Partly allowed

D.Thirupathi,Thirupathaiah v. Gajjala Janga Reddy and Another

Telangana HC9 Jun 2023MACMA/2483/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court judgment partially allowed an appeal in a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal case. The Appellant, injured in a road accident, sought enhanced compensation. The court increased the awarded amount from Rs. 3,36,100 to Rs. 8,71,000 by enhancing future loss of income, medical expenses, and transportation costs, and directed the respondents to deposit the difference within two months.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs.3,36,100 to Rs.8,71,000 with interest; respondents directed to deposit the difference and costs.

D.Thirupathi,Thirupathaiah Vs Gajjala Janga Reddy… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

I33041

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR AT HYDTJIEABIITE^{OF TELANGANA}

¶3

_.lILqAy,^{rHE NtNrH DAYoF} JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

rHE HoNouRABLE sRr lusfr8eEiEl[revARApu RAJE'HWAR RAo

¶5

M.A.C .M.A. NO i 2483 oF 20 15

¶6

Appear under section 'r 73 0f Motor Vehicres Act against the order and decree in MVOp No'29 r 3 0f 201 'r dated 16r,1t2o130n the fire of the court of the chairman, Motor Accidents craims Tribunar --cum- XrV Adcritionar chief Judge (Fast rrack Court) City Civil Courts, Hyderabad.

¶7

Between:

¶8

R;li#llj,,,g,;ltTtfl^{,,i1i,x,,iJ,:.ifl} Centering Mastery, R/o plot ;i1?l6f^*

¶9

...APPELLANT

¶10

AND

¶11

9ajjata Janga Redd,

¶12

;..tffi[trytoffiih+iii{,[.1;##:,:.,*l:il:ll:'

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

For the Appeltant : M/s CH. VEDAVANI, Advocate

¶15

For the Respondents : SRI KOTA SUBBA RAO, Advocate

¶16

The Court delivered the following : JUDGMENT

¶17

¶18

RRN,J MACMA No.2483 0F 2015

¶19

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶20

M.A.C.M.A No.2483 of 2OI5

¶21

JUDGMENT:

¶22

This M.A.C.M.A is lilcd by the appellant/peririoner aggricved by the Order and decree dt. 16.01.2013 in M.V.O.P No.2913 of 20 1 I passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XlV Additional Chief Judge (Fast Track Courtl. City Civil Courts, Hyderabad (for short, 'the Tribunal').

¶23

For thc sake of convenience, the partics will be hereinafter rcfcrred to as thcv are a.rrayed before the Tribunal.

¶24

Brief far:ts of thc casc are that on 04.1O.201 I at about 9.30 p.m., w,hrle thc pctitioner was proceeding on his Motorcycle bearing No. AP-29-8A-6377 from Koti to his residence a[ Dasari Narayana Colony and when he reached near Sama Yadi Reddv Function I-Iall. at that time the driver of a Car bearing No.AI']-29-BL-44 drovc it in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and dasheci ttrc pctiLiorrer's motorcycle in the opposi[e dircctiorr. duc to rr,lrich, thc petitioner lell down and sustained a fracturc ro rhe right hand humorous, fracrure of both bones o[ the right arm, hcad injury and blunt injuries all ovel the body. Immcdiarci-y, lrc r.n,as shified to lndus Llospital lor

¶25

R RN,] MACMA No.2483 Ot 2015

¶26

treatment- The Police oi-i\4r.crpct Police Statio;i registered a case in Cr.No.473 of 2O 1 1 ag:rir.r sr the driver of the car. bearing No.Ap29tsL-44. 1'herefore, he laid the claim against respondents No. i and 2 who are the ou ner and insurer of the said car, claiming compensatior-r of Rs.5,0O,000/ .

¶27

Rr:spondent No. I u,as set ex parte, zrnd Respondent No.2 filed counter \rrrtti,lt statement denr,ing the petition aliegations and mait-rlr contended that respondent No. 1 entrusted thr'r,ehicle to :t rlrir.er 11,[6 r.1,2s not holding a rralid and effectivc driving licensc :rnll^r.he accident \x.ras :1s a result of rash and negligent driving of tl-rt' pctitioner.

¶28

5 'l'he petitioner' t,) prove his case, examined PWs.1 and 2 and got nrarkcd Exs.A I to A9 and Ex.Xl. On behall of respondent No.2, no oral cvidence \vas adduced, however, Ex.Bl /copy ol insurance: lrrrlir:_r' u,as marked

¶29

6 On considering tl-re oral and documentary evidence avajlable on record. the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.3,36,000/ nith intercst (Zi 7.5o/o per annum. Hence, the present appeal

¶30

7 Fle'ard both sicics and perused the rr:cord

¶31

¶32

R RN,J MACMA No.2483 OF 2015

¶33

B. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the Tribunal granted very meagre amounts under different heads and that the Tribunal ought to have considered the loss of earning capacity as 50% as per the evidence of pW.2/doctor, who treated and issued the Disability Certihcate, but considered only 3O%. He further contended that the Tribunal failed to consider the further surgery cost of Rs.40,000/_ as estimated by the doctor, but awarded only Rs.25,O0O/_. Accordingly, prayed to allor.r, the appeal.

¶34

Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.2 would contend that the Tribunal was justified in hxing the compensation and pra5,ed to dismiss the appeal.

¶35

The issue with regard to the involvement of the auto of the 1't respondent/owner and the manner of the accident was rightly decided in favour ol th e petitioner as the respondents failed to adduce any contrary e yidence or elicit anything material in the cross-examination. As such the aspect of negligence needs no scrutiny. Both respondents are liable to compensate the petitioner jointly and several as observed by the Tribunal. The only point to be answered in the present appeal is whether the petitioner is entitled to enhancement of the compensation au,arded by the tribunal.

