revealsthatP'W'2' ttre doctorwho} Eeated^{the appellant' stated that the appellantapproachedhim on} 25.ol.20o3andhefoundtheinjuriesandStatedthattheinjuries might^{have been causedby blunt object and he proved the injury} certjfrcate-Ex^{A3'In view of the aboveevidence' this Courtfeels} thattheamountofRs.3o,ooo/.beawardedtowardstwofractures and^{grievousinjuriesand Rs'1O'OOO l-each towardsabrasions'} Further,^{in viewof the age and avocation of the claimant/injured' it} isreasonabletorlxthemonthlyincomeoftheinjuredatRs.4,5oo/,^{therefore the loss of income awarded at Rs 3'OOO/- ptt T:"*} o

¶29

¶30

¶31

enhanced to^{Rs.4,5OO/-,totalingto Rs'13,5OO/-'Finally' this} Court feels appropriate^{to grant an anount of Rs'S'OOO/-for} transportation,^{takinginto account the shuttlingfrom hospitalto} home and from^{home to hospital, for follow-up treatment'}

¶32

7 - lnthe result,^{the MotorAccident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is} partly allowed, enhancing^{the compensationamount awardedby} the Tribunal^{from Rs.45,OO0/- to Rs'I,O4,5OO/-' The enhanced} amount shall^{carry interest} @⁷ '5y"^{per annum from t].e date of} claim petition^{till realization.}

¶33

Miscellaneous^{petitions pending, ifany, shall stand closed'}

¶34

No costs

¶35

SD'- V HARI^PRASAD, ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR.

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION^OFFICER

To,

The Motor^{AccidentClaimsTribunal-cum- V Additional District Judge'} Nizamabad.^{(with records, if anY)}

¶40

z. ci". cc to sit.^{Y s vEr-rn r'rnrlb GUPTA' Advocate[oPUC]}

¶41

Two CD^CoPies

ADK ,4

1_4

HIGH COURT

DATED:01 11112023

STATE o,+
(
1f,?[
_) 15 $,[$
o)
1... ,/
..'a ,

¶49

JUDGMENT

¶50

MACMA.N o.2208^{of 2008}

¶51

PARTLY ALLOWNG^{THE MACMA}

¶52

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶53

WEDNESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶54

PRESENT

¶55

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

¶56

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 2208 OF 2008

¶57

Between:

¶58

Smt. Gadda Badhramma, Wo llaiah, Occ. Agiruclture and Mitk Business R/o Khanapur Village and Mandal. Nizamabad District.

¶59

...APPellant

¶60

AND

¶61

1 Bommidi Balaiah, S/o Yellaiah, age major Owner of Auto Rickshaw^No. AP 25 U 696 R/o H.No.6-16-89 Ambedkar Colony, Nizamabad.

¶62

2 National lnsurance Company Limited, Rep.by its Branch Manager Branch office, B. Laxmiraj Complex, Jawahar Road, Nizamabad

¶63

...Respondents

¶64

Appeal filed Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the Order and decree in M.V.O.P.No.425 of 2003 dated.22-04-2008 on the file of the Court^of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal+um- V Additional District Judge, Nizamabad.

¶65

ORDER: This appeal coming on for hearing and upon^perusing the^{grounds of} appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material^{papersin the} Case and upon hearing the arguments of SRl. Y S YELLA NAND GUPTA, Advocate for the Appellant and none appeared for the respondents.

¶66

¶67

This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

¶68

1 That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is partly allowed, enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.45,0001 to Rs. 1,04,500/-

¶69

2- That the enhanced amount shall carry interest at the rate of 7.50/o per annum from the date of claim petition till realization

¶70

that save as aforesaid, the decree of the Lower court shafl stands confirmed in all other respects; and

¶71

4 That there be no order as to costs in this appeal

¶72

SD/- V HARI PRASAD, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR.

//TRUE COPY//

To,

SECTION OFFICER

1 The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- V Additional District Judge, Nizamabad. (with records, if any)

¶77

2 Two CD Copies

ADK Nr

HIGH COURT

DATED:01 11112023

DECREE

MACMA.N o.2208 of 2008

¶83

PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA

Smt. Gadda Badhramma v. Bommidi Balaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Gadda Badhramma v. Bommidi Balaiah

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

M.Suma Vs Union of India, Rep.Byits General Manager, and 2 Oths

Mohd. Abdul Azeem, Hyd. Vs the Depot Manager and Another

Visista Estates Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad. Vs K. Chandra Sekhar Rao, Hyderabad - 20, and Anr.

Dhanisetti Anjaneyulu Vs State of Telangana

Duddu Venkaiah and Another Vs K.Vinod Kumar and 2 Others

Ade Ambaji Vs S.H.Sukhvinder Singh and Anr.