Partly allowed

D.Venkati v. Bommakanti Divakar and Anr.

Telangana HC15 Sept 2023MACMA/2454/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal allows the appeal in part. The Court enhanced the compensation for grievous injury from Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 20,000, increasing the total award to Rs. 31,820, as the Tribunal's original award for this head was deemed meagre.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs. 31,820/- including interest at 7.5% and costs; respondents directed to deposit the amount.

D.Venkati Vs Bommakanti Divakar and Anr. — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁰⁴ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER

¶4

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶7

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 2454 oF 2011

¶8

Appeal filed under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the order and decree in M.V.O.P.No.380 of 2005 dated 04.03.2009 on the file of the Court of the Chiarman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-lll Additional District Judge (FTC), Asifabad.

¶9

Between:

¶10

D.Venkati, S/o D.Lingaiah, Aged 37 years, Occ: Labour R/o.Dindi Village, Bejjur Adilabad District.

¶11

...APPELLANT/PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

Bommakanti Divakar, S/o. Pullanna, Age: Major Occ: Owner of Auto Trally Bearing No. AP 1 U 9342 Rio. Irilogadgad, Koutakam, Adilabad District.

¶14

2- The New lndia Assurance Company Limited, Represented by its Divisional Manager , Divisional Office: Nizamabad, Mancherial, Adilabad Diskict.

¶15

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶16

Counsel for the sole Appellant: SRI.S SURENDER REDDY

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent NO.1: M/s MOHAMMED IMRAN KHAN

¶18

Counsel for Respondent No.2: SRI T RAMULU

¶19

The Court made the following: JUDGMENT

¶20

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHUIAR^RAO

¶21

M.A.C.M.A No.2454 of 2Oll

¶22

JUDGMENT:

¶23

This appea,l frled by the appellant/petitioner under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles fi6t,^aggrieved by the Order and Decree dt.O4.O3.2OO9 in O.P No.380 of 2O05 on the file^of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Ill Additional District Judge (F"fc), Asifabad. (for short, 'the Tribunal')

¶24

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

¶25

Brief facts of the case are that on 12.O4.2OO5, the injured and others were proceeding in a Tractor bearing No.AP-15P9829 from Dibba village to go to Muthyampet for attend^a marriage. While on the way, the tractor reached^Koyaguda bridge, one Auto trally bearing No.AP-lU-9342, driven^{by its} driver rashly and negligently at a high speed,^{dashedto the} edge of the tractor trally. As a result, ttre claimant^{and other} persons sustained grievous injuries. The claimant sustained^a fracture of the proximal 3'd shaft of radius and injuries^over other parts of his body. Immediately, he was shifted^to Government Hospital, Sirpur-T and subsequently^toMGM

¶26

)

¶27

¶28

RRN,J MACMA No.2454 OF 2011

¶29

Hospital, Warangal, and was treated by Dr.Madhu at Sirpur Kagazr,agar and spent an amount of Rs. 15,OOO/- towards medical expenses. The police, Kowtala, registered a case in Crime No.23 of 2OO5 against the driver of Auto Tralli under Section 337 and filed a charge sheet under Section 33g of IpC. Hence, the claim petition.

¶30

Before the Tribunal, Respondent No.l remained ex parte. Respondent No.2 l-rled a counter-denying the allegations made in the petition.

¶31

5 To prove his case, the petitioner was examined as pWl and got marked Ex.Al to A8. No evidence adduced on behalf of the respondent No.2.

¶32

On considering the oral and documentar5z evidence available on record, the Tribunal partly allowed O.p. by -awarding compensation of Rs. 16,g20 /- with interest @Z.So/o p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed by the petitioner.

¶33

Heard both sides and perused the record.

