Allowed

Sama Sudhakar v. The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

Telangana HC1 Sept 2023MACMA/2317/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court enhanced compensation from Rs. 4.78 lakhs to Rs. 14.05 lakhs in a motor accident appeal. The Court increased the multiplier for a young agriculturalist and revised disability percentages while acknowledging multi-year medical treatment and infrastructure expenses. Interest at 7.5% per annum was awarded.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is allowed; compensation enhanced to Rs. 14,05,691/- carry 7.5% interest; respondent directed to deposit enhanced amount within 2 months.

Sama Sudhakar Vs The Andhra Pradesh State Road… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³²¹⁶ ]

¶2

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

¶3

FRIDAY, THE FIRST^{DAYOF SEPTEMBER} TWO THOUSAND^{ANDTWENTY THREE}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE M.LAXMAN}

¶6

MO ACCID NT CI MISCE LAN U APP NO: 2 70F20

¶7

AppealfiledunderSectionlT3ofMotorVehiclesActagainsttheorderand. Decree dated 04.12.2006^{made in o.P.No.784 0t 2002 0n the file of the court of} ih" chrirrrn Motor^{Accidentclaims tribunal-cum-vlllAdditiorial District Judge at} Nizamabad.

¶8

Between:

¶9

SamaSudhakar,s/o.LateGangalaiah,agedabout.24years'Occ'Agriculture and business^Rl/o Mupkal^{Village, Balkonda Mandal Nlzamabadulsrlct}

¶10

...PETITIONER/APPELLANT

¶11

AND

¶12

1 The Andhra Pradesh^{State Road Transportcorporation, rep., by its Managing} Director RTC X Road,^{Musheerabad'Hyderabad}

¶13

2 The Andhra Pradesh^{State RoadTransport Corporation,-rep, by its} -D-epot ifi";;; D"b;t enainiiilistrict^{(DGT Busbeaiing No' AAz8103of Bhainsa} Depot)

¶14

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONOENTS

¶15

Counsel for the^{Appellant:SRl.GONDALA PRAKASH}

¶16

Counsel forthe^{Respondents:SRIASRINIVASREDDY,SC FORTSRTC}

¶17

The Court made the^{following: JUDGMENT}

¶18

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTTCE^M.LAXMAN

¶19

M.A.C.M.A.No.2317 of 2OO7

¶20

JUDGMENT:

¶21

i. The present Motor Accident^{Civil MiscellaneousAppeal} has been directed against^{the award dated 04.12.2006 in} O.P.No.784 of^2OO2, on^{the file of the Chairman, Motor} Accidents Claims^Tribunal -^cum -^{VIII Additional District} Judge, Nizamabad^{(for short "Tribunal")wherebY,the claim} made by the appellant^{herein for the injuriessustained in the} accident was^partly allowed^{and the Tribunal has granted} compensation of Rs.4,78,961l-^{and directedrespondent} Nos.l ald 2 herein to^pay compensation.^{Aggri,:ved by the} said compensation, the^{present appeal is filed at the instance} of claimant.

¶22

The grievance of the injured^is that^{he suffel'edmultiple} fracture injuries and underwent^{multiplesurgeriesin three} different hospitals and^{incurredexpenditure ofnearly} Rs.3, 1 5,96 1 /^-. On^accountof multiple^{fractures,he sustained} 7O% disability. The occupation of the injured is^{agriculturist.} The Tribunal has only taken the notional^{incomeemd granted}

¶23

meager compensation and under some heads^no

¶24

¶25

compensation is^{granted.The compensationfixed towards} loss of earning and determination^{of disabilityis alsolower} side, which requires^{proper assessmentof compensation'}

¶26

Heard the learned counsel^{on eitherside and perused} the material placed^{on record}

