Partly allowed

Kilaru Tharaka Prasad, Khammam District v. K. Ajay Babu and Anr, Khammam

Telangana HC6 Sept 2023MACMA/2462/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court enhanced the motor accident compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs. 25,000 to Rs. 49,500, including interest, finding the original award for medical expenses and minor injuries was inadequate.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation awarded: Rs. 49,500 including medical expenses, injury compensation, and loss of earnings, plus interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of the petition.

Kilaru Tharaka Prasad, Khammam District Vs K. Ajay… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁰⁴ ]

¶2

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

¶3

WEDNESDAY ,THE SIXTH^{DAY OF SEPTEMBER} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTY THREE}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO}

¶6

MOTOR ACCIDENT^{CIVIL MISCELLAN EOUSAPP} NO: 2462 OF 2011

¶7

Appeal Under section 173^{of Motor vehicles Act againstthe order and Decree} made in M.A.T.O.P.No.^{1231 0t 2005 dated 23.11.2009 0n the file of the courtof the} chairman, Motor Accident^{claims Tribunal -cum-(lV Additional DistrictJudge FTC} -lll), Khammam.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Kilaru Tharaka Prasad,^S/oBadraiah Agriculture Age: 56 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o V.^{Venkatapyapalem} Vilalge Khamma, Urban Mandal, Khammam District

¶10

...PETITIONER/APPELLANT

¶11

AND

¶12

'1 . K. Ajay Babu, S/o Ranga Rao, Occ: Owner of AP-2O-F-5432^{Rl/o H No11-4-} '1, Nehru Nagar Khammam

¶13

The New lndia Assurance^{CompanyLtd.,, Rep by its Branch Manager'} Khammam

¶14

...RESPONDENTS/^RESPONDENTS

¶15

Counsel for the Appellant^{:Sri M. Kiran Reddy}

¶16

Counsel for Respondent :^{Smt. P. SatyaManlula}

¶17

The Court delivered the^{following:JUDGMENT}

¶18

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAIVIAVARAPU RAJESTTWAR RAO

¶19

M.A.C.M.A No. 2462 of 2OLl

¶20

JUDGMENT:

¶21

This appeal is filed by the Appellant/petitioner under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, aggrieved by the Order and decree dt. 23.1I.2009 in M.A.T.O.P.No.1231 of 2005 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge (FTC-III), Khammam. (for short, the TribunaIJ.

¶22

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 2T.O9.2OO5 at 9 pM the petitioner was crossing the road leading from Khammam to Wyra to go to his house and at that time, the rider of Hero Honda Motorcycle bearing registration No.Ap-20/F-5432 drove the said motorcycle rashly and negligentty and dashed against the claim petitioner, so, he fell down on the ground and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately after the accident, he was shifted to Mamata General Hospital, Khammam, for treatment. The Police Khanapuram Haveli registered a case in Crime No. 171 of 2OOS under Section 337 IpC against the rider of Hero Honda Motorcycle. Hence, the claim petition seeking the

¶24

RRN,J MACMA No.2426 OF 2011

¶25

¶26

¶27

compensation of Rs.1,00,OOO/-. After hearing the matter,^the Tribunal granted only Rs.25,000/-. Aggrieved by the same present appeal is filed.

¶28

Respondent No.l remained as ex parte. Respondent^No.2 filed a counter all, denying the allegations made in^{the petition.}

¶29

To prove his case, the petitioner examined PWsl^{and 2 and} got marked Exs.A1 to A4. No oral evidence was adduced^on behalf of respondent No.2, but Ex.B^{1 was marked.}

¶30

On considering the oral and documentary^evidence available on record, the Tribunal awarded compensation^of Rs.25,000/- to the petitioner payable by the^respondents. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed^{by the} petitioner.

¶31

Heard both sides and perused the record.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted the Tribunal granted a very meagre amount towards injury and did not^grant any amount towards pain and suffering ald attendant^charges. Accordingly, prayed to allow the appeal.

¶33

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2^submitted that the Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation,^and

¶34

¶35

RRN,] MACMA No.2426 OF 2011

¶36

this Court requires no interference. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the appeal

¶37

10 Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Dr.K.Ramachardar, Head of the Department of E.N.T., in Mamata General Hospital, Khammam, is examined as pW2 through Commissioner. According to his evidence, on 27.O9.2OO5, PW-1 was admitted to the Hospita-l and was treated as an inpatient. An operation was conduct ed. on 22.09.2005 to the nasal bone and the patient was discharged on 10.10.2005. According to his evidence, pW1 required surgery of correction of deviation of the right side of the nasa-r. He further submitted that the petitioner spent an amount of Rs. 10,000/_ towards medical expenses, and he required Rs.l5,OOO/_ for alother surgery and no medical bill is produced by him to prove the same. As such, the Tribunal arrived at a conclusion that pW_l is not entitled to claim any amount towards medical expenses.

¶38

I 1 . Due to the accident, the petitioner must have taken treatment and spent a sum amount towards medical expenses. But the Tribunal did not observe the same. This Court is inclined to grant Rs.5,000/- towards med.ical expenses.

¶39

Learned counsel ror the petitioner further submitted that as per Ex.A-3 wound certificate pW- 1 sustained one grievous

¶40

¶41

r€ffi RRN,J \ T \ MALMA No 2426 OF 2O1l

¶42

and two simple injuries. 'l'he 'lribunal granted Rs.20,000/towards grievous injury and Rs.3,000/- for two simple injuries. The Tribunal rightly granted Rs20,000/- towards grievous injury, and needs no interference by this Court. But the Tribunal granted a very meagre amount towards simple injury. This Court is inclined to grant Rs.10,000/- towards each simple injury, for two simple injuries, it comes to Rs.20,000/(Rs.10,000 x 2). According to PWl, he was an agriculturist. He had landed properties and used to earn Rs.1,00,000/- per annum, but he did not file aly documentary evidence to show that he had landed property. Accordingly, the Tribunal fixed Rs.90/- per day as a loss of income from the date of accident. The Tribunal granted Rs.2,000/- towards loss of earnings for the period he underwent treatment as an inpatient in Mamata General Hospital, Khammam. It is a very meagre amount. This Court is inclined to grant Rs.4,500/- towards loss of earnings.

