Partly allowed

Kum. Purushotham Laxmi, Khammam District v. M/S. Vidya Junior College and Anr, Khammam District

Telangana HC23 Aug 2023MACMA/2251/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, the High Court enhanced the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs. 5,500 to Rs. 20,000 for a minor student injured in a bus accident due to rash and negligent driving.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation awarded from Rs. 5,500 to Rs. 20,000 with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till realization.

Kum. Purushotham Laxmi, Khammam District Vs M/S… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁰⁴ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTHREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶6

MOTOR ACcIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEO US APPEAL NO: 2251 oF 2011 Appeal filed under section of 173 of Motor vehicres Act against the Award and decree in M.v.o.P.No 'r3 of 2006 dated 30.12.2008 on tn" fire of the Hon,bre court of the chairman, Motor Accident craims Tribu;ar - cum - v Additionar District Judge, (FTC), Kothagudem.

¶7

Between:

¶8

Kum Purushotham laxmi, D/o Venkateswarlu, Age: 1Z years, Occ: Student Being Minor Rep by her Father purushotham^{'V.-niut""uij'rir-ht} n.ruo. e-t_ 632, S amithi Sangam Manuguru Mandat. Khamm;m-Di"ii;i^-"

¶9

AND

¶10

...APPELLANT/CLA|M pETtTtONER

¶11

1 M/s Vidya junior coflege Rep by V.B. Shankar owner of Bus Bearino No. ArN 2403 Rr/o Sundariiahnisar eanoarusu J"i ;i fu ; r;;;6ii'i;i"i' "

¶12

The New^lndia fs9u1a199 Crc.Ltd.,, Rep by its Branch Manager Branch Office at D.no. 9-3-143, ord crub Roao, NearvirioonJ mairara xna"mmim oistiici--

¶13

...RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS

¶14

Counsel for the Appellant : Sri K. VINAYA KUMAR

¶15

Counsel for Respondent No.2 : Sri C.V. RAJEEVA REDDY

¶16

Counsel for Respondent No.l : None appeared

¶17

The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

¶18

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶19

M.A.C.M.A.Ito.2251 oF 2()11

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

This appeal is fired by the appellant/petitioner under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, aggrieved by the order and decree dated 30.12.2OO8 passed in M.A.T.O.p.No.13 of 2OO6 on the file of the Moror Accident Claims Tribunal (V Additional District Judge (FTC)) at Kothagudem (for short "the Tribunal").

¶22

2- For convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.

¶23

Brief facts of the case are that on 06.09.2OO4, the petitioner boarded the bus to go to tuition and while getting down from the bus at the tuition centre situated at Bombay colony, Manuguru, the driver of the bus drove the same in a rash and negligent manner. As a result, the hngers of the left hand of the petitioner and the left ring finger were crushed in the door bracket, and the finger was cut off. On a complaint, the Police, Manuguru p.S., registered a case in Crime No. l4g of 2OO4 for the offence under Section 33g of IpC against the driver of a crime bus bearing No.ATN 2403.

¶24

¶25

RRN,J MACMA N(' 2251 of20l^I

¶26

Respondent No.l, the owner of the crime bus was set ex porte, and respondent No.2 filed a counter-affidavit denying all the allegations made in the petition.

¶27

. To prove the petitioner's case, her father, Purushotham Venkateshwarlu, was examined as PW I and the eye witness to the accident was examined as P.W.2 and marked Exs.Al to A5. On behalf of the respondents, R.W.1 was examined, and Ex.Bl was marked.

¶28

Appreciating the evidence on record, the Tribunal arlardcd the petitioner a compensation of Rs.S,SOO/-. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, the petitioner liled the present appeal.

¶29

Heard both sides. Perused the record.

¶30

A perusal of the impugned order would show that Lhe Tribunal has framed Issue No. I as to whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the bus driver bearing No.ATN 2403 and the petitioner received injuries therein, to which the Tribunal, after considering the evidence of P.W.2-eye witness, coupled with the documentary evidence, has categorically observed that the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus and has answered in favour of the minor injured petitioner and against the respondents. Therefore, I see no reason to interfere with the

¶31

RRN,J MACMA No l25l ol 20l I

¶32

¶33

hnding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver

¶34

lnsofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, as seen from the impugned order, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.5,00O/- towards grievous injury and Rs.500/- towards medicines and conveyance. As per Ex.A3-Medical certificate, the petitioner is said to have sustained only a lacerated injury of lx lYz cm on the left finger. Another finger was cut off, and the same is a grievous injury. So the Tribunal did not grant any amount under the head of grievous injury, but the Tribunal granted the lump sum amount of Rs.S,SOO/ -. The record also reveals that the petitioner had taken treatment in two hospitals.

¶35

Therefore, her parents must have spent some amount for purchase of medicines and for treatment. Thus, looking into the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner, nature and period of treatment undergone by her and the amount spent by her parents towards medical expenses, transportation, attendant charges and extra nourishmenL, this Court feels that in all, the claimant is entitled to Rs.20,OO0/ - instead of Rs.5,5OO/-.