¶27

On perusal of the^{records, it is evident that immediately} after the accident, the^{injured was admitted inPragathi} Nursing Home, Nizamabad^{and thereafter, shifted to} Venkateshwara Nursing^{Home,Hyderabad;where he was} inpatient on five^{phases. The first phase is ftom 05-02'2002to} 12.O3.2OO2, second^{phase is from 07 .05.2002 to 2l'O5'2OO2,} third phase is from^{23.1O.2O02 to 26.1O.2OO2,fourth phase is} from 23.09.2003 to^{27.O9.2OO3and hfth phase is from} 16.O3.2OO4 to 18.O3.2004'^{Further, he underwent surgeries} for the fracture injuries on^{16.02.2002,10'05'2002and} 24.Og.2OO3. Exs.A6^{to A1O are the discharge summaries' PW3} is the doctor, who^{treated the injured in Venkateshwara} Nursing Home, supports^{such a treatment and surgeries'}

¶28

Subsequently, the^{injured was treated inKamineni} Hospital in two spells. The^{first spell is from 23'O3'2OO4to}

i, /-

OL.O4.2OO4 and the second spell is from^{12.O5.2OO4 to} 25.05.2004. Ex.A14 is the out-patient^{card of Kamineni} hospital. Ex.A16 is the discharge report^{of Kaminr:ni Hospital.} In support of such treatment, PW2/doctor^{was examined.} Ex.A9 is the discharge certificate,^whichshorvs that^the injured sustained⁷ Oo/o of disability and the^{sarne was} supported by PW2. Further, the injured^{also took rreatment in} Apollo Hospital, where he was admitted on^{28.1'0.2005and} underwent surgery and discharged on^29.1O.2OO5 and^the sarne was supported by PW4/doctor. Ex.A2¹ is the^discharge report of Apollo Hospital, which shows the total expenditure incurred for such a treatment. Further, the tretrtment bills clearly reflect that fracture injuries^were not fully^{healed and} there was infection to the injuries, which resulted multiple operations and surgeries. The total expenditure incurred^was Rs.3,15,961/- and the same was accepted by the Tribunal. Such findings of the Tribunal cannot be disturbed.

¶33

Further, it is evident from the record that the Tribunal has granted Rs.2O,OOO/- towards transportab on, extranourishment and attendant charges. The treatment summary ln varlous hospital shows that the injured was under

¶34

¶35

treatment from the date^{of accident till 29.10.2005'This} means nearly 2 Y,^{yeatsthe injuredwas under treatment and} undergoing surgeries by^{moving from one hospital to another} hospital. Considering the^{samethis Court is inclined to award} further amount of Rs.30,000/-^{towards, transportation,} .extranourishment and attendant^{charges.Totally, itcomes to} Rs.5O,OOO/-.

¶36

Further, the Tribunal has^{awardedRs.5,000/- towards} temporary loss of income^{andRs.48,OOO/-towards disability} by taking the disability at^{3Ooh. Whereas, ilx.A9/discharge} summary and evidence of^{PW2 show that there rs 7 Oo/o} disability. From the impugned^{award, no reasons have been} found why this 3O%^was taken^{by the Tribunal for assessing} the compensation towards disability.^{In assessing functional} disability as weII as earning^{disability, the occupation of the} injured must have^{some relevancY.}

¶37

In the present^{case, the injured was said to be an} agriculturist and the Tribunal^{has not believed such a claim} in the absence of evidence^{to prove that the injured was} agriculturist. The fact^{remains is that 8O% of the population}

¶38

¶39

¶40

in India live upon the^{agriculture.Merely because injured} could not produced^{evidenceto showthat he is agriculturist,} the Tribunal was^{not justified in accepting the det:eased as an} agriculturist. The injured^{was aged 18 years at the time of} accident. Then the appropriate^{multiplierwould be '18' and} not '16' as determined by^{the Tribunal. Consideringthe} minimum wages^payable to^{the agriculture labourin the year} 2003, this Court is inclined^{to fix monthly inc:ome of the} deceased at Rs.3,5OO/-.^{Further,the Tribunal should have} taken future prospects. Considering^{the fact that the injured} was self-employed and below^{40 years, 4Ool' of future} prospects shall be added to the^{monthly income Then total} monthly income comes to^Rs.4,9OO/- [3500^{+(3500 x} 40/ 1OO)1. Then annual^{incomecomes to Rs.58,8OO} /- l49OO^x t2l.