¶43

Head	Amount arrived at bytheTribunal	Amountarrived at bythisCourt
Medicalexpenses	nil	Rs.5,OOO/-
Grievousinjury	2O,OOOl-	Rs.2O,OOO/-
Simpleinjury	s,000/-	Rs.2O,OOO/-
Loss ofearnings	2,OoO/-	Rs.4,5OO/-
Total	Rs.2s,O0O/-	Rs.49,5OO/-

¶44

¶45

RRN,J MACMA No.2426 OF 2011

The Tribunal rightly award intere st at 7.So/o p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realizatron. This Court also grants the same on the enhanced amount. Since the Courts are constantly granting interest @ 7.5% p.a. on the compensation, it needs no interference.

¶50

L4. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A is allowed in part. However, the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.49,5OO /- with interest at Z.Syo per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of petition till the date of realization. The respondents are directed to deposit the said amount together with interest within two months from receipt of a copy of this order after deducting the amount, if any, already deposited. Upon such deposit, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the entire amount. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶51

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

¶52

Sd/. T. JAYASREE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// v

¶53

SECTION OFFICER

¶54

To,

¶55

The Chairman, Motor Accident^{ClaimsTribunal -cum-(lV Additional Diskict} Judge FTC^-lll), Khammam.^{(withrecords, if any)}

¶56

One CC to^Sri M.^{Kiran Reddy,Advocate} [OPUC]

¶57

One^CC to^{Smt. P. SatyaMan.lula, Advocate} [OPUC]

¶58

Two CD Copies

Tyh/njb .

^\(

HIGH COURT

DATED:0610912023

JUDGMENT + DECREE

MACMA.No.2462 of 2011

¶65

1t\ E si rA
)
c
t) 07 iltAB
t
C
\rJ;: _ '?2

¶66

PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL

¶67

Y--

¶68

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶69

WEDNESDAY,THE SIXTH DAY^OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶70

PRESENT

¶71

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU^{RA.'ESHWAR RAO}

¶72

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS^{APPEALNO: 2462 OF 20'|1}

¶73

Between:

¶74

Kilaru Tharaka Prasad, S/o^{Badraiah Agriculture Age:} 56 years, Occ: Agriculture, Rl/o V. Venkatapyapalem^{Vilalge Khamma,} Urban Mandal, Khammam District

¶75

...PETITIONER/APPELLANT

¶76

AND

¶77

K. Ajay Babu, S/o Ranga^{Rao, Occ:Owner of AP-2O-F-5432 Rl/oH No 11-} 4-1, Nehru Nagar Khammam

¶78

The New lndia Assurance Company^{Ltd.,' Repby its Branch Manager,} Khammam

¶79

...RESPONDENTS/^RESPONDENTS

¶80

Appeal Under Section 173 of Motor^{Vehicles Act againstthe Orderand Decree} made in M.A.T.O.P.No.^{1231 0f 2005 dated23.11.2009 0n the file of the courtof the} chairman, Motor Accident claims^{Tribunal-cum- (lv Additional DistrictJudge FTC} -lll), Khammam.

¶81

ORDER: This appeal coming^{on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of} appeal, the Judgment and^{Decreeof the Lower Courtand the material papers in the} case and upon hearing the^{arguments of Sri M. Kiran Reddy'Advocatefor the} Appellant and of Smt.^P. Satya^{Manjula,Advocatefor the Respondents.} This Court doth Judgment and decree^{as follows:-}

¶82

That the MACMA be^{and hereby is allowed in part. However,the} Compensation amount awarded^{by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.25000/-} to Rs.49,5001 with interest^{al7.5o/o perannum on the enhanced amount from} the date of^petition till the^date of^realization.

¶83

That the respondents are^{directedto deposit the said amount togetherwith} interest within two months^{from receiptof a copy of this order after deducting}

¶84

#,,:ffil.'Jl#:;';"J::,:**'ted^{Upon such deposit, the petitioner} is amount' andl 3 That there rn",, o" ," "-"'r't're s to costs in this appeal.

¶85

//TRUE COPY//

¶86

o..,rff(,-r';.'ffi$o.*.

¶87

To,

¶88

SECTION OFFICER

¶89

1 Ji,?3i3ffi lTi#"$il,i"r"jil"fl^{,,craimsrribunar-cum-(rVAdditionar}

¶90

fwo CD Copies

Tybtnjb

{s<

HIGH COURT

DATED:0610912023

DECREE

MACMA.No..2462 of 2011

¶97

PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL

Kilaru Tharaka Prasad, Khammam District v. K. Ajay Babu and Anr, Khammam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kilaru Tharaka Prasad, Khammam District v. K. Ajay Babu and Anr, Khammam

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 Depot Manager,Apsrtc, Hyd and Another Vs Sirisinagala Devender

Mangali Siddavva, and 3 Others Vs A.P. Mohammad and Another

Sirisingala Devender Vs Depot Manager, Apsrtc

Smt. Gudala Balamani , G.Shobha Vs the a.P.S.R.T.C., and Another

Syed Durwesh Mohiuddin and 2 Others Vs a.P.S.R.T.C., and 2 Others

Boina Padmamma and 3 Others Vs D. Venkatesh and Another