¶36

¶37

RRN,I M /,C rvl i\ i'lo.2.1gl or r015

¶38

1 1. Lcarned couns<:l for the petitioner submittcd^that the Tribunal considered lhc income of the^petitioner @). Rs.4,500/ -per month as hc $'as doing centrirrg^{rvork, and in} view of Gazette Publication dt.31 .05.2010, the^{Tribunalought} to have considcred the in<'ornc of^{the petitioner(r) Rs B,000/-} per irlonth. A perusal of thc^{(lazcr-l.e publicationgoes to show} that the Central Governmctrt^{spccrfies ttre monthly wages} @ Rs.8,000/-for a labour. Irr the^{present case, this Court is not} considering the same as the^{pctitioncr\ras doing ccntring u'ork,} which falls uncler the calcgor'' ol skillcd^{laboltr, as suc[-r, the} income of tht: petitioner rlcscn'es to^{be t:nhanced from} Rs.4,500/ to Rs.5,000/- pi:r month and^{a-lst.r in vterv of the} decision of the flon'ble Strltt-r'mc^{Cottrt in Sanobanu Nazirbhai} Mirza Vs. Ahnedsbed^pJsn-!2i-pal Trao-sport^{Seruicet wherein} it was held as ttncier:

¶39

" Hauing regard to^{n alLt re of job that dec'ecLsedwas} performin g as skillerJ pctlisher, it tuould^be .just^and proper to take his monlhhl income as^{Rs.5,Lt00/ -."}

¶40

Thus, tht: monthly' incrtrnt: of thc^{petitioncris consideredat} Rs.5,000/-. To this, 5O'l , rs to^{be added towardsluture} prospects as per the decisron of the Hon'ble Surpreme Court in

¶41

20 i.1 i! ) ALI) I l r) (S(.)

¶42

RRN,] MACMA No.248l Ot 2015

¶43

¶44

) )

¶45

Nationat Insurq.nce Compang^{Ltd. Vs, Pranag Sethi2 as the} deceased was aged 25^{years.The annualincome of the} deceased including future^{prospects would come to Rs'90'000/-} (Rs.S,OOO/- + SOoh x 12).^{The appropriatemultiplieras per the} decision of Sarla Vertna^{Vs, Delhi Transport Corporationst's} " 18". Thus, the annual^{income of the petitioner with future} prospects would come to Rs.90,OO0/-.

¶46

The tribunal was^{justified inconsidering 3ook} disability for the^purposeof calculation^{of futureloss of income'} However keeping in view^{the age} of^{the petitionerat the time of} the accident and the impact^of it^{on his mental health at such a} tender age, this court is inctined to^{consider the loss of earning} capacity of the petitioner^{at 5Ool, as deposedby the PW.2/doctor'} Thus, the total loss of^{futureincomedue to disabilitywould} come to Rs.8, 1O,OOO/-^(Rs.90,O00 I^{- x lB x 50/ 100).}

¶47

The petitioner fited medical bills to^{the tune of} Rs.7,568/-, the tribunal has rightly^{awardedRs.9,000/- towards} medical expenses and extra^{nourishment, and Rs' IO,OOO/-} towards pain and suffering as he^{sustained two fracturesand} head injury. PW.2 in his^{evidence stated that the petitioner} requires further surgerv^{and he} ',r'ould^{spend Rs'aO,O0O/- for the}

¶48

'1zorz1^{re sccoao}

¶49

'(zoog)^{e sccrzr.}

¶50

R i] N,r MACMA No.2.181Or 20t 5

¶51

same. But, the Tribu r_r a I arvarded Rs.25,000/-, rvhich is vcn meagre and the same is cnhanced to Rs.40,O()0/ as stated b-y PW.2/doctor. The Tribuna-l also a.,vardcd a surr of Rs.500/_ towards transportation, which is very mcagre atrcl this Court is inclined to ar,vard Rs.2,OO0/- Lo..vards tr€rnsportatlon. [n all, the petitioner js cntiticd to I?s.g,7l,OOO/

¶52

Accordingl_y, the M A.C.M.A is allou,cd in part bv enhancing the compensati()n avyarded by thc. Tribunal from Rs.3,36,100/to Rs.8,71,OOO/- with intcrcst at 7.5o/o oer annurri from the datc of petirion ri thc datc or rczrlization. The respondents are dirccted to deposit thc saiC amount togethcr u,ith costs and in tcrest '*..i ithin tu'o months from the date oI rcceipt of a co1.ry of this orclcr a flr:r dcd urc tin g thc :rm(lun[. if au-Y, 4hg6d_y dcposited 'l'lr, pLrrrr(,rrqr ls ^,^{,,; i ; ^.^ ^} utr(,Cl(.cl to pa-f the deficit Court fee w.ithirr t."vo months from the datr__ of receipt o[ a cop1, of this Order. Upon s1_16i1 deposit, thr: petitioner is permitted to r,r,ithdraq. the cntire amount. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶53

As a seqrrcl, misccilarrcou s applications, if an_v pcnding, sl-rall stand closecl _

¶54

//rRUE copy/t^{ASSrsrAf%fG?SlffiH}

¶55

¶56

SECTION CFFICER X V Add'l'na ch er ;^{p;*;1lfi{t",ffiH;i'ffi#-;}

¶57

HIGH COURT

¶58

DATED:09/06/2023

¶59