¶41

g. The injured has sustained^{7 Ook functionalctisability on} account of multiple fracture injuries^{and multiplesurgeries.} There is no proper recovery of^{the injuries. Therefore, this} Court is inclined to accept^{70% physicaldisabilirv and same} percentage was taken for earning disability also. Further,^the injured was aged 18 years at the time of^{accident,then}

¶42

¶43

¶44

appropriate multiplier would be '18'. Then^{loss of income} comes to Rs.7,40,000/-. [58,800^{x 7O/ 100 x 18]}

¶45

Considering the profession of the injured, the Tribunal has granted Rs.48,000/- towards disability and^Rs.5,OOO/- towards temporary loss of income, totally Rs.53,000/-^was awarded. Loss of income of the injured awarded by this^Court includes Rs.53,000/-. There is no evidence that the injured requires any future medical expenses. Therefore, no amount can be granted.

¶46

Further, the evidence on record shows that^the petitioner underwent trauma by multiple surgeries for multiple injuries. Nearly more than 2 Yz^years he^{was under} treatment for infected injuries in one or other hospitals^and different surgeries were performed on him. The^said fact^must have caused great amount of agony to the injured.^Therefore, the Tribunal has granted Rs.9O,OOO/- towards^{pain and} suffering on the injury basis. This Court feels^that Rs.i,O0,OOO/- would^{justify just compensationfor pain and} suffering, which includes Rs.9O,0OO l-.^{The Tribunal has not} granted any compensation towards^{loss of} amenities' Multiple

t I

t l

injuries at the young^{age of18 years must be caused} tremendous impact on^{the injured in enjoying the amenities} and it also has impact^{on the longevity of life, under the said} heads Rs.1,00,000/-^{is granted.}

¶52

Tribunal also^{failedto take note of the facl that at the} young age of 18^years the^{injured sustained physical} disability. Definitely^{such disability impacts the marital} prospects of the.injured. Under^{the said head Rs'1,00,000/-} is granted.

¶53

In view of the above^{facts and circumstances,the}

¶54

compensation enhanced under^{variousheadsis as follows:}

¶55

Sl.No.	NameofHead	Awardedby Tribunal	Awardedby this Court
I	l,oss of income (loss ofearning⁺ disability)	Rs.53,0OO/-	Rs.7,40,OOO/-
2	Medicalexpenses	Rs.3,15,961/-	Rs.3,15,961/- (ztsconhrmed bythe Tribunal
3	lossofamenities an'dlongevityof life		Rs.1,00,OOO/-
4	ExtraNourishment, transportationand attendantcharges	Rs.2O,0OO/-	Rs.50,OO0/-
5	Impactofinjuries onmarital^prospects		Rs.1,0O,000/^-
6	Painandsuffering	Rs.90,O0O/ -	Rs.1,O0,OO0
	Total:	Rs.4,78,961/-	Rs.14,O5 697

¶56

¶57

In the result, the Motor Accident^{Civil Miscellaneous}

¶58

Appeal of the appellant/claimant^{is allowedas follows:}

¶59

(i). The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is^enhanced from Rs.4,7B ,961 I^- to Rs.^14,O5,691/-.

¶60

(ii). The enhanced amount shall carry interest at^{7.5 o/o pet} annum from the date of filing of the^o.P. till^{the date of} realization.

¶61

(iii). The claimalts shall pay the Court^fee on the^enhanced amount of compensation.

¶62

(iv). Respondent Nos.l and 2 are directed to deposit^the enhanced amount^jointly and^severallyto the^{credit of O.P.} along with accrued interest within a^period of two^months from the date of receipt of a copy of this^order.

¶63

(v). On such deposit, the claimant/ appellant' is^{permitted to}

¶64

withdraw the entire amount in the proportions, as fixed^by the Tribunal.

¶65

There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous^petitions

¶66

pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶67

Sd/. T JAYAS E ASSISTANT REGIST //TRUE COPY//

¶68

SECTION OFFICER

¶69

¶70

The Chairman, Motor Accident^{Claims-Tribunal-cum-Vlll Additional District} Judge at Nizamabad^{(with Records if any)}

¶71

One-CC to SRl. GONDALA^{PRAKASH,Advocate} [OPUC]

¶72

One CC to SRI. A SRINIVAS^{REDDY, SC FORTSRTC} [OPUC]

¶73

Two CD Copies

Ar^L

HIGH COURT

ML, J

DATED: 0110912023

JUDGMENT MACMA.No.2317 of 2007

¶80

ir,t. srArq
Y
q
1 1 iiAH 202[ C)
oo)
* +
lr,'r,1.: I q{- i.