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Tribunal failed to consider that as on the date of the accident, the appellant was hale and healthy and used to work as a

¶35

¶36

RRN,J MACMA No.2454 OF 2011

¶37

labourer and due to the accident, he lost his earnings for^a considerable period, but the Tribunal without considering^the same, awarded Rs.6000/- which is liable to be enhanced. He further submitted that the Tribunal erred in granting a meagre amount of compensation under the heads of loss of earnings, transportation, extra nourishment, medical expenses, and^pain and suffering. He also contended that the Tribunal erred in^not granting any amount under the head of attendant charges, permanent disability, and towards future medical expenses.

¶38

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that there is no evidence regarding the injuries and neither^a doctor certificate, nor zrny documentar5r evidence to prove^his disability. Accordingly, the Tribunal has rightly awarded^the compensation, and this Court requires no interference. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the appeal.

¶39

trarned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in^the cross examination, he admitted that another person^also received injuries but denied the suggestion that no^accident occurred at the material tirne and that the auto is^not responsible for the accident. PWI also admitted that no claim^is hled against the driver, owner and insurer of the tractor.^The Tribunal rightly observed that PWI is at liberty to file his claim

¶40

¶41

RRN,J MACMA No.2454 OF 2011

¶42

against any one of the respondents, being a third party to the insurance. Further cross-examination of pWl yielded no relevant or useful information to respondent No.2, to disprove the accident and PWl sustaining the injuries.

¶43

I 1. With regards to the quantum of compensation, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the award of the Tribunal is inadequate and sought the interference of this Court in enhancing the same. He claimed Rs.12,OOO/- towards loss of earnings, Rs.S,OOO/- toward s transportation to the hospital, Rs.3,O0O/- towards extra nourishment, Rs. 15,OOO/- towards medical expenses and Rs. 1,OOO/- towards damages to clothing. He further submitted that the petitioner is liable to get Rs.2O,OOO/- towards pain and suffering and an amount of Rs.4,O0O/- towards continuous and permanent disability.

¶44

This Court finds that the petitioner produces no evidence to seek enhancement of ttre Tribunal award, as claimed by him. The Tribunal rightly awarded Rs.6,0O0/- towards loss of earnings, Rs.l,5OO/- for transportation and Rs.3,OOO/- for extra nourishment. The Tribunal also rightly considered Rs.l,0OO/_ towards damages to clothing as they would be unfit for re-use. Further, the petitioner could produce medical bills amounting only to Rs.316/-, and the Tribunal rightly awarded Rs.32O/_ after rounding off, which needs no interference by this Court.

¶45

-*-:'

¶46

¶47

RRN,' MACMA No.2454 Of 2011

¶48

¶49

The petitioner's claim of Rs.2O,OOO/- towards compensation for pain and suffering cannot be allowed as he sustained only one grievous injury. Further, since the disability of the petitioner was not convincingly proven, the petitioner's claim of Rs.4,OOO/towards continuous and permanent disability is disallowed. However, the Tribunals awarded Rs.5,OO0/- towards one grievous injury, which is a meagre amount. This Court is inclined to enhance the same to Rs.2O,0OO/-.

¶50

This Court enhanced the amounts from that of the

¶51

Tribunal under different heads as under:

¶52

Head	Arnount arrived atby theTribunal	Amountaffiwedat by thisCourt
Lossofearnings	Rs. 6,OOO/-	Rs.6,OO0/-
Transportation	Rs.I,5OO/-	Rs.1,5O0/-
Extranourishment	Rs.3,OOO/-	Rs.3,OOO/-
Medicalexpenses	Rs.32Ol-	Rs.32Ol-
Damages	Rs.I ,OOO/-	Rs.I,OOO/-
GrievousInjury	Rs.5,OOO/-	Rs.2O,OOO/ -
Total	Rs.l6,a2Ol-	Rs.31,82Ol-

¶53

Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed in part by enhancing the compensation amount of Rs. 16,820/- to Rs.31,82O/- (Rupees Thirty-One Thousand Eight Hundred and

¶54

¶55

RRN,J MACMA No.2454 OF 2011

¶56

Twenty only) with costs and interest at 7 .5"h from the date of petition tiIl the date of realisation. Respondents are directed to deposit the above arnount along with interest and costs within two months from receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner is permitted to withdraw the entire amount upon such deposit. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶57

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any are pending, shall stand closed.

