Allowed

B. Anjaneyulu, v. Md. Khaja Moinuddin

Telangana HC13 Mar 2023MACMA/2336/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal filed by a claimant against a low compensation award of Rs. 38,000 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The Court enhanced the compensation to Rs. 1,61,000 based on sustained fracture and simple injuries, loss of income, and other expenses.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs. 38,000 to Rs. 1,61,000 with interest; insurance company directed to deposit within 8 weeks.

B. Anjaneyulu, Vs Md. Khaja Moinuddin — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶2

AT HYDERABAD

¶3

MONDAY ,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI M.A.C.M.A.NO: 2336 OF 2013

¶6

Appeal filed under section 173 M.V. Act against the award and decree daled. 5.12.2005 passed in OP.No. 41212002 by the lrr'lotor Accidents Clarms Tribunal-cum-1st Addl. District Judge at Mahaboobnagar.

¶7

Between:

¶8

B. Anjaneyulu,, S/o. B. Ramulu @ Ramaiah, Driver R/o. Hema.jipur Village, Balanagar lr.4andal, Mahaboobnagar Disgtrict.

¶9

...APPELLANT/CLAIMANT

¶10

AND

¶11

'1. Md. Khaja Moinuddin,, S/o. Mohd. Rafeeuddin, (Major) Owner of the Lorry No. AP 22U1130 Fl/o. H.No. 1-39, Nerallapally Village, Timmajipet Mandal, Mahaboobnagar D^jstrict.

¶12

United India lnsurance Company Limited,, Represented by its [,4anager, D.O.Vz/A, Vengal Rao Nagar, Hyderabad.

¶13

(Rl dismissed for default vide Court Order Dated 0510212013)

¶14

,..RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶15

Counsel for the Appellant :SRI. V HANUMANTH RAO

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent : A MALATHI

¶17

The Court made the following: JUDGMENT

¶18

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶19

M.A.C.M.A.No.2336 of 201 3

¶20

JUDGM ENT:

¶21

¶22

This appeal is preferred by the claimant aggrieved by the award and decree dated 05-12-2005 in O.P.No.412 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-l Additional District Judge at Mahabubnagar.

¶23

Heard learned counsel for the appellanl-claimar t N4r V. Hanmanth Rao and learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2Smt A. Malathi. The appeal against respondent No.1-o'rr'ner was dismissed for default vide order dated 05-02-2013.

¶24

The brief facts are that on 04-01-2001, while the claimant was going on a motorcycle from Jadcherla to Midjil and when he reached near Gram Panchayat at about 3-00 PM, a van bearing No.AP 22U 1 130 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the motorcycle of the claimant, as a result he fell lown and sustained fracture injuries and other multiple injuries. lmmediately, the injured was shifted to the Government Hospital, Mahabubnagar and from there to Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad. He spent an amount of Rs.40,000ltowards treatment. He filed OP., claiming compensation of Rs.1,20,0001 for the injuries sustained by him in the accident.

¶25

Respondent No,2-lnsurance Company filed cbunter de,nying the manner of accident, rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime

¶26

¶27

LK, J MA C[,,lA.No.2336 of 2013

¶28

vehicle and the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant and the amount that was spent by him for his treatment. lt is stated that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the claimant, but not the driver of the offending vehicle and the claim is excessive and exorbitant.

¶29

The Tribunal, on analyzing the oral and documentary evidence has granted compensation of Rs.38,0001 with interest al 7.5o/o^per annum from the date of^petition till the date of deposit.

¶30

Learned counsel for the appellantclaimant submits that though the claimant has sustained two fracture injuries, which are grievous in nature and spent an amount of Rs.40,0001, the Tribunal has^granted only an amount of Rs.38,0001. He further submits that though it was observed that there is no dispute that the claimant has sustained fractures and the same is corroborated by Ex.A2, the Tribunal ought to have granted compensation for the injuries and the compensation that was granted is not^just and reasonable.

¶31

Learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2-lnsurance Company submits that when there was no evidence on record, the Tribunal has rightly granled the compensation, which^{js just} and reasonable.

¶32

ln this factual backdrop, the^point that arises for determination is whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the claimant is just and proper.

¶33

LKJ LrA ClrA.No 2336 of 2013

¶34

¶35

As^per the evidence and as^per the observation of the Tribunal, the claimant has sustained two fracture injuries and two simple injuries. For two fracture injuries, a sum of Rs.80,0001 is granted and for two simple injuries, a sum of Rs.1O,OO0/- is granted. As the claimant was working as driver at the time of accident, for loss of earnings for two months, the Tribunal has granled a sum of Rs.6,000^ and this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. For extra nourishment Rs.15,0001, for transportation Rs.10,0001, for pain and suffering Rs.20,0001, for attendant benefits Rs.10,0001 and for legal expenses Rs.10,000/- is granted. Thus, in all sum of Rs.1,01,0001 is^granted to the claimant for the injuries sustained by him in the accident

¶36

ln the light of the above discussion, the appellant-clarmant is

¶37

entitled for compensation under the following heads;

¶38

1.Grievousinjuries	Rs.	8O,OOO/-
2.Simpleinjuries.	- Rs.	10,000/-
3.Lossofincome	--_ Rs	.6,000/-
4.Painandsuffering	- Rs.	20,0001-
5.Transportation	-- Rs	.10,000/-
6.Attendantbenefits	- Rs	.10,000/-
7.Extranourishment	- Rs	.15,000/-
8.Legalexpenses	- Rs.	10,000/-

¶39

Total: Rs.^'l ,61,000^

¶40

LK. J MA CMA.No.2336 o12013

¶41

¶42

ln the result, the Appeal is allowed enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.38,0001 to Rs.1,61,0001.

¶43

(a) The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.

¶44

(b) The claimant shall pay the Court Fee on the enhanced compensation.

¶45

(c) The respondentinsurance company shall deposit the compensation within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this ludgment.^{On such deposit andon paymentof Court fee, theclaimant} is permitted to withdraw the compensation without furnishing any security.

¶46

Niliscellaneous petitions, if any^pending in this appeal shall stand

¶47

close d

¶48

SdA N. SRIHARI ASSISTANT-AEqISTRAR //TRUE COPY// L.E) SECTION OFFICER

¶49

To,

¶50

The Motor Accidents^{Claims Tribunal} -cum-^{I Additional District} Judge at Mahaboobnagar^{(with records if any)}

¶51

One CC to SRl.^{V HANUMANTHRAOAdvocate [OPUC]}

¶52

One CC to SRl.^{A MALATHI Advocate} IOPUCI

¶53

Two CD CoPies

¶54

'f l-

¶55

Dt_ rsv

HIGH COURT

DATED:13/03/2023

JUDGMENT & DECREE

MACMA.No.2336 of 2013

¶60

9 STAI€ oA
i
I
o ?1 JUN N8 I
L)
.L
.nr
l DEs p!,'.'-
=:- -:=-a

¶61

ALI-O\'ING TII[ }I.A.C.}I.A.

¶62

,*YrN
v o\

¶63

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶64

AT HYDERABAD

¶65

MONDAY ,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶66

PRESENT

¶67

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI M.A.C.M.A.NO: 2336 OF 2013

¶68

Appeal filed under section 173 M.V. Act against the award and decree daled. 5.12.2005 passed in OP.No. 41212002 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-1st Addl. District Judge at Mahaboobnagar.

¶69

Between:

¶70

B. Anjaneyulu,, S/o. B. Ramulu @ Ramaiah, Driver R/o. Hemajipur Village, Balanagar Mandal, Mahaboobnagar Disgtrict.

¶71

..,APPELLANT/CLAI MANT

¶72

AND

¶73

Md. Khaja Moinuddin,, S/o. lVohd. Rafeeuddin, (Major) Owner of the Lorry No. AP 22U1130 R/o. H.No.^'1-39, Nerallapally Village, Timmajipet Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District.

¶74

United lndia lnsurance Company Limited,, Represented by its Manager, D.O. V2lA, Vengal Rao Nagar, Hyderabad.

¶75

(Rl dismissed for default vide Court Order Dated 0510212013)

¶76

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶77

Counsel for the Appellant

¶78

:SRI. V HANUMANTH RAO

¶79

Counsel for the Respondent^: A MALATHI

¶80

The Court made the following: JUDGMENT

¶81

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶82

M.A.C.M.A.No.2336 of 20 1 3

¶83

JUDGMENT:

¶84

¶85

This appeal is preferred by the claimant aggrieved by the award and decree dated 05-12-2005 in O.P.No.412 ol 2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-l Additional Diskict Judge at Mahabubnagar.

¶86

Hea,d learned counsel for the appellant-claimant Mr. V. Hanmanth Rao and learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2Smt A. Malathi. The appeal against respondent No.1-owner was dismissed for default vide order dated 05-02-2013.

¶87

The brief facts are that on 04-01-2001, while the claimant was going on a motorcycle from Jadcherla to Midjil and when he reached near Gram Panchayat at about 3-00 Pl,4, a van bear:ng No.AP 22U 1 130 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the motorcycle of the claimant, as a result he fell down and sustained fracture injuries and other multiple injuries. lmmediately, the injured was shifted to the Government Hospital, Mahabubnagar and from there to Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad. He spent an amount of Rs.40,000/-towards treatment. He filed OP. claiming compensation of Rs.1,20,0001 for the injuries sustained by him in the accident.

¶88

Respondent No.2-lnsurance Company filed counter denying the manner of accrdent, rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime

¶89

LK, J MA CMA.No.2336 ol20l3

¶90

¶91

The Tribunal, on analyzing the oral and documentary evidence has granted compensation of Rs.38,0001 with interest at 7.5o/o^per annum from the date of^petition till the date of deposit.

¶92

Learned counsel for the appellant-claimant submits that though the claimant has sustained two fracture injuries, which are^grievous in nature and spent an amount of Rs.40,000f, the Tribunal has^granted only an amount of Rs.38,0001. He further submits that though it^was observed that there is no dispute that the claimant has sustained fractures and the same is corroborated by Ex.A2, the Tribunal ought to have granted compensation for the injuries and the compensation that was granted is not lust and reasonable.

¶93

7, Learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2-lnsurance Company submits that when there was no evidence on record, the Tribunal has rightly granted the compensation, which is^just and reasonable.

¶94

ln this factual backdrop, the^point that arises for determination is whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the claimant is just and proper.

¶95

LK ,] MA CMA No 2136 of2013

¶96

As per the evidence and as per the observation of the Tribunal, lhe claimant has sustained two fracture injuries and two simple injuries. For two fracture injuries, a sum of Rs.80,0001 is granted and for two simple injurles, a sum of Rs.'10,0001 is granted. As the claimant was working as driver at the time of accident, for loss of earnings for tlvo months, the Tribunal has granted a sum of Rs.6,0001 and this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. For extra nourishment Rs.15,0004, for transportation Rs.10,000^, for pain and suffering Rs.20,000r, for attendant benefits Rs.10,0001 and for legal expenses Rs.10,000/- is granted. Thus, in all sum of Rs.1,61,0001 is granted to the claimant for the injuries sustained by him in the accident.

¶97

ln the light of the above discussion, the appellant-cla imant is

¶98

entitled for compensation under the following heads;

¶99

1.Grievousinjuries	-- Rs.	80,000/-
2.Simpleinjuries.	- Rs.	10,000/-
3.Lossofincome	Rs	.6,000/-
4.Painandsuffering	- Rs.	20,0001-
5.Transportation	-- Rs.	10,000/-
6.Attendantbenefits	- Rs.	10.000/-
7.Extranourishment	- Rs	.15,000/-
8.Legalexpenses	- Rs.	10,000/-

¶100

<br>

¶101

Total: Rs, 1 ,61 ,000/-

¶102

LK. J [,4A CMA.No.2336 of 20'13

¶103

¶104

ln the result, the Appeal is allowed enhancing the compensation

¶105

amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.38,000/- to Rs.1 ,61 ,0001.

¶106

(a) The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 7.5oA per annum from the date of^petition till the date of realization.

¶107

(b) The claimanl shall pay the Court Fee on the enhanced compensation.

¶108

(c) The respondenl-insurance company shall deposit the compensation within a^period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit and on paymenl of Court fee, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the compensation without furnishing any security.

¶109

Miscellaneous^petitions, if any^pending in this appeal shall sland

¶110

closed

¶111

Sd/. N. SRIHARI ASSISTANI-SEGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// secfrJPorrrcen

¶112

To,

¶113

The Motor Accidents Claims^Tribunal -cum-^{I Additional District} Judge at Mahaboobnagar^{(with records if any)}

¶114

One CC to SRl.^{V HANUMANTHRAOAdvocate [OPUC]}

¶115

One CC to SRl.^{A MALATHI Advocate} IOPUC]

¶116

Two CD CoPies

¶117

¶118

DL r$v

HIGH COURT

DATED:13/03/2023

JUDGMENT & DECREE

MACMA.No.2336 of 2013

¶123

ALLOWING TH}t M.A.C.N'I.A.

¶124

N"-N

B. Anjaneyulu, v. Md. Khaja Moinuddin

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B. Anjaneyulu, v. Md. Khaja Moinuddin

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

The New India Assurance Company Vs Masula Sathavva

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Vs Shake Naga Malleswari and 6 Others

Munagala Sandhya Rani Vs P.Thirupathaiah

The United India Insurance Co. Ltd., and Another Vs Polala Sunil and 2 Others

United India Insurance Company Limited Vs a. Laxman Rao

United India Insurance Company Limited, Karimnagar and Other Vs Gadala Sammakka and Another