¶81

ALLOWING THE MACMA

¶82

7,<br>;,'\ J^"
(hp

¶83

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

¶84

FRIDAY, THE^{FIRST DAYOF SEPTEMBER} TWO THOUSAND^{ANDTWENTY THREE}

¶85

PRESENT

¶86

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE M.LAXMAN}

¶87

MOTOR

¶88

ACCIDENT ctvtL Mls^{CELLANEOUS APPEAL NO:2317 0F2007}

¶89

Between:

¶90

SamaSudhakar,s/o.LateGangalaiah,agedabout24years,^Occ:Agriculture ;;d bd;;s; nl/6 uuprat^{Village:BalkondaMandal Nizamabad Diskict}

¶91

...PETITIONER/APPELLANT

¶92

AND

¶93

1 The Andhra Pradesh State^{Road Transport Corporation, rep , by its Managing} Director RTC X Road,^{Musheerabad, Hyderabad}

¶94

2 The Andhra Pradesh^{State RoadTransport Corporation,-rep'' by its} P^qpot rr4i"lb"i O"poiehiinsa^{District (DGTBusbearing No. AAZ 8103 of Bhainsa} Depot)

¶95

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶96

AppealfiledunderSectionlT3ofMotorVehiclesActagainsttheorderand. Decree dated 04.12.2006^{made in o.P.No.784 0f 2002 0n the file of the courtof} the chairman Motor^{Accidentclaimstribunal-cum-Vlll Additional District Judge at} Nizamabad.

¶97

ORDER: This appeal^{comingon for hearingand uponperusingthe grounds-.of} "pp."L^in" upon-nearing^JrOgni"ntand the^Deiree arguments^{of the Lower Court and the material papers of SRt. GONDALApRAKASH, Advocate in thefor} "j!;;il in"-npplrirnt. ano 6t^{sRt e sntNtvns REDDY, sc FoR TSRTC' for the} Respondents.

¶98

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

¶99

'1. That the MACMA No. 2317 of 2007 be and hereby^{is allowed;}

¶100

Thar the compensation^{awardedby the Tribunal be and herebyis enhancedfrom} Rs.4,78,9611 to Rs.^14,05,6911;

¶101

3.ThattheenhancedamountshallcarryinterestalT.5.kp.afromthedateoffiling of the O.P. till the date^{of realization;}

¶102

That the claimants^{shall pay the Court fee on the enhanced amountof} compensation;

¶103

5.ThattheRespondentNos.land2beandherebyaredirectedtodepositthe enhanced amount^{jointly and severally to the credit of O'P' alongwithaccrued}

¶104

interest within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order;

¶105

That on such deposit, the ClaimanUappellant be and hereby is^permittedto withdraw the entire amount in the^proportions, as fixed by th€, Tribunal;

¶106

That save as aforesaid, the decree of the Lower Court shall stands confirmedⁱⁿ all other respecls; and

¶107

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

¶108

Sd/. T JAYASREE ASSISTANT RECiISTFAR /ffRUE COPY// 'v

¶109

SECTION OFFICER

¶110

¶111

The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims-Tribunal-cum-Vlll Additional^District Judge at Nizamabad (with Records if any)

¶112

Two CD Copies

HIGH COURT

DATED: 0110912023

DECREE MACMA.N o.2317 of 2007

¶117

ALLOWING THE MACMA

¶118

ltl
,'f )
7' gd'

Sama Sudhakar v. The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sama Sudhakar v. The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

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

Kasoju Srinivasa Chary Vs P.Srinivas Reddy

Bhutam Muthamma Vs Apsrtc

Puram Gopaiah Vs B. Venkateswarulu (Died) and 2 Ors.

The Ap State Essestial Commodities Corpt. Ltd., Vs Syndicate Bank

A.P.State Essential Commodities Corpnltd Vs Syndicate Bank Bm and 2

K.Peda Gangannaa and Anr. Vs Kasarapu Rajanna and 2 Ors.