¶36

Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed in part by enhancing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.5,500/- to Rs.2O,OOO/(Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) with interest at7.5o/o p.a. from the date

¶37

¶38

RRN,J MACMA No.225l oI20tt

¶39

of pctition till the date of realization. The respondents shall deposit the said compensation amount together with interest and costs after giving due credit to the amount already deposited, if any, within two months from receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the entire compensation amount. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶40

As a sequel of which, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending

¶41

shall stand closed

¶42

//TRUE COPY//

¶43

Sd/. P. GOWRI SHANKAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Qt

¶44

SECTION OFFICER

¶45

To,

¶46

The Chairman, Motor^{Accident Claims Tribunal} -^cum -^{V Additional} District Judge,^{(FTC), Kothagudem. (with records,if any)}

¶47

One CC to Sri K.^{VINAYA KUMAR,Advocate} [OPUCI

¶48

One CC to Sri C.V.^{RAJEEVA REDDY,Advocate} [OPUC]

¶49

Two CD Copies

Kvr/njb 1t_p-

HIGH COURT

DATED:23lOBl2O23

JUDGMENT + DECREE

MACMA.No.2251 of 2011

¶55

ait€
o) I z
o IJ 0 U A l|l 202I c)
.L
* t
D .s p T H 99

¶56

PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS

¶57

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

¶58

',..]

¶59

WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY THIRD^{DAYOF AUGUST}

¶60

TWO THOUSAND AND IWENTY^THREE

¶61

PRESENT

¶62

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU^{RAJESHWAR RAO}

¶63

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEO^{US APPEALNO:2251OF 2011}

¶64

Between:

¶65

Kum. Purushotham laxmi, D/o^{Venkateswarlu,Age: 17 years, Occ: Student} Being Minor Rep by her Father^{Purushotham VenkateswarluRl/o H.No.3-1-} 632,-Samithi Sairgain^{Manuguru Mandal. Khammam District}

¶66

...APPELLANT/CLAI M^PETITIONER

¶67

AND

¶68

1 NI/s. Vidva iunior colleoe Reo bv^{V.B. Shankar Ownerof Bus BearingNo.} ATN 24d3 R/o Sundariiahnigar^{Bandarugudemof Khammam District}

¶69

2 The New lndia Assurance Co.Ltd.,,^{Rep by its Branch Manager Branch} Office at D.no. 9-3-143,^{Old Club Road, Near Vinodha mahala Khammam} District

¶70

...RESPONDENTS/^RESPONDENTS

¶71

Appeal filed under section of^{173 of Motor Vehicles Actagainst the Awardand} decree in M.V.O.P.No 13 of^{2OOG dated 30.12.2008on the file of the Hon'ble} Court of the Chairman, Motor^{Accident Claims Tribunal} -^cum -^{V Additional} District Judge,^(FTC), Kothagudem.

¶72

ORDER: This appeal^{coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of} appeal, the Award and^{Decreeof the Lower Courtand the material papersin the} tyiVOp anO upon^{hearingthe arguments of Sri K. VINAYA KUMAR,Advocate for the} appellant and of Sri C.V. RAJEEVA^{REDDY,Advocate for the Respondent No 2 and} none appeared for^{Respondent No.1.}

¶73

This Court doth Judgment^{and Decree as follows:-}

¶74

1 . That the MACMA be and is^{hereby allowed in part by enhancingthe} compensation awarded by^{the tribunal from Rs.5,500/-to Rs' 20,000/-} (Rupees twenty thousand only) with interest^{at7 -Sok p.a. from the date of} petition till the date of realization.

¶75

2.TnattherespondentsshalldeposittheSaidcompensationamounttogether with interest and costs after^{giving due creditto the amount already deposited,} if any within two months^{from the date of receipt of a copy of thisjudgment}

¶76

That, on such^{deposit,the petitionerbe and is hereby permitted to withdraw} the entire comPensation^amount.

¶77

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

¶78

SdI P. GOWRI SHANKAR ASSISTANT Rq6{STRAR //TRUE COPY// i-' SECTION OFFICER

¶79

To,

¶80

The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -^cum -^{V Additional} District Judge, (FTC), Kothagudem.^(with records, if any)

¶81

Two CD Copies

Kvr/njb ".yp==-

! II

HIGH COURT

ri iDATED:23l0gl2023

DECREE MACMA.N0.2251 ot 2011 ',J

¶87

PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS

¶88

-t 1R 1A

Kum. Purushotham Laxmi, Khammam District v. M/S. Vidya Junior College and Anr, Khammam District

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kum. Purushotham Laxmi, Khammam District v. M/S. Vidya Junior College and Anr, Khammam District

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

B.Venkateswara Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Vemula Seetaramaiah, Nizamabad Vs Maharashtra State Road Transport and Another

Yerla Edikondaloo, Vs Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation

Kuruva Mallamma and Anr. Vs Chandra Kanth and Anr.

S.Srinivas Vs Mr.Mohammed Ali and 2 Others

Mali Tulsi Bai Vs N. Jayaram and Another