¶58

SdI MOHD. SANAULLAH ANSARI //rRUE coPY// ASSISTANfREG]AfRAR

¶59

u,, SECTION OFFICER

¶60

To,

¶61

'1. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-lll Additional District Judge (FTC), Asifabad. (With Records if any)

¶62

1. One CC to SRl. S SURENDER REDDY, Advocate [OPUC]

¶63

One CC to SRI- T RAMULU, Advocate [OPUC]

¶64

One CC to SRI- IVIOHAMMED IMRAN KHAN, Advocate [OPUC]

5 Two CD Copies t -

HIGH COURT

RRN, J

DATED: 1510912023

JUDGMENT MACMA.No.2454 ot 2O11

¶70

1 t^ e SrAIc,
z<br>oo 1 2 rrB 202t c)
+
*
f .:'. '-..' 'l'.-

¶71

PARLTY ALLOWING THE MACMA

¶72

¶73

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶74

FRIDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶75

PRESENT

¶76

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RA-JESHWAR RAO

¶77

MOTOR AC CIDENT CIVIL MISCEL EOUS APPEAL NOt 2454OF 2011

¶78

Between

¶79

D.Venkati, S/o D.Lingaiah, Aged 37 years, Occ: Labour R/o.Dindi Village, Bejjur Adilabad District,

¶80

...APPELLANT/PETTTIONER

¶81

AND

¶82

Bommakanti Divakar, S/o. Pullanna, Age: Major Occ: Owner of Auto Trally Bearing No. AP 1 U 9342 R/o. Mogadgad, Koutakam, Adilabad District.

¶83

The New lndia Assurance Company Limited, Represented by its Divisional Manager , Divisional Office: Nizamabad, Mancherial, Adilabad District.

¶84

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶85

Appeal filed under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the order and decree in M.V.O,P.No.380 of 2005 dated 04.03.2009 on the file of the Cou( of the Chiarman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-lll Additional District Judge (FTC), Asifabad.

¶86

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 SRl. S SURENDER REDDY, Advocate for the Appellant and M/s MOHAMMED IMRAN KHAN, Advocate for the Respondent No.1 and SRI T RAMULU, Advocate for the Respondent No.2

¶87

This Court doth Order and Decree as follows

¶88

That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is allowed in part by enhancing the compensation amount of Rs.16,820/- to Rs.31,820i- (Rupees Thirty-One Thousand Eight Hundred and Twenty only with costs and interests al 7 .5o/o from the date of petition till the date oi realization;

¶89

That the respondents are directed to deposit the above amount along with interest and costs within two months from receipt of a copy of this judgment;

¶90

That the petitioner be and hereby is permitted to withdraw the enrire amount upon such deposit;

¶91

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

¶92

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

¶93

To,

¶94

Sd/. MOHD. SANAULLAH ANSART //rRUE coPY// ASSISTANT REGISTRAR v- SECTION OFFICER

¶95

1 Ttre chairman, lvlotor Accidents claims Tribunal-cum-lll Additional District Judge (FTC), Asifabad.

¶96

2 Two CD Copies

pr \ >.

HIGH COURT

RRN, J

DATED: 1510912023

DECREE MACMA.No.24S4 of 2011

¶102

PARLTY ALLOWING THE MACMA

D.Venkati v. Bommakanti Divakar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D.Venkati v. Bommakanti Divakar and Anr.

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

D. Agam Reddy Vs J. Muralidhar Reddy and Another

Smt.Shaheda Begum and 4 Ors. Vs M/S.Psc Bose Automobilees and Anr.

M/S. Sriram General Insurance Company Vs D.Agam Reddy and Another

Apsrtc., Musheerabad, Hyd.,. Vs Smt. Vanampally Krishnaveni , Jayanthi and 4 Others

B. Anitha, Vs The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation

T. Anitha Vs The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation